CAMPAIGN PROMISES

If a candidate for public office is honest, they will tell voters openly that they have no idea what they are actually going to accomplish in office, and can't make any firm promises. This is most true for executive offices, and most of all for the office of President of the United States. State legislators, even congressional representatives, can promise to introduce certain legislation, to oppose other measures. But they cannot promise voters what their legislation will look like when it comes out of committee, or that it will come out of committee at all. Presidents? They can't promise much of anything.

John F. Kennedy was elected president with then-traditional Democratic support from most southern states. Nobody would have expected him to sponor a comprehensive federal civil rights bill. He certainly didn't promise one in his campaign. If he had, no doubt he would have lost the election. True, he did make a phone call when Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. was in prison in Georgia, and many feared for his life. That was a calculated political move, debated in both the Nixon and Kennedy campaigns. Shall we, or shall we not? Will we win more votes or lose more votes if we get into this or stay out of it? Decisions like that do give voters a glimpse of the calculations that motivate a candidate. But they don't tell us what the candidate will actually do in office.

George W. Bush did not campaign in 2000 promising a "war on terrorism." He didn't know, or we hope he didn't know, that the World Trade Center was going to be targetted on September 11 of his first year in office. He did campaign on a promise to cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans. A man of integrity, who entered into a protracted and expensive set of military operations on three or more fronts, might have said "oops, I'm sorry folks, we can't cut taxes when we have all these wars to pay for." An honest fiscal conservative, seeing the dot com bubble burst and revenues sharply down, would have said, "I thought I saw a surplus, but its just not there any more." Not George W. He was determined to deliver on his campaign promise, AND fight his wars, even if he had to mortgage the U.S.A. to the Bank of China to do so. (And he did exactly that.)

Abraham Lincoln did not campaign on a promise to emancipate all slaves in the U.S.A. He promised to leave slavery alone in the states where it existed, but forbid introducing slavery into new territory. He didn't expect a civil war either. His greatest leadership skill was timing: introducing emancipation, enlisting soldiers of African descent, laying the groundwork for African Americans to vote as full citizens, in ways and at times when a hostile majority of "white" voters (and soldiers) would accept it.

Jimmy Carter came into the White House to heal the wounds of a corrupt government that betrayed the people's trust, expecting to do so in an atmosphere of general prosperity. Nobody knew that most of the industrial employers in America were about to close down or move overseas. Ronald Reagan said he could turn that around with some tax cuts. He presided over one of the worst recessions since 1929, and kept smiling through it all, because he believed in his campaign promises more than he believed what was really happening to American working families.

George H.W. Bush campaigned in 1988 on the promise "Read my lips. No new taxes." He didn't really believe that, but he had to pacify the right wing of his own party, which regarded him as something of a liberal. In 1991, it was obvious that responsible government required a modest increase in certain taxes. Congress passed it, and he signed off on it. Now it is quite doubtful that massive numbers of anti-tax conservative voters cast their ballots for William Jefferson Clinton because the Republican incumbent signed off on a tax increase, but that's how its been spun in most of the media, from radio talk shows to the New York Times.

The highest integrity a candidate for president could offer would be to admit that s/he has no crystal ball, that any new president faces surprises nobody could have expected, and then give us a clear sense of the principles that will guide them as they make difficult decisions, in crises we haven't even imagined yet. An honest candidate facing voters concerned about rising unemployment would admit that what government can do is limited in an international market, but give some hints about how s/he would cultivate new development, spread the short-term pain around, and introduce as much fairness into the market as possible.

Of course a candidate who did that would be called vague and superficial, attacked mercilessly for having no substance to their proposals. There is a difference between casual slogans and offering a clear vision for the future. There is also a difference between offering detailed position papers and delivering practical results. A president must inspire, must know how to work with a variety of people and interests, and still keep a clear vision of where we are trying to get to as a nation. Skills are important, principles are important, but promises, even well-intended promises, don't really mean much.