During the debates for the Democratic primaries, I remember the various candidates parsing their slightly different “plans” for American energy independence and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The debate was something like:
“I plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 50 percent by the year 2020…”
“Well, John, my plan would actually reduce greenhouse gases 70 percent by 2030…”
In my mind, it was hardly a helpful discussion. How can a presidential candidate really make a promise when the payoff is so far in the future? Politicians are famous for making promises. Failed promises are memorable (Bush’s “Read my lips,” Clinton’s 1992 promise to reduce defense spending 33% by 1997), but so are kept ones. In 1960, John F. Kennedy promised a man on the moon before the 1970s. He never lived to see Armstrong’s steps, but the promise was fulfilled. But all three of these candidate’s promises pertained to the relatively immediate future.
This 2008 election has candidates making wild claims that are difficult to see as anything other than pipe dreams. Even the most diehard Obama supporter must be hard-pressed to declare how exactly any policies could ensure that 25% of our electricity comes from renewable resources by the year 2025, as his website promises. Both McCain and Obama have plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Obama wants to reduce them 80%, and McCain (since he’s a Republican) only wants a 66% reduction. Such specificity of numbers does not even make me feel that the policy would be stronger. I would be much happier to hear that “every measure will be taken” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and that specific goals would be set once experts assess the situation, but taking that step now is pointless and rings as phony as a three-dollar bill.
Don’t get me wrong, I would like to hear what the candidates’ plans are, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Maybe they feel that focusing only on the next four years would make them sound petty. Climate change, tied as it is to the advancement of technology, is something that must be addressed in the long-term and has no quick fix. So why not address the issue in broader, less specific terms? And it’s not only the climate change/energy independence policy areas that have these ridiculous prediction-promises. Obama promises to increase the number of high-school students taking college-level classes 50% by 2016. John McCain has plans for a manned space mission in 2020, when he will (or may not) be 84. My guess is that the “year-dropping” that goes on in the campaign is entirely rhetorical. This is saddening. I would like to think that we take our future more seriously than that. Is there anything helpful that comes from the mentioning of specific dates and percentage goals? Do we get a better picture of where the candidates’ priorities lie? Why must politicians make these promises? Why, oh why.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
It's disheartening to read this provocation. To see these statements out of context, one is forced to put them under the necessary scrutiny, revealing the their emptiness and lack of meaning. Honestly, the only helpful element produced by specific dates (such as those shown), unrealistic percentage goals, and the other meaningless banter is how it will change the polls for the candidates. Thus, we can see where each candidate’s main priorities lie: taking the win. While this may evoke anger or distrust in Senator Obama and Senator McCain, I don't believe that the problem exists in the candidates. Let us ask ourselves, who are the candidates speaking to? What are they actually aiming at? Who are they aiming at? And who makes or breaks the election for either side? The answer is we do. Collectively, we, the United States public, are the problem. If we demanded more of our candidates, were more open to either party’s suggestions, and better educated in each politician's ideals and consequences, the two candidates would not survive on banter and unfulfilling promises.
Too often we are quick to point fingers at the television and not to step back from the situation. With nearly half of the population not even exercising their right to vote and the majority of the other half blinded by party alliances and superficial reservations, do we even have a right to complain? We are so proud to proclaim our democracy, but do we ever think about our responsibility in maintaining it? Without an open, honest, well-informed mind, democracy is nothing but a game with an open forum for discussion. These politicians would not be playing games on national television if the nation wasn't entertained. It is our responsibility to bring change. It is our responsibility to bring stability. We are the people in a "democratic" system that exists for the "people." I think it is time to face who the real culprits are in the demise of this election instead of brushing it off as "politics." We are the political system and no candidate, republican or democrat, can bring hope to this country without a follow through on our own responsibilities.
I have to agree with the sentiments already professed in that the campaign promises made by Senators Barack Obama and John McCain are obtuse and unrealistic. Political campaigns, as Gore described in his Assault on Reason, have become just a series of calculated maneuvers, a conglomeration of dirty tactics and clever strategies.
Yet I would argue that there might be a silver lining for the general public here. Abstract as campaign promises may be, they are a means of accountability. George Herbert Walker Bush ran for president with his infamous campaign line, “Read my lips: no new taxes”. After four years of new taxes, Bush the first was not reelected. Coincidence? I think not. Politicians make obscenely idealistic promises on a regular bases in order to gain the approval of the electorate. If, however, they fail to deliver on said promises there are repercussions.
Perhaps the public can turn the wild assertions of whichever candidate wins this election to the betterment of society. If we hold our president accountable for the promises of his campaign, politicians will be more likely to limit their promises to those they can actually keep. Thus, even though the ridiculous assurances of the presidential campaigns have reduced the race to absurdity, we may be able to draw some utility from the candidates’ statements.
Politicians throw out these numbers as estimates or hopes. If Obama just said "I plan to lower green-house emissions" people would be saying "but by when?!" and "by how much?!" so he needs to give some number, even if it's just an off-hand prediction to satisfy the people. Giving numbers allows him to let people know exactly what he is aiming for and therefore how much he cares about that particular issue. But one important question is still left "how are you going to do this and how much will it cost?" When he doesn't give details of actually how he is going to make his idea happen, then his idea is only an idea, and we become suspicious that it is not feasible. And if it's not feasible, is he just lying to us to get our vote? Is he just putting out this great idea to grab our attention and make us like him, when he knows there is now way he can actually make this happen? Does his idea portray accurately what issues he is interested in and is going to deal with?
This is certainly a problem and a turn-off when it comes to politics. But of course, we must remember at the end of the day, that it is just politics. It is perhaps not very helpful to hear these specific dates and percentage goals--it is only done to attract voters, but we do get an idea of what the candidate believes in. I mean, the candidate will initiate a plan that strives to achieve their goal (or we will hold he or she accountable for it)--they will probably not reach that exact goal, but it is comforting to know that something's being done. Also, putting forth these specific dates makes it easier for the public to understand. They define what the candidate wants to do. But overall, there is definitely no much that can be or should be taken from the seemingly ridiculously sounding goals from politicians. We can't blame them for saying things like this, and we can only interpret what they say as a representation of what they want and hope to do.
I agree that it can be very frustrating to hear these politicians make promises that they cannot possibly keep, but the reasons why they do it are understandable. In the end, they are trying to get votes and giving numbers like these makes it seem like they have a feasible plan through which to accomplish this. To the masses, these statements seem less like empty promises and more like solid plans with a clear, positive outcome. I think that if there was attention brought to how silly and impractical these statements are, there would have to be a more informed and demanding electorate. When it all comes down to it, they are fighting for votes and in the end, the electorate is largely uninformed and apathetic. If there is to be a change in the style of politics, there would have to be a larger level of activity and an effort to become informed and more critical of the message and the politicians. Maybe, if this day were to come, there would be less of a need to make these statements because the electorate would see right through them.
Post a Comment