Slate's Bizbox



Trailhead: A campaign blog.



PRINTDISCUSS
  • « Prev | Main | Next »

    The Soft Pander

    Barack Obama doesn’t say he would scrap the consent decree under which the federal government has overseen the Teamsters for the past two decades. He just says that he’d start to think about possibly scrapping it.  This maneuver—the soft pander—has been a staple of the 2008 campaign, particularly for Obama. Don’t make any promises; just hint at them. Load them up with so many ifs that you won’t get accused of breaking them when things don’t quite work out.

    The Wall Street Journal reported this morning that Obama got the Teamsters endorsement after telling them he supported scaling down a federal oversight policy instituted years ago to crack down on the union’s mob ties. But on Good Morning America, Obama denied making a “blanket commitment.” He said, "The union has done a terrific job cleaning house" and promised he’d "examine" the issue as president. The Obama campaign and the Teamsters both say the candidate hasn’t contradicted himself, and that anyway no president would have the power to lift the decree. According to Teamster spokesman Bret Caldwell, “closure to the consent decree will come through the legal process, not politics.” If that’s the case, then Obama’s blowing smoke when he promises to “examine” the issue. Hillary Clinton is doing the same when she says it’s time to “turn the page” on the decree. The trick is to give the impression you’d shake things up without making any concrete promises about how.

    The candidates took a similar approach to NAFTA. As the crucial Ohio vote approached, Obama and Clinton didn’t promise to abolish the trade agreement. They said they would “renegotiate” it, which could mean as little as tweaking labor and environmental standards while leaving incentives for downsizing and outsourcing intact. When Obama’s economic adviser reportedly urged Canadian officials not to take Obama’s rhetoric too seriously, the NAFTA purists pounced.

    Same with the debate over withdrawal from Iraq. No one really thinks Obama could withdraw all combat troops within 18 months. When Samantha Power, an advisor to Obama on foreign policy, called Obama’s withdrawal plan a “best case scenario”—an honest acknowledgment that no one knows what Iraq will look like in 2009—she was forced out. (Calling Clinton a “monster” didn’t help.) Here the fudge factor isn’t—indeed, may not be—uttered out loud. But everyone knows it’s there.

    Vague campaign promises are nothing new, but Obama has elevated them to a fine art. Maybe he might possibly think about considering whether or not he should hypothetically be more decisive. Or maybe not.

About Christopher Beam

  • Christopher Beam is a Slate political reporter.
<May 2008>
SMTWTFS
27282930123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
1234567
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Syndication