OPINION:
After months of twists and turns, the presidential campaign has been reduced to its essentials. In nine weeks, about 500,000 voters in seven swing states will decide who will be the next president. The voters are finally facing their choices: Keep going with Vice President Kamala Harris down the same path we have been traveling for most of the last 15 years, or vote for former President Donald Trump and change of uncertain magnitude and direction.
The candidates themselves are not making the choice any easier, as they drift in and out of policy positions that few voters believe and the candidates themselves probably don’t believe. Is Ms. Harris now really in favor of plentiful domestic production of oil and natural gas, and against gun confiscation and the erasure of the southern border? Is Mr. Trump now really in favor of tax credits for electric vehicles and more abortions?
That all seems unlikely, which is why voters don’t take them seriously. To address this difference between what is being said and what is believed, the candidates need to describe the actions they would take if elected. This would at least help voters keep score as to who intends to actually do something about a particular challenge versus who intends to have sentiments about a particular challenge.
Committing to action is not easy for any candidate for elected office, mostly because specific promises tend to clarify. They allow people to make informed decisions concerning the issues they care about, and they provide a peek into a candidate’s genuine beliefs. That can be dangerous for a campaign.
For example, Ms. Harris’ few forays into specificity have not gone well, making it clear that she favors higher taxes and federal food rationing. Similarly, Mr. Trump is probably going to regret spiraling into right-to-life issues at some point.
Done right, however, specificity can be a candidate’s friend, allowing him or her to draw distinctions and employ nuance. For example, what if Mr. Trump concluded that we should all be able to agree that abortion should be as rare as possible and that mothers should be given the support — whether health care, educational or simply financial — they need to make the right decision? Suppose further that he committed to use the full resources of the federal government to ensure that mothers are encouraged to carry their children to term, much as the federal government now exerts steady influence to reduce smoking.
At least we would be talking about something material rather than something ephemeral.
Or, if you prefer a different example, one of the candidates could choose to directly address the contextual overhang of this election: the distinct possibility that the winners will use the legal system against the losers. What if one of the candidates committed to a general amnesty for everyone who violated campaign laws, foreign registration laws or whatever?
There is plenty of historical precedent in the range wars of the West and, more obviously, in the aftermath of the Civil War. The rebels were not hunted down and executed. Not even their leaders were punished.
Such a commitment would change the tone and tenor of the campaign immediately and give the candidate who committed to it the moral and political high ground. It would also be the right thing to do for a nation that needs to step away from the abyss.
• Michael McKenna is a contributing editor for The Washington Times.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.