Presidential Campaigns Are Not Referenda On Everything
October 22, 2011 6 Comments
Everyone knows that Herman Cain, in the process of campaigning for President, has proposed a “9-9-9″ tax system. Everyone also knows that if you like the idea of such a system in all its particulars, you’re ok to vote for Herman Cain, but if you see anything wrong with this system, you can’t vote for Herman Cain. After all, a vote for Herman Cain is a vote for “9-9-9″!
This strikes me as an extremely dumb and annoying feature of Presidential campaigns: people treat them as referenda on whatever proposal the candidates make, about whatever.
Some basic Civics 101: U.S. Presidents do not dictate the tax system in the U.S. That is not part of the job description or powers. If Herman Cain assumes office in January 2013, it is simply not the case that the “9-9-9″ tax system triggers itself into effect automatically, or at the stroke of his pen. Yet, people treat his candidacy and campaign as if precisely that would happen.
If you just sit down to make a realistic assessment of “9-9-9″ in the context of modern U.S. political life you will fairly quickly and inescapably come to the conclusion that it is DOA. Congress would never vote such a thing through as-is. The permanent bureaucracy would not allow it and it is too radical a change to simply ‘implement’. Or at the very least, a massive political shift would have to occur to prep the way, over the course of many years, before it was even thinkable.
So, no, a vote for Herman Cain is not a vote for “9-9-9″. It is a vote for a guy to whom “9-9-9″ seems like a good idea. That is a very different thing, because in reality, Congress is just not going to send the President a “9-9-9″ bill in January 2013. However, a President will be sent this or that tax revision or change, and maybe you think Cain’s tax ideas give you some clue as to which directions he’ll accept and which he’ll veto. Or not. But this has nothing to do with whether you like “9-9-9″ in particular. Again: “9-9-9″ is not on the table and not destined to be anytime in the near future.
This defect of President campaigns shows up when it comes to other issues as well. Just to give a well-worn example, allow me to remind you that Whether Or Not Abortions Are Legal is not a facet of American life that a U.S. President dictates.
Good point. I think this applies to a lot of things the candidates say even past big things like “9-9-9.” After all, how many things did Obama say during his election campaign that have nothing whatsoever to do with what the government is doing these days? I think debates and campaigns do a better job of revealing the current general beliefs and direction of the overall party than it reveals any specific tagline that is likely to be connected to specific government outcomes under any given presidency. Of course, the problem is we still have to pick one of these specific candidates…
If a presidential candidate with a radical platform (fire every bureaucrat, strip down the tax code, throw out the federal register) won the election his radical platform would be implemented.
No major party presidential candidates run on radical platforms – they run with the message “I will run the [existing] government better than the other guy and push in some minor direction (usually towards expanding the power of the bureaucracy in service of a goal that is important to the people who voted for that candidate (like creating a new “healthcare” bureaucracy or a new “airport security” bureaucracy))”.
The only candidates who run on radical platforms are those who get weeded out of the primaries early. It is speculation to argue what would happen if someone like that won.
If a presidential candidate with a radical platform (fire every bureaucrat, strip down the tax code, throw out the federal register) won the election his radical platform would be implemented.
I really don’t see how. Who would implement it?
Presumably his associates – the shadow government.
If you propose something as radical as wiping out the federal civil service and you don’t have a shadow government you either have zero chance of winning an election on the platform of wiping out the civil service or don’t really plan on actually trying to implement the plan.
I see what you’re saying.
Pingback: In Praise Of Not Having A “Plan” « Rhymes With Cars & Girls