whyroots

As may already be evident, I am a fan of the Economist and normally agree with its opinions (and often plagiarize them in one for or another).  I find the Economist to be more practical than political and, as far as American politics are concerned have agreed with their last two votes in presidential elections (John Kerry and Barack Obama). That said, in 2000, they endorsed President Bush.  So why did they make this misjudgment (I see the subsequent endorsement of John Kerry as proof that they too see it as a misjudgment)?

I blame their misjudgment on the disconnect between Presidents campaign promises and their actual deeds.  Bush was a "compassionate conservative" who was opposed to nation building (see the Daily Show debate between President Bush vs. Governor Bush).  Obviously his choices as president did not match his promises.

Now, having just finished a big campaign full of all sorts of promises, we have to ask, will history repeat itself?  Will President Obama and Senator Obama be able to have as full a debate as President Bush and Governor Bush?  If William Kristol´s recent New York Times Op-Ed is any clue I think we may be in for another interesting debate.

So, my question then is, should we care? Do campaign promises need to be fulfilled or are they just thought exercises so the public can try to get an idea of how a candidate thinks?

-- Ottavio Siani

Leave a Reply