We’re in a presidential election year in an environment where many are cynical about the political spectacle they watch unfold. Maybe you’re that person too.
An ethical and strategic challenge for political candidates is striking a balance between political aspirations and political reality. This is especially true for presidential candidates who need to inspire voters and distinguish themselves from their rivals. In a July 2019 Democratic debate, Senator Elizabeth Warren was pressed by former Rep. John Delaney on her proposals, such as Medicare for All. Delaney claimed they weren’t realistic. Warren retorted: “You know, I don't understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for President of the United States just to talk about what we really can't do and shouldn't fight for.”
Warren’s presidential bid may have ended, but her point merits attention. Aspirations are important, but she and others who support major policy changes like Medicare for All or cancellation of student debts should acknowledge that they are not easy things to accomplish. Failing to do so risks setting up another cycle of “but you promised and again Washington failed.” Our American experiment relies on people keeping faith in it. That faith is shaken by broken promises from our leaders. Too many promises of the ideal goal, with no clear explanation of how to get there from the reality, sets candidates up for failure. And if elected, their failure becomes more reason to believe that all of Washington – and all of politics – is meaningless show business at best and a House of Cards-esque dystopia at worst.
This is obviously not a politically convenient constraint. “Medicare for All and these are the moderate senators from my own party I’m going to try to persuade to overhaul our healthcare system” doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker, but it is critical to have a roadmap for delivering when you promise voters that their lives will be different if they elect you.
If a Democrat is elected President in November 2020, at best they would be joined by a Democratic House and narrow Democratic majority in the Senate. There is, of course, no guarantee that Republicans will not keep the Senate or win back the House, and even a Democratic majority does not ensure unanimous Democratic support. Republicans faced this scenario after the 2016 election. Their 2017 push to repeal the Affordable Care Act showed how difficult it is to get 50 out of 52 senators to vote for a policy that will have a dramatic impact on the healthcare system, even a policy that Republicans had uniformly campaigned on for seven years.
No elected official rides into town with absolute power. As every president has learned to their frustration, policies do not change just because of a campaign promise – if they did, President Obama would have passed serious gun control legislation and President Trump would have repealed the Affordable Care Act. New members of Congress quickly learn they are only one voice among 100 in the Senate and 435 in the House. This country has a long tradition of electing Presidents and Congresses from opposite parties – and not everyone within each party will always toe the line.
Senator Warren is right that candidates and elected officials ought to challenge us to move toward an ideal (however they define it). But they need to temper that ideal with a dose of the real.
The saying goes that politics is the art of the possible. It’s also a mark of a good leader to draw people’s imaginations toward higher ideals. Honestly articulating the challenge of accomplishing those goals is a fundamental ethical question for political candidates and those crafting their ideas and message.
Conor Kilgore is a student in The George Washington University’s School of Media and Public Affairs and an associate of the Project on Ethics in Political Communication.