|
THE POLITICIAN—New York’s Mayor Mike Bloomberg—handed out a status report of every single one of his campaign promises.
You probably heard nothing about this. After all, the nation’s attention was diverted last week by such weighty matters as learning which woman Evan “Joe Millionaire” Marriott would choose (and then lie to); finding out which bachelor Trista Rehn would decide to spend the rest of her life (or at least the rest of the month) with, and determining whether someone could be considered “hot” if she (or he) had a chest smaller than 40 inches.
But what Bloomberg did is virtually unprecedented. Months ago, this billionaire CEO with no prior political experience ordered a high-level aide to comb through every campaign speech, every debate transcript, every media account and every one of those position papers that no one ever reads (except high-level aides-and only when forced) in order to compile a comprehensive list of every promise. There were 380.
After a month of review (and hurried, last-minute promise-keeping), the mayor was able to say that he had “done” or “launched” 80 percent of his promises, while 14.5 percent remain “not done”—most famously his pledge not to raise taxes. Another 5.5 percent—which the mayor himself called “bad ideas”—are euphemistically labeled “reconsidered.”
It would be easy to see this report as more self-service than public service. Firstly, there was the setting: the Vegas Diner in Bensonhurst, a neighborhood of New York that’s still populated by the kind of fast-talking, street-smart cabbies, goombas and wannabes, and colorful cops, firefighters and sanitation workers that increasingly exist only in movies.
It’s the only place where a billionaire like Mike Bloomberg would meet a guy like Tony Santa Maria, a loading dock supervisor. Bloomberg did, in fact, meet Santa Maria on the campaign trail in 2001, but Santa Maria refused to shake his hand during a “meet-and-greet” because, he said, “Politicians always come out here when they want votes and then they never come back.” But the day after Bloomberg won, he went to Santa Maria’s subway station, and, sure enough, there was Tony Santa Maria waiting for him.
“He kept is promise to me and that’s all I care about,” Santa Maria said. So on Monday, naturally, Santa Maria was standing by the corn muffins watching Bloomberg discuss his other campaign promises. Unfortunately for the mayor, reporters tend to see the presence of a civilian-especially one who says “dese” and “dose” instead of “these” and “those”-as an excuse to dismiss the event as a mere photo op. One of the reporters even ate an order of eggs and bacon while the mayor discussed his report.
So the next day’s papers offered very little coverage. We in the media may complain about politicians who lie, but we can’t be pulled away from breakfast to praise those who tell the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yet Bloomberg’s “campaign accountability report” is, indeed, a master stroke. Even more impressive than the mayor’s 80-percent “success” rate, is the enormity of the list itself. By not limiting itself to the top 10 promises, the report is no mere press release, but a window into the hundreds of unheralded things that are on an elected official’s agenda, everything from opening a Hindu senior center to taking inventory of the city’s sources of greenhouse gasses to making sure doctors in public hospitals can be reached by email (because we all know you can never get them on the damn phone). It’s those promises—not the obvious vows to keep the streets safe and the parks clean—that make up the nuts and bolts of government.
And that is what makes Bloomberg’s report so revolutionary. Even so, don’t hold your breath hoping it will be evolutionary. When he unveiling the report, Bloomberg called upon all elected officials to do the same-but that rumbling you heard sometime last week was the sound of all the other elected officials stampeding in the opposite direction.
In fact, when I called New York governor George Pataki to see if he would follow the mayor’s lead, his spokeswoman answered by saying, “The governor thinks the mayor is doing a great job.” She then paused tellingly and went off the record-both of which helped to undermine her on-the-record praise. Going back on the record, she started reading a press release of the governor’s “accomplishments” and reminding me that Pataki won re-election by “running on his record” (and running away from the state’s $9-billion budget deficit, but why quibble?).
The point is that politicians simply can’t be bothered to give an accurate accounting of their campaign promises. In California, a non-partisan group called the California Voter Foundation has been trying to track campaign promises for several election cycles, but has instead been buried under an avalanche of campaign press releases.
Before every election, the CVF asks candidates to list their top-three priorities. Then, four years later, the now-incumbent is asked to report back on those three issues. Results have been pretty much useless.
In 1998, for example, Gray Davis said his priorities were, “1. Restore our public schools to greatness...2. Implement HMO reforms to protect the rights of all patients. 3. Develop an inclusive administration to unite California’s diverse population.” Four years later, his “2002 progress statement” gave voters little hard evidence: “When I was elected governor in 1998, I promised to move California forward. Over the past three years, I’ve worked hard to make a difference in people’s lives. And we have made substantial progress on education, healthcare and bringing Californians together.” In case you don’t speak Clubhouse Pol-ese, I’ll translate: “Blah, blah, obfuscation, blah, blah, blah, blah, platitude, blah, blah, subterfuge.”
“Campaigns generally hope that promises will be forgotten,” concluded Kim Alexander, the CVF president.
There did seem to be a chance for political accountability with the Contract for America back in 1994. You can argue about the actual issues on Newt Gingrich’s list—I mean, prohibiting welfare to mothers who happen to be under 18 doesn’t sound like a good idea for the newborn—but every item on the Contract was, indeed, brought to a vote in the promised time frame. Yet no one tried it again. And Gingrich didn’t even return my calls to figure out why.
What’s worse, it’s getting increasingly difficult to even find out what a candidate is promising. According to Project Vote Smart—another non-partisan group that collects and publishes candidates’ stated positions on the issues-fewer candidates are actually answering the questionnaires. In 1996, 70 percent of all candidates told Project Vote Smart where they stood. Last year, it was down to 50 percent.
The reason? “The national parties tell candidates not to respond because it will ’dilute the message’ or give their opponent fodder for a negative ad,” said Richard Kimball, Project Vote Smart president. “But you can’t claim to be taking a stand if you are simultaneously hoping no one knows what your stand is. If candidates stop responding to questionnaires like ours, national elections will turn into a crapshoot.”
Aren’t they already? Even when the politicians tell you where they stand, can you ever believe them? Case in point, I remember a candidate who went on national TV in 2000 and said, “I don’t want to be the world’s policeman, I want to be the world’s peacemaker.” He also said that “strong relations in Europe is in our nation’s interest.” And he said that “our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that’s why we have to be humble.” He also said that “I don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called nation-building.” And he also said, “I support instant background checks at gun shows.”
That candidate was George W. Bush. So much for campaign promises.
Gersh Kuntzman is also a columnist for The New York Post. His website is at www.gersh.tv
© 2003 Newsweek, Inc.
| |
Perspectives
