Promises to Keep?

Abstract

Do members of Congress follow through on the appeals they make in campaigns? In other words, do they keep their promises? These questions may be simple, but their answers lie at the heart of assessments of democratic legitimacy. In representative democracies, election campaigns are intended to serve as the central linchpin, providing a venue for debate about issues, educating citizens about the activities of their elected representatives, and informing legislators about the interests of their constituents. Campaigns are, as Riker (1996) argued, “a main point – perhaps the main point – of contact between officials and the populace over matters of public policy” (3). The existence of strong links between elections and governing is therefore one of the most fundamental prerequisites for accountability. In short, in healthy democracies, candidates in campaigns should provide voters with information about the issues and policies they will pursue in Congress, and, once in office, should follow through on these appeals. The prevailing view among the public and many pundits, though, is that politics in the United States falls far short of this ideal. Instead, many believe that campaigns have little issue content and have devolved into nothing more than opportunities for candidates to launch personal attacks at one another. Moreover, the advantages of incumbency seem to free legislators from any pressures to be accountable for their past records or sincere about their future plans.