Words and Promises

Will the American presidential candidates keep their promises? Thanks to computer analysis, it is possible to find out.

The American presidential campaigns are accompanied by speeches designed to offer political choices. But, once elected, will the president keep his promises? If you ask the average person, the response may well be negative, but is this really the case?

To answer this question, F. Petry and B. Colette, of Laval University, Quebec, have empirically tested the correlation between electoral commitments and governmental decisions. Between the years 1944 and 2000, American administrations have kept about 65 percent of their campaign promises, compared to 72 percent in Canada and the United Kingdom. The lower level in the United States is explained by the presence of oppositional forces. For this reason, President Obama wasn’t able to impose his legislative agenda in Congress, where, in November 2010, Republicans constituted the majority.

Despite these limitations, candidates for the White House will try to maintain their commitments. Keeping one’s promises would also allow for better starting conditions during the next elections. In fact, the opposition readily highlights significant differences between the decisions that were taken and the promises that were made. In addition, if this commitment corresponds to a particularly important issue for a party, the chance of that party fulfilling its promise increases. Issues of education and health are associated more with the Democrats, while issues of national defense, crime and drugs are more aligned with the Republicans.

Speech Analysis

In order to identify the wording and recurring promises of the two candidates, we have analyzed their electoral speeches using computer tools (78 for Obama, 23 for Romney). Despite these different amounts, our tools bring to light the significant terms used by the two contenders for the White House.

One of the first tasks of the Republican candidate was to position himself in relation to his adversary, President Obama. Mitt Romney will surely critique the economic standing of the outgoing president’s administration (“failure”) and stress the unemployment rate (“chronic high unemployment”), his economic policy (“attack business”), the loss of AAA (“AAA credit rating”) and the strong inclination toward expenditures (“Government-Centered Society,” “Obamacare”).

The Republican candidate also clearly identifies his economic intentions: The terms relied upon were “free enterprise system” or “economic freedom.” This liberal credo is completed by his intention to reduce debt (“less debt”) and reduce the federal budget (“smaller government”). They recognize the bureaucratic sluggishness (“burdensome regulation,” “bureaucratic”) and the necessity of negotiating a new trade agreement with Latin America.

Electoral discourse relies equally upon appeals to patriotic sentiment (“nation in history,” “soul of America”) and the idea that a positive perspective (“land of opportunity”) drives Americans toward a better life. The religious sentiment stays firm with Mitt Romney (“nation under God,” “God bless America”).

Finally, on the level of form, the style of speeches by the Republican candidate rests on references to the future (“will”) and on a sense of necessity (must “stop spending,” “provide,” “attract”). He utilizes the question mark and the masculine pronoun (“he”). In the Democratic camp, people insist less on the pronoun “we” (of “Yes, we can!”) and orient their language more toward the use of “you” and “she” (do female voters really lean towards the Democrats?).

Democratic Vocabulary

More precisely, the president must explain the country’s economic standing. Recurring vocabulary includes “because,” the dollar sign and the word “deficit.” As Commander in Chief, the president speaks of the promise he fulfilled to pull troops out of Iraq (“war in Iraq”) and of his war on terror (“bin Laden,” “war in Afghanistan”). In Obama’s discourse, we find equal mention of the reforms he undertook (“Wall Street reform”), despite the difficult economic environment (“worst economic crisis,” “worst financial crisis”) and Congressional opposition (“Republicans in Congress”). This last aspect allows the outgoing president to renew his promise to raise taxes for the wealthy (“wealthiest Americans”) and to reduce taxes (“tax cut”) for the middle class. Barack Obama frequently underlines his desire to guarantee equal opportunity (“fair shot,” “fair share,” “same rules”). The president renews his commitment to education (“college education,” “higher education”) and renewable energy (“clean energy,” “homegrown energy”).

If we compare the 2008 and 2012 campaigns, we find that Barack Obama was emphasizing the country’s economic standing under his predecessor (“Bush administration”), underlining economic problems (“Wall Street,” “housing crisis,” “Main Street”). His critique also touched on Washington’s power (“Washington lobbyists”) and the necessity for profound change (“real change”). In terms of promises, we once again find health coverage (“health care”), the elevation of certain taxes (“capital gain tax”) and the need to save the economy (“rescue plan”). If the Democratic candidate spoke of creating millions of new jobs in 2008, the current discourse shows that it was realized mostly in industry (“manufacturing jobs”) and in saving the American auto industry. Finally, the name Clinton is significant, but with reference to the senator in 2008 and to the legacy of President Clinton in 2012.

In conclusion, the analysis of the two candidates’ discourse indicates an ignorance of the geopolitical landscape. For example, the words “Swiss,” “Switzerland” and “France” don’t appear. However, the name “Germany” is significant with Obama, because it can be used for economic comparisons (“jobs,” “opportunities”) with India and China. Foreign policy doesn’t really evoke emotion, with the exception of the word “Israel,” which is significantly overused by Mitt Romney. His promises of support have obvious personal connotations.