By Doug Pinkham
Public Affairs Council President
August 3, 2011
I've never liked — or trusted — campaign promises. It's good to know where a candidate stands, but I get uncomfortable when voters pressure politicians to state exactly what they will or won't do if elected.
President Obama, who was criticized for speaking in generalities during the 2008 primaries, eventually made 508 campaign promises, according to the fact-checking website PolitiFact.com. The site also reports that Obama has kept 139 promises, while another 215 are "in the works."
Some Democrats are critical of the president for the 42 promises PolitiFact.com says he has "broken," but I'm more worried whether he — and other politicians — are trying too hard to keep promises that no longer make sense. Our economic and social conditions have changed over the past three years. Why shouldn't political priorities change too?
And that's why I really hate political pledges. On the Republican side, we have the Taxpayer Protection Pledge; the Cut, Cap and Balance Pledge; the Marriage Vow Pledge; and the Pro-Life Presidential Leadership Pledge, among others. On the Democratic side, there is the Social Security Protector's Pledge and the Pro-Choice Oath, with additional pledges surely in the works.
For a candidate, signing a pledge means willfully limiting one's options in the long run to gain support in the short run. It's easy. You make an oath and instantly win the support of a certain constituency.
But even on issues as controversial as gay marriage, public opinion can change dramatically in just a few years. Candidates who cynically sign pledges on social issues merely to get votes may find themselves disappointing supporters who think they've weakened and upsetting opponents who think they're too strident.
Tax and spending pledges present challenges because the nation's financial ups and downs are even harder to predict — and the stakes are high in economic policymaking. A tough economy requires flexibility, not rigid adherence to rules created by an activist group. Politicians who sign such pledges aren't representing their constituents; they are giving away their proxy.
The most successful "pledge master" (to borrow a term from my fraternity days) is Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform. As Mark Barabak writes in the Los Angeles Times, signing Norquist's anti-tax pledge "is practically a rite of passage for any Republican candidate, and the collective vow has contributed to the impasse in Congress over raising the federal debt limit, just as it helped fuel the budget stalemate in Sacramento." All told, notes CNN, 236 members of the House and 41 senators have signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge.
Meanwhile, 110 representatives and 11 senators have committed to the Progressive Change Campaign Committee's Social Security Protector's Pledge.
At this point, I don't know if this country needs a tax increase or whether we ought to consider changes to Social Security. But I voted for my member of Congress and senators to consider all views and then figure out what the country does need. I don't remember casting a ballot for either Grover Norquist or the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.
New York Times columnist Tom Friedman has a strong opinion about this issue. "My pledge is to never vote for anyone stupid enough to sign a pledge — thereby abdicating their governing responsibilities in a period of incredibly rapid change and financial stress," he writes. "Sorry, I've signed it. Nothing more I can do."
The quasi-political group No Labels has called for lawmakers to end the practice. "Real leaders shouldn't sign special interest pledges," former U.S. Comptroller and No Labels co-founder David Walker said recently on MSNBC. "When lawmakers sign off on such pledges, they sign America up for political gridlock. The only pledge elected officials should take is the Pledge of Allegiance."
Politicians aren't the only ones pushed into making pledges. Companies — especially those facing pressure from shareholder rights activists — are often asked to sign onto codes of conduct and reporting standards developed by advocacy groups. Some of these codes, particularly in the area of human rights, have helped to encourage corporate responsibility. But others are designed to shame firms into compliance with rules that are ill defined and hard to enforce.
Whether the issue is the environment, human rights, corporate ethics or transparency, it's always preferable for a company to have tough principles and practices already in place that govern its actions. Before an activist group calls a press conference announcing that a company has refused to sign an environmental pledge, a smart firm would already have a public strategy to reduce its carbon footprint. It would also be more than willing to articulate its approach to environmental stewardship. That way, it has the option of saying "No" to the pledge.
Politicians could learn a thing or two from such companies. When asked about their position on social or economic policy, they should explain their principles and practices, not recite words written by single-issue advocates. Most times members of Congress have signed onto some sort of pledge, open debate has been stifled, and there's been very little benefit for anyone — unless you're Grover Norquist or the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.
Comments? Email me.
