The Problem With Empty U.S. Campaign Promises

“Elections have consequences,” the saying goes. For a democratic republic to function, campaigns must have consequences as well. The power granted by the people to the elected official is the power to govern in keeping with the expectations set at the time of the election and the official’s understanding of what the people want. Right now, the nominees are attempting to turn this logic on its head. 

In the American political system, the presidential election is a rare moment every four years when the nation’s attention turns to salient policy debates and the most prominent politicians must stake out the positions they believe voters will support. Polling gives a good indication of what voters think about any particular issue, but the choices of the most influential candidates on the most influential stage provide a far better indicator of what matters most and what is in or out of bounds. 

Look at Kamala Harris. Every other presidential campaign in modern American history has eagerly sought the spotlight to call attention to their proposals and introduce their candidate to the nation. Past candidates have always believed themselves to be effective spokespeople and to have ideas worthy of promoting. The spotlight offered an opportunity to persuade voters and lay the groundwork for what might be accomplished in office. Harris has given very little policy detail and only one media interview, to which she brought her vice-presidential pick.