Trending
Written by: Eugene Steuerle
“I’ll bet I can fall further than you can”
For most Americans in most periods, the presidential election season is a time of high excitement. Ideally, it is a moment when we try to redefine our path forward as a people and make course corrections. During the election season, we should be debating more freely what we want from the government.
Regrettably, we often squander these crucial moments; this time, we've missed the mark entirely. Instead of engaging in constructive debates, we find ourselves in a bitter standoff. Each faction argues that voting for their party’s presidential and Congressional candidates is the only way to prevent the collapse of democracy. While this may hold some truth, merely averting disaster doesn’t shed light on what the government should do to shape a better future.
A better future, you say? Doesn’t that depend upon who wins? Yes and no. Most of the time, we have been blessed with additional knowledge and income, so we can and morally should do more good things with our new wealth. The leading question, therefore, is a positive one: what can we do with these new opportunities? An election usually has some focus on what share of decisions will be left to the individual or the individual’s representatives—that is, on the size of government relative to the private sector—but in many ways, that’s a second-order issue. After all, private and public resources usually grow regardless of what share of the new resources we put in each pocket. And to be clear, we’re potentially richer in many ways, not just materially.
For many years, I worked in the Treasury Department. One question usually absorbed a large share of resources during the first few months of a presidential term, especially when the White House had a new occupant. What must be done to fulfill the president’s campaign promises?
Now, you might argue that this is the right question to try to answer. After all, shouldn’t a president honestly try to fulfill past pledges? Perhaps, if they derived from a rigorous analysis of the nation’s problems, a recognition of basic policy principles such as equal justice under the law, and an understanding of the complexities and costs of enforcing any policy. But that’s seldom where campaign promises come from, and perhaps never less than in this campaign. Instead, they derive from a desire to please as many powerful constituencies as possible. That’s not a great basis for good governing.
Consider, if you will, the rules for modern-day campaigning.
1. Promise more goodies for a lot of people.
2. Take off the table any issue that might require any significant sacrifice.
3. Attack your opponent again and again.
These rules have long dominated politics and explain largely why I hate campaign time. They deter us from asking the more exciting questions about the possibilities before us. Yet they have become increasingly more troublesome.
At one time in our post-World War II history, a candidate could hope to abide by rule number one and easily legislate more goodies that appeared almost costless. Wartime spending was easily transferred back to households through domestic spending increases and tax cuts. Korea and Vietnam slowed this process, but it continued for several decades. Moreover, the automatic growth in entitlements hadn’t so thoroughly taken over the budget until this century. The more affluent economy provided more revenues, much of which hadn’t yet been pledged.
However, rule two, emphasizing that no sacrifice is too small, increasingly presents a dilemma. Putting more money toward a new spending increase or a tax cut taxes requires more money taken from somewhere else. Over time, commitments to growing programs have become so excessive that massive built-in deficits now need to be paid for even before covering the costs of new giveaways.
The candidates refuse to address this issue. They can’t. If they were that honest with us, they would lose. Often, they switch the subject to schemes centered on blame and envy: attack immigrants, tax imported purchases under the false pretense that it’s a way to tax foreigners, or go after the rich (who should pay more but can’t by themselves solve our fiscal woes.) “Don’t worry,” the candidates tell us, “nothing will ever be required from ninety-eight percent of you.” You’re entitled to everything you have and more.”
Today, the numbers have never failed so badly to add up, the nation’s income statement has never been more off-balance, and, when it comes to the budget, the discrepancies between campaign promises and the basic requirements for good government have never been more misaligned.
As for rule three—attacking the other candidate—that’s as old as democracy. However, social media, which stresses that one gains identity by feeling superior to others, has given it a privileged status. Outrageous lies also go viral, so some candidates for office follow the dictum that more attention is better than none. Then, the opposing candidates spend so much time attacking the lies that any reasonable policy debate is shoved further aside.
Now, move forward to the new president's first months in office. When quick, inconsistent, and relatively undeveloped campaign promises become the primary basis for defining the president’s first initiatives, the chances for a successful term are greatly diminished. The most outrageous promises block necessary discussions about what should and can be done.
Are we without hope? Not really. A new president always has the opportunity of a lifetime, one that no one else has and may never be repeated throughout their presidency. Upon taking office, they could face reality and immediately “think outside the [campaign] “box.” Sure, the political attacks about inconsistency would come, but who gives a darn at this stage of political chaos? I don’t think anyone today believes campaign promises. And the level of attacks probably couldn’t get any more vicious. A new president, therefore, could envision the opportunities that lie within the challenges, making better politics and policy. Now, that could be exciting!
Related: Last Call To Get Ahead of the Fed