Campaign promises under oath: viable?
 

I was very recently comparing the Executive and Judicial branches of the US government.

By my understanding, during the confirmation of potential Supreme Court justices, the Senate Judiciary Committee holds hearings. Nominees are required to answer questions under oath. For example, Justice Roberts said, under oath, that his two favorite movies were "Doctor Zhivago" and "North by Northwest".

George W. Bush made a very specific campaign promise in the run-up to the 2000 election:
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation building."
"...a nation-building corps from America. Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight."

People may have voted for Bush based on their distaste for what they may have interpreted as Bill Clinton engaging in nation building in Bosnia.

When a politician goes back on his or her word, there has been a failure of the democratic process. How can we vote for someone to represent us if they aren't clear or truthful about what they will represent in office? To that end...

... would it be viable to require candidates to make campaign promises under oath?

seriously....

it's not viable, it's stupid at best.

Bush I

read my lips... No New Taxes... boom Taxes!

other presidents do things that are required of them, not what they promised to do

Relevance?

But he wasn't under oath.

A failure of the democratic process? Really? I call bullshit.

There are a bunch of different reasons that a politician could go back on his word. Cyn already mentioned a great one - Bush Sr. and "no new taxes". The political realities changed and he had to raise taxes.

So you want to "swear in" every politician running for office before every campaign function? Christ, that's a bad idea. People do not want politicians telling them the truth. Any one that does would never get elected. What politician is going to say "the truth is I have no clue how to fix things. But maybe I know some guys who do. Fuck I don't know. Those guys are smart, but we may all be bent over the barrel on this one." That's the truth on some things, but if a politician did anything other than project sunshine and rainbows, we'd never fill an office.

until candidates get a crystal ball that tells them what the future will bring, there is no way this proposal will work.

That is the most depressing thing I've heard all week.

Also: I believe a case could be made that Obama is proving that untrue.

RB, as much as I'd like you to be right, I don't think you are. Please, tell me one negative thing, one admission that maybe things won't be great if he's elected, one point that's not about "hope".

The guy is campaigning on hope. It fuels the engine of his campaign. It's great. I've already admitted to being on the bandwagon. But if anyone is full of sunshine and rainbows, it's him. It's the big draw of his campaign, that if he's elected, things WILL be better. He's not telling us hard truths, but we don't want him to. No presidential candidate is going to stand up and tell us that oil may be permanently expensive, that programs can't be fixed, that taxes are going to go up. They'd never get elected.

i think machiavelli covered this pretty well in "the prince"
it's part of that curious gap which separates the spectacle of power from the human beings who dance around inside it.
so no, it's not practical. no-one in their right mind would take the oath. or if they did, it would become yet another of those rituals of forthrightness that would be jettisoned and forgotten as soon as raison d'etat ran too counter to it.

you might get some embarrasing photo-ops out of it for a while.
but that wouldn't last long.
and the cynicism that'd be engendered by the failure of the process would do more damage than not having it.

anyway, this is all just transposing words in a cliff-notes version of the prince. read that. it's better.

Or that this statement proves the other one correct, depending on what actually happens over the next four years assuming he wins.

how could you say that at this point in time? do you have a crystal ball? that's why history is what it is. we look back and compare to what was said, or expected to what actually happened.

lotto numbers...please.

The only viable way for us to keep politicians (relatively) honest is to grow a pair and remove them from office when they go back on their promises. Unfortunately, the average voter is eager to dismiss or even support his candidate's misdeeds, as long as that candidate is perceived to remain true to his platform as a whole.

I discovered something today: you can't block people who happen to be moderators. Fortunately you can ignore them.
You mean "No, it's not viable." I respect your opinion.
The idea would be to prevent them from making promises they can't keep. It would be preventative. Instead of a candidate promising to lower taxes, which one cannot responsibly promise (which is exactly your point), they will say something more like, "I will do everything I can to lower taxes." That's a more reasonable claim.
I've only read part of that book. Machiavelli seems a guide-book to being an immoral and unethical leader. That kinda flies in the face of my intent.

I don't think it's viable, no, and am not sure it would be a good thing. I don't think it's reasonable to hold candidates to acting in a certain way even when the underlying context changes. I do think that some looser system of holding elected representatives to account - for high standards of performance, and not just blind adherence to specific promises - would be useful in the American system, which lacks this kind of no-confidence mechanism.

Oh God. As if politicians weren't intentionally vague enough already.

If a candidate changes tune on a means or end due to relevant context changes or improved vision/wisdom, I wouldn't want to penalize them for it. And if a candidate allegedly means what he promised at the time and allegedly has a change of heart or circumstances at a later time, how would you go about proving the perjury?

Most you could really do, I think, is start a stupid meme about "flip-flopping".

They will just add the word "try" to everything. That way if they fail they can say well I tried but....

They'd have to demonstrate said effort with verifiable evidence.

Completely unviable. What person in their right mind would make an oath to do/not do something in the unknown future.

Sure it's easy to vow you will/won't raise taxes... that is until reality smacks you upside the head.

Dick Gregory: So, we have you under oath, what do you intend on doing with the situation in Iraq, should you be elected?

Candidate: I promise, under oath, to do what I think will be the best thing for the Iraqi people and the American people.

Dick Gregory: and that is...?

Candidate: it's the best we can do. I swear.



This is what we'll be reduced to. We've already caricaturized the process, this will only make it a farce.

Sorry, but this is a pretty ludicrous idea. Reasons have already been stated.

The idea is to force them to stop making promises they have no intention of keeping. So, in the tax hypothetical, a candidate couldn't say "I won't raise taxes" unless he or she was committed to that 100% no matter what happens.

Then you end up with the situation that JJ suggests above... nobody promises anything. All they do is mouth inspecific promises that can be interpreted in any number of ways.

I'd rather hear a candidate make a case for what they intend to do. If they then get into office and find that they can't do what they've originally wanted to do, I would like an explaination as to why they can't.

For example, a Prime Minister is elected on the promise that they will spend x on something but then once they are in power they find out that the budget or surplus they thought they had to play with is actually non-existent (out of the power you only know what the government tells you). They can still fund the project but go further into debt or they can say, "we are choosing to go against our promise for the betterment of the nation". We don't want to go further into debt.

This is responsible government. Making the difficult decsion in the face of reality.

This is kinda in the same direction as what I'm trying to get at. I'd like an explanation, but considering how often campaign promises are broken without explanation I was trying to think of a way to prevent them from lying in the first place.

I'd settle for an explanation but that never seems to come.

That's what elections are for. If you aren't happy with what they said in their last campaign vs. what they actually did... don't vote for them.

That's a bit of a letdown. Is everyone really comfortable with a report card every 4 years for the "leader of the free world"?

considering that we don't elect our leader for an indefinite period, I'd say a report card every 4 years goes right in line with what the constitution expects, and if the person in the position of leader isn't doing a great job, we get to vote for a new one. I don't think that's a letdown at all. I happen to think it's pretty fantastic that we get to vote out liars.

GHW Bush lost his election to Clinton primarily over his "Read my lips" comment. He made a promise and broke it. Of course, the economy was tanking, but he broke a very vocal campaign promise and he paid for it.

As I stated in the Hillary Clinton a Supreme Court Justice? when you look at the separation of powers and the checks and balances you'll find that it is not viable at all.



separation of powers the constitutional doctrine of dividing governmental power among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches

checks and balances the constitutional doctrine in which each branch of government shares some of the powers of the other branches in order to limit their actions



Will, if you read and understand Articles I-III of the United States Constitution, you'd find it's not viable at all for politicians to make campaign promises under oath. In fact it is prohibitive for them to do so since it will clearly limit what they are able to promise. A presidential candidates cannot state with certainty they will create healthcare system for the entire nation, as the Legislative branch has to create the law to make that possible. Conversely the Legislative branch candidates cannot state they with certainty that they will create a healthcare system for the entire nation as the president has the power to veto the bill.

That's just about what will happen, so then you've created more beauracracy in getting people to swear under oath. Now even if this were a possibilty, you'd find that someone would challenge the idea in court. It could eventually make it to the Supreme Court of the United States and be decided unconstitutional since there are no provisions for swearing under oath as part of the selecting/electing process in Article I Section 4. While it could be construed as a state's rights, you'd have to believe that some states allowed promises under oath and others did not. On that supposition, would you really have "better" democracy in those states that allowed it? How would you categorize or measure it?

In the simple example of not raising taxes, what happens when the candidate now the elected offical comes to find that the budget is tight and there is no wiggle room on anything. A natural disaster strikes and funds need to be raised ala the 1989 Loma Prieta, California earthquake.

If any one of them stated they will not raise taxes under oath, all of them lied, or all the people who needed relief would have gotten none.

It's your system. The Canadian system allows the PM to be questioned directly by the opposition while Parliament is in session. If they don't live up to their promise the opposition makes sure to ask why.

If they are in a minority position in the House, they can lose a vote of non-confidence and be forced into an election.

I like that! Are there any negatives that result from that system?

Are you serious???? Do you not have ANY idea about the US Constitution or United States History? George Washington declined after 2 terms in office as a stand against monarchy. It was followed by Jefferson, Madison, Monroe. Many presidents didn't seek more than two terms, an unwritten rule.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was one of the strongest and most enigmatic presidents in the 20th century. He served for a total of 4 terms, but died in office. He is the only president to be voted into office more that 2 terms. He was a central figure in two key events that shaped United States history, the Depression and WWII.

Yet after his presidential office, the Legislature drafted an amendment to limit the presidential terms. It was passed to the States and ratified as Amendment XXII.

You really have no idea as to what kind of government Canda is?

Parliamentary system

People forget that there are 3 branches of government. The Legistrative branch has failed us as late, but they have only been working a short time, under a tight belt (i.e. - impeachment is not an option [Spkr. Pelosi].)
I don't know why people, who are in power, are scared to stand up against him. Maybe oil is that big.
The bottom line should be this - we the people control who represents us. In the House. In Congress. I sure as hell do not want a President that is okay w/a 100 year war (occupation).

It's true that within Canada, a PM with a majority can, pretty much do what they want until the end of the Term of Office (anything short of constitutional amendments).

There are not as many checks in our system as there are in others.

The head of state, The Governer General, is a figure head and the Upper House, the Senate, is relatively toothless. They can delay laws but they can't really do much else.

That said, the house of commons and the various committees are pretty good at keeping things in check given the ablilty of the opposition to shine a light on the activities of the government and the cabinet.

Same here in Britain. The Prime Minister actually has a scheduled session called "Question Time" where the various members of the House of Commons can take the Prime Minister to task on anything. I'd pay money to watch the comedy that would be Dubya doing "Question Time".

It's important to note that there's nothing that prevents us from having "Question Time" while also retaining our general governmental structure. In fact, that's something I'd support.

"Question Time" should not be seen as evidence that the US system is in any way better or worse than Canada's or Britain's parliamentary system. It just shows that they do one specific thing that might be good for us to adopt.

"Question Time" is a BBC current affairs panel show.

You mean "Prime Minister's Questions". They also have it in Canada, Australia, NZ, Ireland, India, and Sweden. See Prime_Minister's_Questions for more.

As much as I would love to see politicians be held more accountable, for several of the reasons listed above I do not think that this is anywhere near viable. To be honest, sadly I don't really think that many people pay enough attention to the platforms or the promises anyway, as they are too entrenched in other beliefs that may or may not be accurate. Case in point: Many of the poor or working class vote Republican as a sort of knee jerk reaction because they think that they are going to "protect America" better or won't be as tied to the "D.C. political machine" however, in many cases voting Republican is directly opposed to their best interests, as Democratic platforms often favor greater assistance to poor and working class families. Obviously this is a generalization and there may be many other reasons to vote for or against a candidate but it is just an example.

will--machiavelli talks more about the role of the prince as managing chance, with the objective of staying in power. the problem with a proposal like yours is basically that it would lock even very well-meaning people into place even if the situations they confront require modes of action at odds with what they previously understood that they would do, had things moved in a straight line from the point they fashioned that understanding and took and oath to carry it out.

within that, there's the entire question of political power, what it is, how it is different from personal ethics. you can maybe imagine a situation in which someone with strongly held personal ethics would act in a manner that is consistent with their personal values but generate outcomes that would be problematic--let's assume that the bush administration understood itself to be acting if not in good faith then at least in a manner consistent with what it held to be ethical in its invasion of iraq---if that assumption holds, then the problem is evident.

also, it's hard to say whether machiavelli endorses the political situation that creates the prince--in other writings, he is an advocate of a type of direct democracy--so it's not obvious what he is advocating across the book. you can read it in multiple ways. one is as a manual of realpolitik--another is as a kind of denunciation of it. you can go back and forth about that endlessly, which is what makes it a fun text to play with.

one underlying question is maybe interesting here though:
which matters more--being ethical or appearing to be ethical?
what's the difference?

Voting for a candidate based on policy positions they have sworn to under oath....

Why not just argue for a direct democracy? That's essentially what it would be, but more complex, confusing, and even less effective. There are a ton of reasons direct democracy is bad, and I can't for the life of me think why it would be better to have a pseudo-direct democracy with a figurehead whose hands are tied based on statements he was forced to make under oath in order to gain votes, even when he finds out after the fact that those proposals aren't actually in the country's best interest.

If you don't like the idea of electing people to government so that they can make decisions for you, let's have a discussion about the merits of direct democracy. But this idea of having them campaign under oath; it's just crazy.

i would be up for a debate about direct democracy--i think you're wrong about it, smeth--maybe in another thread sometime...

I'm not arguing direct democracy (though I'd be interested to follow you and roach into a thread about it).

I'm talking about the functionality of the pseudo-democratic constitutional republic that is the USA. Ask yourself this: why do you vote for whomever you vote for? I do because I believe that they agree with me on political, social, and/or economic concerns that I believe that he or she will represent my beliefs in office. How am I supposed to know his or her beliefs? One way is to check up on his or her history. For example, I'm sure you've checked out Obama's voting record just like I have. Then you listen to campaign promises. I would absolutely love to believe everything a politician promises, but history has taught me that many are liars and it's more difficult than one might think to tell the honest politicians from the dishonest.

So on the one hand you have verifiable evidence: the voting record. On the other hand you have campaign promises, which are usually tantamount to meaningless when considering precedence. The issue I'm trying to bring up in this thread: is the campaign promise situation solvable? Or do we just have to sit back and take months (now years) of what may or may not be complete lies, or at the very least empty promises? Do we want our politicians to be entertainers, as Jazz may have been suggesting?

I don't believe the campaign promise situation is solvable, which is why I think you answered your own question here. All you can really go on is their past voting record. Regardless of what they say they will do, their voting record proves what they did.

For me, in this instance, I can look at Clinton v. Obama with regards to the Iraq war. They both speak out against it, however, one voted to authorize the use of force, one didn't. Which of the two who are speaking out against it now has more credibility?

Will: I realize you're not arguing direct democracy. What I said is that your proposal is, in effect, a convoluted form of direct democracy.

If you're voting on a candidate because they are sworn, under oath, to a particular policy or position, then you're not voting for the person at all, but rather you're voting for the position. If you want to be voting on specific policy proposals and positions, then you should be advocating for direct democracy, not some weird mish-mash where you elect a figurehead who has no real power for critical thought while in the office because they are sworn under oath to something that they thought was reasonable before they were in office but is no longer so.

On the specific issue of campaign promises, it's sorta stupid to put a lot of weight in them, and it always has been. I recently listened to an interview on NPR which made the point that there have only been 2 presidents in US history who have upheld their campaign promises: Washington and Polk. Campaign promises aren't about the specific policies, they're about getting a general feel for where the candidate stands. I'd hate to have a system where I elect someone based on a specific promise rather than what the promise indicates about their general inclinations and character.