"Drain The Swamp".
It's a noble idea, a great slogan, looks awesome on a t-shirt, and makes anyone who say sit sound like a reformer. But, as with most slogans it's inadequate in and of itself.
"Okay, great. Whoever you support in a Republican primary should be able to explain exactly HOW they plan on doing that, as a bare minimum. If they don't know how they're going to do it, then they're not going to be able to do it."
Matt Walsh
In our office we talk a lot about setting goals, accountability, and productivity. When we set goals we talk about SMART goals. Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Timely. I'd argue that any candidate who says they'll "Drain the swamp." would need to be able to articulate all of the above in some detail. Obviously, it would be unrealistic to eliminate all of the entrenched bureaucracy in one term as president. But that's where Realistic and Achievable come in. I would expect any candidate to be able to explain where they would start, how they would proceed, and what we could expect after their first term. I'd also expect them to be prepared to get voted out if they don't achieve st least a significant part of their stated goals.
FOR EXAMPLE
Candidate X proposes the following.
1. Specific goal. "I will eliminate the Dept of Education during my first term."
2. Within 30 days of being elected, I will do X,Y, and Z. Within 60 days, I will do Q,R, and S. And so on.
3. Obviously this would be both Realistic and Achievable in 4 years.
4. Set out a timeline, and explain how those few functions of the dept would be handled after it has been disbanded.
The key is to not over promise and under deliver. Trump is a master at this. He WAY over promised in his 2016 campaign, and certainly under delivered on many/most of his promises. I believe that he was either deluded in thinking that he could actually do everything he promised, or that he knew he couldn't and promised it anyway. Likewise Biden has done the same things. It's time that the GOP set themselves apart by making specific, limited, promises and laying out detailed plans to accomplish those limited objectives, instead if promising the moon and stars and failing to deliver.
I don't think it's unrealistic to set higher expectations for the GOP, and make sure that those who don't meet those expectations, don't get reelected.
16 comments:
I agree with much of this. Of course, the problem is some things can only be accomplished if Congress buys in, cooperates.
But I like the idea of both/all parties give specific plans to accomplish specific goals.
Am I wrong in thinking that the GOP didn't even pull together a platform in Trump's last two runs for office?
https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2020/08/25/gop-no-platform-2020-trump
Still, I agree. Be specific and deliberate!
Dan
Two problems I have with your post, neither of which mitigates the logic of laying out how one intends to achieve campaign promises:
1. Trump actually has a really good record in keeping his campaign promises. It must be understood that it's far harder to keep them all if one only has one term to address them all. This might be a better way to frame it, as in, "assuming I only have one term, I will seek to accomplish the following goals which should be doable in that time." But I've posted commentaries which affirm his good record of promise keeping, so I'll just stand on that.
2. As to this specific promise..."draining the swamp"...what you're expecting seems similar to a general telling the enemy how he intends to win the war or a battle. Why give them something to consider? I do, however, think it's fair to get some idea of what one means when they refer to "the swamp". Folks might have differing ideas on what that means when one says it.
As a side note, I think it does some good to make noise about intending to drain the swamp. It makes the swamp creatures nervous as hell.
For the most part I think things Trump wanted to do were blocked by the Demokrat-controlled legislature.
"Am I wrong in thinking that the GOP didn't even pull together a platform in Trump's last two runs for office?"
I don't know, although I think that Trump made his priorities pretty clear during his campaign.
1. This is an interesting claim. Obviously Trump did a good job keeping his promise on SCOTUS nominees, and the pre COVID economy. He did a less good job on infrastructure, immigration (Mexico didn't pay for the wall), debt/deficit. to name a few. I'd say that on the promises he kept, he did pretty well, but I'd argue that he promised way more than he delivered.
2. I see your point. Although, to make this vague, unmeasurable, catchphrase the centerpiece of his campaign, and to do virtually nothing towards fulfilling it seems like a huge problem. Hence my suggesting that candidates concentrate on a few goals that are achievable, rather than a bunch of goals that are not.
The swamp creatures are so entrenched that it's unlikely they'll ever feel nervous. At some point all talk and no action, isn't effective.
Glenn,
That may be the case. However, that's why the executive and legislative branches have historically engaged in negotiation and compromise. I don't recall Trump ever trying either. Historically the executive and judicial have somehow managed to work things out until recently, maybe it might be worth trying something old school.
1. No president has failed to over promise, particularly if you're simply going by wins and losses as opposed to also attempts to deliver versus inability, lack of time, etc. But still, he's got a good record of fulfilling promises. I can get more detailed if necessary when time allows.
2. Were he an experienced political animal, your concern here might be more reasonable. I don't think it's a serious indictment of him to suggest he simply didn't realize how big a task it would be. What's more, his constant use of that term made the desire stronger in the minds of many running for office, so there's that.
I do think that anyone who asserts a desire to drain the swamp makes the swamp creatures nervous, especially if they think the person's actually serious in making an attempt. For those who just say it, of course they're not nervous at all.
Typically, the legislative branch, when in the majority or not, aligns itself with the goals of the executive and works towards them to the best of their ability, given their majority/minority status. The exec shouldn't need to beg for support from his own, especially given his goals are why he was elected by the people. The legislative branch should see the election of the president as a reflection of the will of the people in the same way a direct appeal to them by the people should be.
1. You don't need to trot out the same old talking points, I've heard them all before. The reality is that (for whatever reason) presidential candidates virtually always over promise and under deliver. The obvious recent example is the student loan debacle. The difference is that those on the left tend to give their presidents the same credit for trying, as they would for succeeding. You and I both know that there are people who believe that Biden has actually done something significant about student loans. Ultimately what I'm suggesting to candidates is that they simply stop making promises that they can't or won't keep and to provide details about how they are going to keep the promises they do make.
2. This might be True had he not promised (and failed) at bringing in the very best and most qualified people to execute his promises. His political advisors should have been offsetting his lack of political experience. He either hired the wrong people, or ignored them. At some point, this excuse loses potency because he's got to take responsibility for his promises. I'm also not sure that using "he didn't know what he was promising" is a good excuse.
In any case, my point remains. Had he been less profligate in his promises, more interested in the details of how he was going to achieve his promises, and found good political advisors, we wouldn't be having this conversation. FYI, Biden (who's not politically inexperienced) engages in exactly the same things.
As far as the executive/legislative divide under Trump, I'd argue that his tendency to revile anyone who doesn't automatically agree 100% with what he wants probably made his life more difficult when it came to negotiating with congress. His unwillingness or inability to negotiate or compromise probably wasn't helpful either. The problem is that he's not the first president to have a contentious relationship with his own party's legislators, he apparently didn't look at how other presidents handled it.
Just like Biden supporters giving him credit for things he hasn't actually done, Trump doesn't get credit for "draining the swamp", simply because he really meant it and might have cause a few people a little concern.
1. I'll "trot out" the facts every time they're ignored when anyone attempts to make a point. The context of the situation is important and it distinguishes Trump from those who came before him. They aren't insignificant and I don't do it to give him a pass for any failures. I simply explain why those failures occurred and why they shouldn't be held up at the expense of his successes when deciding whether or not he's worthy of support. And here the point missed is that whenever a candidate speaks positively or negatively about an issue, he's implying a promise to address either in a positive way. That is, one needn't say, "I promise to...(fill in the blank)" in order to have obligated one's self to a desired outcome. And we vote based on those "promises", implied or directly expressed.
Now, between two who promise the same thing, I would lean toward the one who provides the most details as to how the promise might be fulfilled. If both provide, I'd pick the one who makes the most sense in that regard.
I would also say, some promises are just stupid to make for any number of reasons. In the case of building a wall, that was a good one even without a specific plan laid out in great detail. In the case of "forgivng" student loan debt, there's nothing good about it. It's moronic in a number of ways already discussed.
2. What if his political advisors were less than ideal? Are you also referring to advisors who are not brought on to his campaign for the purpose? That is, pundits? I don't know that anyone who has not been in the president's chair can insist they "know" what it's like to be there, nor is it likely that ANY person who faced what Trump faced in terms of opposition from within and without could have done much better than he. I have to say, however, that allowing for your understanding of the situation being precise, it boggles the mind to consider just how much better things would have been than they were, had he more support, better people, etc.!
"In any case, my point remains. Had he been less profligate in his promises, more interested in the details of how he was going to achieve his promises, and found good political advisors, we wouldn't be having this conversation. FYI, Biden (who's not politically inexperienced) engages in exactly the same things."
This is comparing apples to dog shit (my apologies to dog shit). Biden was in politics and was always stupid. Trump wasn't and hasn't proven himself to be stupid. Not a good idea to support your position with such a lame comparison.
More...
"As far as the executive/legislative divide under Trump, I'd argue that his tendency to revile anyone who doesn't automatically agree 100% with what he wants probably made his life more difficult when it came to negotiating with congress."
Here's the problem I have with this angle: We can't know how the two sides actually engaged. Keep in mind that the whole of the GOP in Congress were not supportive of Trump. Those like McConnell, for example, were outright opponents. How did they act toward Trump? Trump typical lashes out at those who are critical of him, not just in disagreement. How willing were legislators to negotiate or compromise with him? I'd suggest it's unlikely the establishment types in the GOP were less than willing, and again, I'd suggest they have as much obligation to move his agenda forward as Trump does the agenda of the American people. The GOP, particularly the Senate, is not necessarily much better at pushing that agenda as is the Dem party.
Which president...particularly of the GOP...has had a contentious relationship with members of his own party to any extent akin to Trump? I can't think of one. Which example of such do you have in mind?
"Just like Biden supporters giving him credit for things he hasn't actually done, Trump doesn't get credit for "draining the swamp", simply because he really meant it and might have cause a few people a little concern."
I'm not giving Trump credit for failing to drain the swamp, so I don't know where that comes from. I'm simply not pretending his failure was solely the result of limitations of his abilities given the extraordinary amount of opposition he endured during his term in office. But I do indeed give him credit for fighting the good fight in that regard, regardless of the apparent lack of success. That's justified and rational, just as giving credit to Washington's army during the early periods when he failed to win battles against the British. One caveat I'll concede: we can't know with any certainty how hard he tried to do anything, including draining the swamp.
Art,
Your argument that Trump is just giving others what he gets from them is interesting. You're literally saying that the GOP must agree with everything Trump wants, or he's justified in going nuclear on them. The problem is that historically disagreement between executive and legislative was cause for negotiation and compromise, with Trump we got vitriol and name calling.
As for the rest, it's simply beating a dead horse.
https://youtu.be/aWbIEfypHjU
I have to say that it's important to be specific. There's negotiating with the legislature, and there's negotiating with one's own party within that legislature. To the latter, I believe that if they're true representatives of the people who elected them to represent them, then they are to a great extent obliged to support the agenda of the president also put in office by their constituents. The GOP members of the House and Senate were obliged to support the person their constituents elected to the presidency. This is not to say they are bound to absolutely every whim of the president who is of their party, but they are more obliged to support his policies then he is to support theirs by virtue of the fact that each are in office because of the same people (generally speaking).
So, which GOP legislature was in constant conflict with the agenda of a GOP president and how did that president respond? And I believe you'd be well served to remember how many establishment Republicans (Mitch McConnell for example) didn't like or want the guy and weren't the least bit stressed about expressing that in their actions. That's a far cry from simply disagreeing on policy.
Art,
That's is quite the assumption on your part. If legislators are elected to represent their district, then they are obligated to those voters, not to the party or president. Now, the DFL has done a great job over the years in enforcing that sort of grip on their members so that they all vote in lockstep. Whatever obligation you think might exist, that still doesn't mean that they can't/shouldn't/won't want to negotiate for things in legislation. If one applies your hunch in reverse, it would mean the the president is obligated to support or sign every single piece of legislation proposed by someone in their party, no matter what.
Well, as I recall, Trump responded with attacks on those who didn't bow to his every whim. But I guess expecting a president to act like an adult, and not throw a name calling tantrum when he doesn't get his way is just too much to hope for.
No assumption, but a recognition of those to whom both exec and legislative branches are beholden. And yeah, it cuts both ways if one considers both being of the same party are almost exactly supported by the same people. Sure, one candidate or another might have eked out a primary win, but once in office that candidate is still beholden to the constituents, including those who didn't vote for him. That's not to say disagreement can't happen, or shouldn't. But it isn't difficult to discover the position most favored by one's constituents and act accordingly. With that, for both branches to act in conflict with each other means one side is ignoring the will of the voters. That requires a compelling argument which will sway the voters. This is how it's meant to work. Not simply bitching that the president you don't like is attacking those who disagree, even if you choose to frame it as "those who didn't bow to his every whim". What kind of crap is that????
You attack Trump because he throws tantrums in a less professional or less polished manner. I'm not swayed by this line of reasoning. The petulance of those within the party in their constant obstruction of Trump's "every whim"....jeez...is every bit as concerning despite a Mitch McConnell not behaving in exactly the same manner in doing so. But those who opposed Trump provided little in the way of substantive argument, and when they did, like the arguments by the left, the consequences were not unfavorable. The arguments were crap the whole time. So I can forgive an unpolished guy resorting to name calling, as that is less than they had coming for their political obstinate bullshit.
Post a Comment