When a businessman becomes a politician, governance risks turning transactional. On September 9th, just yesterday, President Donald J. Trump promised a $5,000 payment to American households, conditional on his party winning the midterm elections. We all know he hates losing. One can only imagine what goes on in his head when he sees that he is not having a clean and easy victory in the Middle East with Iran.
Anyway, that detail about the midterms matters because it will reveal a lot about what voters think of his government in his second term in office. The promise transforms public policy into a contingent offer tied directly to electoral success. Will the other side of the political aisle benefit from that promise? What about people who are not loyal to him, people who vote against him, liberals and progressives? Instead of a universal commitment grounded in long‑term stewardship, it becomes a conditional transaction dependent on partisan victory. That is clearly what can be seen as wrong with all of this. Like most politicians do, this promise is just one made to gain support and then forgotten once victory comes knocking at the door.
Such promises raise serious questions about the principles of good governance, the role of public trust, and whether political leadership should rely on electoral incentives rather than institutional responsibility.
In that speech, people cheered and some salivated for the $5,000. Some already imagine how that money would be spent in an economy where gas prices have exceeded record highs, with Brent now trading above $106 and the WTI $101 per barrel. That should be concerning to the government whether the midterm outcome is in or out of their favor.
But that is all you need to know.
No comments:
Post a Comment