This began as a diary about specific time-related promises that candidates have made, but I decided to go in another direction. Sorry if these things have been in numerous diaries... I know that many of the specifics from the forum have been covered extensively... but I think that the broad picture has been neglected.
A while ago, I read a diary on DailyKos that inadvertently made me think about what is wrong with the way some of our candidates are campaigning. Now, that diary was based off two snippets from this article:
"If I do what you all want me to do, I'll look great for the next couple months," she said, according to one insider's account. "But what if I'm the nominee? I'll be ripped apart by the Republicans. And what if I'm the president? My hands will be tied."
Beyond that, Sen. Clinton views her campaign as a template for her possible presidency. Having witnessed Bill Clinton's early struggles reconciling campaign promises with governing -- and guided by his private advice now -- she knows first hand that what candidates say now for political points can haunt them as president. Close advisers call this caution her "responsibility gene."
The diarist used these as examples of capitulation, assuming that because "anything that remotely resembles a progressive move will be met with fierce opposition from the Right," Senator Clinton will not take any progressive stances. Ever. This isn’t what I see in those snippets, the article, or Hillary, at all. I will sidestep discussion about the general election, and whether it is wiser to approach it in openly liberal glory or as moderate a mien as possible, and talk about the other implication. You know - the part where she tries not to promise anything she can’t do. (It thoroughly amazes me that anyone could milk an unfavorable diary out of those snippets.)
It struck me, then, how completely warped our process of candidate selection has become. Are irresponsible promises all that we are looking for? Are candidates now even allowed to have complex opinions, or, god forbid, ambivalent stances on some issues? (There are some political issues I’m not certain on – but if I ran for president, I’d likely be forced to pick a side and stick to it, no matter what!) To me, it appears that political nuance has been replaced by one-upmanship – just promise something bigger and better!
Some of this, I think, is due to the balance of power. If you’re lower in the polls, you have to find some way to boost yourself, and this one is not immediately destructive, and what’s more, it makes everyone feel good. The candidate, who no doubt hopes do fulfill the promise, feels like a benevolent god, and the supporters become adoring worshipers. The problem with this is that if one candidate relies too heavily on such promises, he is likely to take support from other, more reality-based, candidates. If this plan is very successful, two things might happen. One: the other candidates might have to similarly inflate their promises. Two: this candidate could win, and walk into the general election or White House on glass stilts. If promises can’t be fulfilled, they don’t just make the candidate look bad – they make the party look bad.
A specific example of the one-upmanship that these promises can cause are the answers to a question, posed to all candidates at the December 1st Heartland Presidential Forum, which called upon the candidates to promise to meet with delegates from the Campaign for Community Values within the first one hundred days of his or her presidency. The candidates’ answers are below, in order of appearance:
Edwards – "Yes – I’ll do it the first week."
Kucinich – "I’ll go better than that – you can sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom, just come on in!"
Clinton – "Of course. I would look forward to having a meeting with the Campaign for Community Values."
Dodd – "You won’t have to wait until January 20th, I’ll meet with you a week after the election, next November you’ll be meeting with President Elect Dodd!"
Obama – "Yes, but let me even say, before I even get inaugurated during the transition we’re going to be calling all of you in to help us shape the agenda!"
Edwards went first, and I think that he started the ball rolling and pushed everyone else, except Hillary, to make bizarre promises to the Campaign for Community Values. You may spin this by saying that Hillary simply doesn’t care about the CCV, but what is the Campaign for Community Values, anyway? It must be really important, what with these candidates making such bold promises to it.
The Campaign for Community Values began in 2006, and has the basic aim of getting grassroots organizers a platform to dialogue with political entities, with the intent of influencing debate on minimum wage, universal healthcare, and immigration. It is led by the Center for Community Change.
Meeting with CCV delegates, however, does not change a candidate’s positions. A candidate either plans to do certain things, or doesn’t. It is unlikely that the CCV would even add policy suggestions that have not already been considered. I don’t think this meeting, or even the inclusion of delegates from the grassroots in "shaping the agenda," is the litmus test for discerning which candidate would produce the most progressive policies. It was merely an opportunity to prove something that is apparently more important than progressive policies: a willingness to pander to a specific (theoretically non-partisan) organization.
Even more outrageous, in my opinion, was the pledge for comprehensive immigration reform in the first one hundred days. I think that only Dodd and Hillary were asked to pledge this; Dodd said he would, and Hillary did not promise, but talked about how immigration was a priority. After receiving a few boos on her first answer, she was asked again, specifically about the first one hundred days. She stated, "Well, you’ve got to get the congress to pass the legislation. The president can do as much as possible, which I will do." She was then booed loudly.
Now, how can anyone honestly promise to do more than "as much as possible"?
It makes the netroots look silly to be so easily distracted by shiny things and seduced with bogus promises. What happened to researching candidates? When did fiery rhetoric replace reasoned stances?
What interested me most about Edwards’ performance at the Heartland Presidential Forum was the second part of the section concerning the rights of the corporation versus the rights of the community. The business end of the question:
"You told us that you were in favor of a moratorium, now if you are elected, and you’re going to run this moratorium, I want to know how you are going to get the job done, and what you’re going to do to help protect family farms, the environment, and our communities."
After expressing his condolences and mentioning that he’d visited the place this guy had been talking about, Edwards gave his crowd-winning answer:
"...the starting place is we have to actually have a president of the United States that will stand up to these big corporations, because what they’re doing, is they’re taking your democracy away from you. It’s that simple. I mean everything that’s happening is being done for the few, not for the many. Everything that’s happening is to undermine our responsibility. To make sure that we do what our parents did, and what twenty generations of Americans did before us, which is to insure that we left America and the world a better place than we found it. That will not happen as long as we let big corporations and very wealthiest Americans continue to run this democracy. What I’m going to do, to answer your question, is I’m going to stand up to these people. I’m going to enforce clean air laws, enforce clean water laws. We will have a moratorium on the building of anymore of these factory farms. And – and – I will be the president who uses my justice department to enforce these anti-trust laws to keep these big corporations from continuing to spread all – everything in America [...inaudible] At the end of the day – at the end of the day, the question is whether you believe we have a real fight on our hands. I believe we have an epic fight on our hands. I don’t think these drug companies, insurance companies, big corporate farming operations – I don’t think they’re going to give their power away voluntarily. I think what we’re going to have to do – we – me – you – the American people – we’re going to have to stand up, show a little backbone, show a little courage – and take that power away from them and give it back to the American people. That’s what this election is about."
He didn’t actually add anything, except that he would enforce our laws. I’m not sure if I should chalk up the crowd’s enthusiasm for this answer to lowered expectations due to the Bush administration, or simply to the way Edwards delivered this answer. You see, he sounded like he was actually saying something radical. ‘Standing up’ – good, ‘big corporation’ – bad. It sort of reminds me of this.
I am also bothered when candidates promise to do things on their first day in office. Edwards is going to create his controversial ticking healthcare time bomb for Congress and shut down Guantanamo on his first day in office. And you know what, Richardson is going to tackle Guantanamo on his first day, too, along with beginning to withdraw troops from Iraq.
What happened to doing things properly, with thought and careful planning, because... you know, these things are delicate? And when did a candidate’s rhetoric begin to matter more than a candidate’s record?
It no longer seems to matter what you did unless it was in the last year. You can have a relatively conservative voting record and be hailed as a liberal god, providing you properly apologize for co-sponsoring and voting for a certain war resolution. Opposed universal healthcare until your most recent presidential run? No problem!
Now, I don’t think any of our candidates have gone off the deep end, but some are edging towards it, and this does a disservice to voters. I’m not objecting because I think it will take them far; my objection stems from my sense that they are cheapening our standards – bending what we expect from candidates in an unhealthy way. We may scoff at people who choose a candidate based on whom they’d like to have a beer with, but choosing someone for a pocketful of promises and bold catchphrases is, perhaps, even more pitiful.