Donald Trump’s “Means-Less Ends”

At a recent campaign rally, Donald Trump responded to a question about terrorist in the United States by saying: “You don’t want to hear how I’d handle it…I would get myself in so much trouble with them, we are going to handle it so tough. And you know what we’re going to do? We’re going to get it stopped.” (Raleigh, NC; 12/14/15)

This is just the latest in a litany of outcomes promised by the frontrunner that lacks any explanation regarding how it would be achieved. While it’s not news for a politician to avoid policy specifics on the campaign trail, it is potentially problematic for our democracy that both the candidate and his supporters seem to revel in an end without a means. When the balloon of these false hopes gets popped by the reality of pragmatic politics it can lead to cynicism and apathy towards our governing system and increased partisan animosity.

But, before I get to all the doom and gloom, a reasonable argument could be made that both Trump and his supporters are behaving quite rationally; even if they don’t realize it. With respect to the former, scholars in political psychology have demonstrated that emotional appeals are often more effective than intellectual ones. Who wants to hear the nuances of your 14-point plan when you can get swept into the magic of how we’re going to “make America great again?” Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan understood this and both were still largely able to fulfill most of their ill-specified campaign promises once in office. The fact that Republicans have thus far been rewarding Trump, and that some of our most beloved presidents are the most egregious offenders in this regard, serves to validate this rhetorical approach.

One might also reasonably deduce that it is wise legislative strategy for candidates to avoid getting bogged down in specific policy commitments so they have the flexibility once in office to consider a variety of proposals. (Franklin Roosevelt’s Kitchen Sink approach to the New Deal is a clear example). On the other hand, more sophisticated voters may recognize what presidential scholars have long known — that the president’s influence over the legislative process is largely relegated to an agenda setting role at best. While the president can get behind the bully pulpit to raise the public’s perception that a particular problem should be dealt with (which subsequently pressures congress to address the issue), the policy specifics of how it will be dealt with is largely unaffected by such rhetoric. Perhaps it is logical to elect our leaders based on their ability to articulate an inspiring policy vision and leave the policy-wonkery to congress.

Having said all that, I think the consequences of these “means-less ends” far outweigh the hypothetical rationale I described. When a politician articulates and is elected on the back of a broad vision for the future and some level of specificity about how to get there, the public pressure is on congress to not only act upon that agenda but to use those specifics as a framework for an eventual bill. In contrast, failing to provide a means to the desired end is more likely to result in no action as congress is unable to reach consensus on how to achieve those goals; and here is where we run into long term issues for our democracy. Public recognition that they were enticed by the pragmatically unattainable is likely to renew cynicism and apathy about our political system generally and exacerbates an already troubling trend of declining trust in government. This means, that fewer and fewer people will participate in our democratic processes which in turn results in less accountability for our political leaders. The failure to attain the unattainable may also lead some to direct their anger at the partisan opposition whom they blame for impeding progress; thus feeding the flames of the polarized finger-pointing that has made this last congress the least productive of our history.

Now before you write this off as the irrelevant ravings of some fringe academic, I should note that while I certainly do have strong partisan leanings, the rise of vague promises is not restricted to the Republican Party or its current leader in the polls. One could reasonably argue that Obama’s Hope and Change campaign of 2008 and 2012 are just as guilty of this and that it has perhaps contributed to the growing cynicisms, apathy, and partisan animosity that have enveloped the nation. While politicians of both parties have a responsibility to be sincere in their campaign rhetoric, the public also has a responsibility to hold their feet to the fire and electorally punish those who fail to demonstrate a means to their ends.