Transactional Politics and America’s Future
A September 2019 Gallup poll found that 75 percent of Democrats liked the presidential choices being presented by their party, as did 72 percent of Republicans. It seems that the presidential nominating process is producing candidates party stalwarts want. But is it producing candidates the nation needs?
Wanting a candidate today means approving of his or her promises. Thus, the nominating process becomes in part a promise-generating free-for-all. Presidential politics is transactional: “I will vote for you if you will deliver what you promised.” Not surprisingly, President Trump is paying a lot of attention to keeping his 2016 campaign promises.
On the surface, there is nothing wrong with campaign promises. Yet there is something wrong with the content of many promises in today’s presidential campaigns. Many are not achievable, lacking the bipartisan support to enact and then implement them. The eventual failure to deliver deepens disenchantment with government. Many promises are not healthy for America’s future, lacking a realistic, fiscally sound and politically viable way to pay for them. More concerning is the underlying premise: government exists to meet voters’ wants, to make them happy. Voters are reduced from citizens with obligations to their nation and each other to consumers whose chief obligation is to make demands and “buy” the presidential product most likely to meet them.
Republican candidates, for example, have traditionally promised lower taxes (“more money in your pocket”) and less regulation (“more money in corporate pockets”). Leading Democratic candidates have been promising caretaking that someone else will pay for: “Medicare for All,” free college, and college debt relief. Candidates of both parties regularly promise to preserve or enhance Medicare and Social Security. The parties may differ in some of their promises, but their basic approach to the electorate is identical.
One side effect of treating citizens as consumers is underinvestment in things government should do but that do not provide the immediate satisfaction of consumer goods. Infrastructure, public health planning/preparedness, basic science, R&D, paying down the public debt against the need for public spending in future emergencies, and diplomacy to forge a more stable world, for example, take a back seat to voters’ desires for short-term, visible benefits. Appealing to citizens as customers encourages them to be that, underestimating their willingness to take a broader view and sacrifice for long-term ends when properly led.
Transactional campaigning warps the American character. “Consumers” of government seek to maximize personal gain. Self-indulgence is fostered. Parochialism is encouraged as campaigns segment and micro-target voters. Candidates become products not potential statesmen/women. American governance that demands too little of its citizens weakens their commitment to the institutions that have historically been, and in the future must be, strong to preserve democracy. It downplays the greater good - what Americans owe each other. In his Farewell Address, George Washington cautioned that: “The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations.” Presidential candidates today forget this as they pitch promises designed to appeal to “local discriminations” and to separate Americans.
Transactional campaigning promises benefits without hard work, something parents disdain in building children’s character. Nations have character, which is why we called World War II America the “greatest generation.” The nation’s debt, which has grown from under $1 trillion in 1980 to over $22 trillion today, is the outcome of promises without sacrifice, a self-indulgent spending spree.
Some leaders gained our admiration not because of what they promised but because of what they asked of us. Lincoln called us to our better selves, asking for “malice toward none, with charity for all” after the Civil War. FDR asked us to put fear aside. Churchill promised “blood, toil and tears, and sweat.” Kennedy asked that we think first of what we could do for our country. Mandela asked his people to forgive each other after decades of apartheid.
In his Farewell Address, President Eisenhower warned that: “As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government - must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow.” That’s the commitment we should make to each other. We need a presidential candidate who will remind us of this. It might not be seen as much of a campaign promise, but it’s the one we need to hear.
Photo credit: vidar-nordli-mathisen@unsplash.com
