On the one hand, there is no reason for the opposition not to criticize President Obama for failing to fulfill a campaign promise. That’s part of the politico-partisan game.
On the other, however, candidates makes dumb promises all of the time and one has to filter out the ones that are nonsense from the one’s that aren’t. The idea that ever last aspect of the health care reform legislative process was going to be aired on C-SPAN was always a ludicrous one. Candidate Obama said on the campaign trail that "all of this will be done on C-SPAN in front of the public" (source)—although exactly what that was supposed to mean is unclear to me. I can’t imagine it was supposed to mean that every, single, solitary aspect of the process would be televised. At a minimum it was the kind of campaign promise1 that one has to know couldn’t be taken to be some sort of 100% guarantee (if anything because the decision for what would be on C-SPAN isn’t in the president’s control). Further, even if floor action is on C-SPAN, that doesn’t mean that the numerous informal negotiations that are part of legislating (not to mention staff work, etc.) cannot, by definition, be on C-SPAN.
One thing I really do want to underscore, however, is that having a conference committee would not have translated into everything being on C-SPAN. Indeed, conference committee proceedings are more obscure than the normal legislative process.
I would also note that even if the whole thing was on C-SPAN, I find it rather unlikely that most of those currently up-in-arms over the issues would be watching.
Sphere: Related Content- Yes, shock of all shocks, everything that candidates say on the campaign trail do not come to pass! [↩]
January 7th, 2024 at 10:00 am
You must admit something has gone wrong when even Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin was kept “in the dark” over what would be in the health care reform bill?
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/71851-secret-compromise-durbin-says-hes-in-the-dark
With as much public distrust with Congress it would be smarter politics to keep the public as much in the loop as possible. Instead, Democrats have chosen to get a bill past as fast as possible.
January 7th, 2024 at 10:27 am
I have little doubt that there are areas to critique here. However, that is true of every major legislative process, so it is hardly unique to this one (which is really my broader point).
The C-SPAN thing specifically 1) was a silly promise in the first place if taken to its logical conclusion, and 2) is nothing more than a political/media “gotcha” at the moment.
January 7th, 2024 at 10:52 am
Dear Steven,
While I generally agree with your point there are too things that bother me about what the President did. First, I believe his pledge was naive and that he is one of the least experience politicians to hold the Presidency. The openness problem just keeps reminding me of how little experience he really has. Second, like Bush 41’s read me lips promise, occasionally I politician gets known on the campaign trail for something. President Obama was thought to be a transformational leader and his pledge to open government was part of the transformation and his lack of openness might be a bigger thing because of it.
January 7th, 2024 at 12:38 pm
Mark,
In fairness, there isn’t a politician alive who hasn’t made a silly, simplistic, or even naive promise on the campaign trail, and as far as example of naivety go, this is a pretty mild one. And I really consider the whole “least experienced politicians” business to be more a talking point of the right than a valid criticism.
The no new taxes pledge was a whole lot more specific policy-wise (and ideology-wise) than this C-SPAN thing.
January 11th, 2024 at 1:04 am
The thing isn’t that the final negotiations will be behind closed doors: the issue is that nearly all negotiations have been behind closed doors. Votes have been taken on bills that had handwritten corrections to them. There has been a lot of coordination, but the ham-handedness of it all made it clear that there were several back room deals. And, famously, Bill Nelson got a sweet deal and then had to defend himself from attacks by his own voters.
You’re hearing about it how because some people took a full twelve months to realize what was going on.
January 11th, 2024 at 7:09 am
Max,
I agree that there is a lot to criticize in this process. My overall point, however, is that those critiques are of the way we legislate in general (deals like Nelson’s are not new, for example), rather than some specific and special case that we are dealing with here.
The Nelson deal, btw, was known to the public pretty much as soon as it happened.
January 11th, 2024 at 7:26 pm
It may well be that this is how we legislate in general. But doesn’t that weaken the argument of Hope and Change? Why bother promising Change (TM) if there is absolutely no effort to implement it?
No, I was not fooled by the promise when it was made. I had already determined that Obama not only will lie when there are important things on the line (say, firing an Inspector General who is investigating a political ally and then claiming that the IG was senile), but he will even lie when there’s nothing on the line (like promising fully-open negotiations in the legislature even though his career as a legislator should have taught him that was a nonstarter). But it’s by pointing out the fundamental lack of honesty that will stop the more egregious policies.
Remember when Michele Obama promised that she would be an effective advocate for military spouses? What happened to that promise ( http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2009/06/unfulfilled.html )?
January 11th, 2024 at 8:18 pm
All well and good, but I never claimed to be the defender of Hope, Change or any specific promises. Indeed, I referred to the promise in question as “dumb” (and in a follow up comment I called it “silly”).