Trump has surely made a lot of promises. Maybe it is time to analyze how voters really think about promises and the failure to keep them. Some thoughts.
1. Many voters treat affirmative promises as symbolic rather than specific, regardless of how specific the words appear to be.
Thus, the promise to build a wall is not expected to be kept by a physical wall. Rather it would be kept by sending a strong unqualified message of exclusion, accompanied by strong acts of the kind others would not perform.
Moreover, the phrases that go with the promise, like “beautiful,” can often be designed to signal intentional use of hyperbole. That the hyperbole often generates overreaction on the other side is a further plus.
In other words, such promises are easy to wriggle out of, and effective at winning elections
2. On the other hand, voters take “negative promises” i.e. promises to not do or cause something specific, very seriously indeed.
These tend to be the promises that, if broken, sink presidencies.
When George Bush senior said: “Read my lips no new taxes,” it would have been far better for him, but not the country, if he had meant it.
Although some have argued that Johnson did not promise to keep the US out of Vietnam, all agree that the public thought that he did. Thus his failure to keep this perceived promise doomed his presidency and much else.
Most recently, Obama’s promise that no one would “lose coverage” under Obamacare, while only technically incorrect, when shown to be inacccurate, was one of the major reasons that public support did not increase significantly after implementation.
Breaches of such “negative promises” are obviously much harder to wriggle out of, because of their specificity, and because they can not usually be said to have been met in other ways. For example, the phrase “lose coverage” could not be redefined in the public mind to “have appropriate coverage available.” (The dishonesty of the media coverage, while breathtaking, obviously hurt, and it is illustrative that revealing the dishonesty did not mitigate the damage much.
Moreover, the breach of these “negative promises” serves to undercut not only credibility, but often perceptions of competence and reliability, and that does ever further harm.
3. There are advantage for candidates of promises treated by voters as symbolic rather than specific.
For a candidate, having a promise treated as symbolic is obviously a huge advantage. It means that you can get a value, a goal, an alignment of perception, communicated to your potential voters. Moreover, it means that many voters will not think through whether they really want the specific to happen. This cycle there is so much evidence of voters who want their candidate to promise something, because it expresses their anger, their need to be heard, or their tribalism, without really wanting it to be done. The obvious example is Obamacare. While many of us would regard voting for a candidate who promises something you do not want to happen as hard to understand, not so for many of these voters.
Moreover, the really skilled candidate can present a specific promise, knowing that different voting blocks will read it as a different metaphor, thereby having their cakes eaten in many flavors. That can be achieved by the right “dog whistle words,” by techniques such as careful selection of delivery location, staging, surrogates, etc.
4. But there are also problems, for those then seeking to govern, in promises treated by voters as symbolic rather than specific.
The problem comes when you have to govern. It will turn out you have made a lot of maybe inconsistent promises. While inconsistent promises that are perceived as specific are more of a problem than those perceived as metaphorical, even the metaphorical ones can create problems. The trick is to find ways to deliver specific “achievements” that show compliance with the symbolic versions of promises, while minimizing their overall lack of consistency. That is not so easy
5. To attack failure to keep affirmative promises, its a mistake to focus only on the specifics of the promise, unless you can persuade that the specific failure itself is symbolic of the failure to do what was generally promised.
The Mexico wall promise is an obvious example. Voters do not really care about the specifics of a barrier. But they care about their jobs and getting back the perception that the USA is for them first. Failures on either front will be potentially disastrous for Trump. But the “Us first” failure opens him up to attack more from the right.
Homework: Using the criteria introduced above analyze the promise that follows, from the Washington post list (#282):
“Together we will make American wealthy and prosperous again. We will make America strong again. We will make America safe again. And we will make America great again.”
No credit given for analyzing the obvious false assumptions in the promise.
For Extra Credit: Using the criteria, apply to all the 276 promises listed here.