Sunday, June 29, 2008
HOW DISCREDITABLE WAS IT FOR OBAMA TO BREAK PROMISES ON PUBLIC FINANCING?
In spite of popular rigidity about the force of rules and in particular the rule about promising, these rules are subject to exceptions, as rules are generally. St Thomas makes a special virtue about recognizing the exceptions and acting upon them. But it is too easy to award oneself the exceptions. Obama, breaking both his promise to go along with the restrictions associated with public financing and his promise to discuss public financing with McCain, cannot escape some discredit. The commentators, however, treated Obama with undue moral rigidity. Not only did they not recognize that in some circumstances departing from the rule about promising would be acceptable. They did not think beyond the box of credit vs. discredit. On the PBS Newshour, Shields as well as Brooks neglected to consider creditable arguments that Obama might have put forward for breaking his promises. One is that he was justified in taking precautions against what McCain or McCain’s people might do with well-financed 527 operations. To set aside his own mass-support would have been quixotic and a betrayal as well. Another argument was that in raising the money that he did from mass-support with small contributions had in an unexpected way achieved what the public financing arrangements aimed at – less influence by the big moneyed interests. The issue of discredit is thus a very mixed one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Professor Braybrooke, with great respect, I must disagree with your application of fine-grained ethical analysis in this situation. Commentators should pile on the indignation and discredit for Obama’s broken campaign-finance promise. We should keep in mind that no matter how boldly stated, the pronouncements of pundits will, in sum, constitute no more than a swat on the wrist. Obama broke his public-financing pledge not as the result of some deeply considered moral-reflection. He did it because it was worth it. Being labeled by some in the media as a promise-breaker is a very small transaction fee to pay for ready access to hundreds of millions of dollars. As I see it, the real problem here is not that Obama broke his promise, but that he made the promise the first place. He did not announce his pledge because he perceived it as heartfelt, solemn obligation, but because it was expedient at the time. If not for the “moral rigidity” of pundits, what hope is there of signaling to politicians that we, as the electorate, care that we are dealt with squarely when campaigned to?
Promise breaking matters most to those who counted on a candidate to keep his promise.
Justifying Obama's decision to break his promise by saying it was a political move that helps him win does nothing for voters who supported Obama because he made that promise. Now that Obama has changed course, they may find an Obama victory is no longer as valuable as they had previously thought. While Obama's decision to forgo public financing may be the correct one, he could still lose credit with certain voters for betraying their trust.
However, I think the voters who would resent him for breaking his promise, those who care about campaign finance, are likely to give him credit for his innovative fundraising and view his candidacy as a positive step for their pet issue.
My argument probably works better for voters who care about Obama's FISA promise than voters who care about his campaign financing promise.
I don't think Obama actually broke any promises or contradicted anything that he had said. He always left himself wriggle room. However, he did clearly say that **in principle** he was in favor of public financing. I don't think it is accurate, therefore, to say that he lied or went back on his word. However, he clearly did change course and perhaps even misled his supporters. I certainly find him less attractive now that he has changed course on public financing and FISA. Even more troubling to me is the way he has shifted from supporting Palestinians in Gaza to making friendly with AIPAC. And the way that he has said **nothing** about Darfur in months.
So while I disagree with some of the criticisms pundits (especially right wing pundits) have made of Obama regarding his decision to give up public financing--he didn't lie, he didn't break a (explicit) commitment, I do agree with Eric and Sean on what I take to be their most important points. Obama's shift of course was unethical and deserving of indignation and it also undermines the prospective value of his electoral victory.
Post a Comment