WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.600 Welcome to the Deep Dive. Today we are looking 00:00:02.600 --> 00:00:07.120 at how just six words uttered on a stage in 1988 00:00:07.120 --> 00:00:10.000 managed to completely alter the landscape of 00:00:10.000 --> 00:00:12.699 American politics. We're going to explore how 00:00:12.699 --> 00:00:15.500 a single carefully crafted sentence essentially 00:00:15.500 --> 00:00:18.320 toppled a presidency and sparked a political 00:00:18.320 --> 00:00:20.839 revolution that we're still, you know, feeling 00:00:20.839 --> 00:00:23.960 the effects of today. We are unpacking the history 00:00:23.960 --> 00:00:26.460 and the fallout of one of the most famous political 00:00:26.460 --> 00:00:29.510 catchphrases in modern history. Read my lips. 00:00:29.589 --> 00:00:31.769 No new taxes. And before we jump into the timeline. 00:00:32.149 --> 00:00:34.229 It is important to establish the framework for 00:00:34.229 --> 00:00:36.729 our discussion today. The history we're unpacking 00:00:36.729 --> 00:00:38.530 involves fiercely dissident political events, 00:00:38.729 --> 00:00:41.009 major figures from both the Republican and Democratic 00:00:41.009 --> 00:00:43.670 parties, and policy decisions that are still 00:00:43.670 --> 00:00:46.070 subject to intense partisan arguments decades 00:00:46.070 --> 00:00:48.670 later. So I want to explicitly assure you, our 00:00:48.670 --> 00:00:50.369 listener, that we are not taking any political 00:00:50.369 --> 00:00:52.649 sides here. Our goal is strictly analytical. 00:00:52.969 --> 00:00:55.810 We are unpacking the factual history, the timeline 00:00:55.810 --> 00:00:58.310 of events, and the various viewpoints to understand 00:00:58.310 --> 00:01:00.289 the mechanics of what happened. We're looking 00:01:00.289 --> 00:01:02.469 at this through the lens of history. and strategy, 00:01:02.590 --> 00:01:05.120 not ideological judgment. That is the perfect 00:01:05.120 --> 00:01:07.120 framing, because for you listening right now, 00:01:07.159 --> 00:01:08.879 this isn't just a dry history lesson about tax 00:01:08.879 --> 00:01:11.959 policy. This is an absolute masterclass in what 00:01:11.959 --> 00:01:14.900 we might call the absolutism trap. Yes. It's 00:01:14.900 --> 00:01:17.939 a study of what happens when the soaring, rigid 00:01:17.939 --> 00:01:21.920 poetry of a campaign trail violently collides 00:01:21.920 --> 00:01:24.719 with the messy mathematical reality of actually 00:01:24.719 --> 00:01:27.859 governing a country. It's a story about human 00:01:27.859 --> 00:01:30.920 nature, political strategy, and the severe consequences 00:01:30.920 --> 00:01:34.030 of being boxed in by your own rhetoric. Exactly. 00:01:34.409 --> 00:01:36.569 OK, let's unpack this. We need to go back to 00:01:36.569 --> 00:01:39.370 the prelude of this famous moment between 1984 00:01:39.370 --> 00:01:42.629 and 1988. The stage was actually set by a moment 00:01:42.629 --> 00:01:45.510 of brutal political honesty. It was. The story 00:01:45.510 --> 00:01:47.750 really begins with George H .W. Bush, who was 00:01:47.750 --> 00:01:49.790 vice president at the time under Ronald Reagan. 00:01:50.150 --> 00:01:53.170 In a 1984 presidential debate, the Democratic 00:01:53.170 --> 00:01:55.829 candidate Walter Mondale made a rather startling 00:01:55.829 --> 00:01:58.180 blunt admission. He looked at the federal deficit 00:01:58.180 --> 00:02:00.920 and frankly stated that if he were elected, taxes 00:02:00.920 --> 00:02:03.239 would likely be raised. Which is, you know, a 00:02:03.239 --> 00:02:06.379 bold move. Right. Mondale seemed to believe that 00:02:06.379 --> 00:02:08.620 the American public would reward his honesty 00:02:08.620 --> 00:02:11.379 about the grim economic math. They did not. He 00:02:11.379 --> 00:02:13.919 was crushed in that election. But during that 00:02:13.919 --> 00:02:16.379 same debate cycle, Vice President Bush accidentally 00:02:16.379 --> 00:02:18.939 implied that tax increases might also be necessary 00:02:18.939 --> 00:02:21.099 in the next four years under a second Reagan 00:02:21.099 --> 00:02:23.949 -Bush term. Yeah. And that slip up caused an 00:02:23.949 --> 00:02:26.389 immediate panic within his camp. President Reagan 00:02:26.389 --> 00:02:28.490 had to publicly assert that he had absolutely 00:02:28.490 --> 00:02:31.650 no plans to raise taxes. And Bush was left scrambling, 00:02:31.789 --> 00:02:33.650 arguing that his comments had been misunderstood 00:02:33.650 --> 00:02:36.270 by the press. The political damage, however, 00:02:36.449 --> 00:02:39.770 lingered. That specific moment led some conservative 00:02:39.770 --> 00:02:42.469 factions to begin doubting Bush's true ideological 00:02:42.469 --> 00:02:45.689 dedication to tax cuts. That lingering doubt 00:02:45.689 --> 00:02:47.669 is the crucial seed for everything that follows. 00:02:48.280 --> 00:02:51.539 Fast forward to 1986. The competition to succeed 00:02:51.539 --> 00:02:53.840 Reagan is beginning, and it is abundantly clear 00:02:53.840 --> 00:02:56.340 that tax policy is going to be the central defining 00:02:56.340 --> 00:02:58.800 issue of the Republican primary. What's fascinating 00:02:58.800 --> 00:03:00.699 here is the introduction of an outside force 00:03:00.699 --> 00:03:03.639 that formalizes this pressure. Grover Norquist, 00:03:03.759 --> 00:03:05.500 the head of a group called Americans for Tax 00:03:05.500 --> 00:03:08.879 Reform, had created a literal no new taxes pledge. 00:03:09.080 --> 00:03:12.020 A physical document. Exactly. He was actively 00:03:12.020 --> 00:03:15.039 encouraging conservative candidates to sign their 00:03:15.039 --> 00:03:18.000 names to this physical document. creating a paper 00:03:18.000 --> 00:03:20.099 trail of their commitment. And candidates were 00:03:20.099 --> 00:03:22.520 signing it across the board. A massive number 00:03:22.520 --> 00:03:24.460 of congressional hopefuls put their names on 00:03:24.460 --> 00:03:27.340 the line. Bush's primary rivals for the presidential 00:03:27.340 --> 00:03:30.479 nomination, Jack Kemp and Pete DuPont, both signed 00:03:30.479 --> 00:03:32.479 it eagerly to prove their conservative credentials. 00:03:33.479 --> 00:03:36.060 Bush, however, initially resisted. He did. He 00:03:36.060 --> 00:03:38.080 pushed back against the idea of signing away 00:03:38.080 --> 00:03:41.259 his future leverage. It wasn't until 1987 that 00:03:41.259 --> 00:03:43.680 the political pressure became too immense. He 00:03:43.680 --> 00:03:46.139 eventually acquiesced, signed the pledge to stay 00:03:46.139 --> 00:03:48.379 competitive with his rivals, and then immediately 00:03:48.379 --> 00:03:51.199 weaponized the issue. His campaign pivoted and 00:03:51.199 --> 00:03:53.900 used his newfound anti -tax stance to attack 00:03:53.900 --> 00:03:56.539 Senator Bob Dole, who had refused to be pinned 00:03:56.539 --> 00:03:58.659 down on the subject. Which brings us to the summer 00:03:58.659 --> 00:04:01.759 of 1988, the Republican National Convention in 00:04:01.759 --> 00:04:04.879 New Orleans. Bush has firmly secured the nomination, 00:04:05.159 --> 00:04:07.560 but his inner circle is looking at the polling 00:04:07.560 --> 00:04:10.300 data and feeling deeply worried. They are looking 00:04:10.300 --> 00:04:12.360 at the conservative base of the Republican Party 00:04:12.360 --> 00:04:15.060 and seeing a dangerous lack of enthusiasm for 00:04:15.060 --> 00:04:17.420 their nominee. Right. Because Bush was viewed 00:04:17.420 --> 00:04:21.000 by some as too moderate to establishment. Exactly. 00:04:21.100 --> 00:04:24.509 They needed a unifying rallying cry. As Bush 00:04:24.509 --> 00:04:27.490 advisor James Pinkerton noted at the time, taxes 00:04:27.490 --> 00:04:30.290 were the one single issue that unified the right 00:04:30.290 --> 00:04:33.029 and didn't antagonize anyone else in their coalition. 00:04:33.550 --> 00:04:36.629 So the strategists decided a firm, ironclad pledge 00:04:36.629 --> 00:04:39.649 against new taxes had to be the centerpiece of 00:04:39.649 --> 00:04:42.569 Bush's acceptance speech. The basic idea for 00:04:42.569 --> 00:04:44.850 including this specific pledge was suggested 00:04:44.850 --> 00:04:48.750 by Jack Kemp. But the speech itself, the actual 00:04:48.750 --> 00:04:51.589 crafting of the rhythmic, punching delivery of 00:04:51.589 --> 00:04:54.230 those famous words, was written by leading speechwriter 00:04:54.230 --> 00:04:56.689 Peggy Noonan. Getting those words into the final 00:04:56.689 --> 00:04:59.110 draft, however, sparked an absolute battle behind 00:04:59.110 --> 00:05:01.670 the scenes. This raises an important question. 00:05:01.790 --> 00:05:03.959 Didn't anyone in the room see the danger in making 00:05:03.959 --> 00:05:06.920 an absolute zero compromise promise. The historical 00:05:06.920 --> 00:05:09.079 record shows that, yes, they absolutely did. 00:05:09.180 --> 00:05:11.540 There was fierce internal conflict. It wasn't 00:05:11.540 --> 00:05:14.720 unanimous at all. Not even close. The most prominent 00:05:14.720 --> 00:05:18.040 critic was Richard Darman, a key economic advisor 00:05:18.040 --> 00:05:21.339 to Bush. Darman had been one of the primary architects 00:05:21.339 --> 00:05:24.800 of Reagan's 1982 tax increase, and he was expecting 00:05:24.800 --> 00:05:27.579 to have a major policy role in the upcoming Bush 00:05:27.579 --> 00:05:29.850 administration. Looking at the draft speeches 00:05:29.850 --> 00:05:32.810 from that time reveals just how intense this 00:05:32.810 --> 00:05:35.790 fight was. Darman actually took a pen and crossed 00:05:35.790 --> 00:05:38.089 the phrase out on an early draft of the speech. 00:05:38.310 --> 00:05:41.230 He explicitly labeled the line as stupid and 00:05:41.230 --> 00:05:43.569 dangerous. He knew the economic projections. 00:05:43.910 --> 00:05:46.149 He understood the math. He felt that such an 00:05:46.149 --> 00:05:49.170 absolute uncompromising pledge would completely 00:05:49.170 --> 00:05:51.589 handcuff the administration's ability to negotiate 00:05:51.589 --> 00:05:54.689 once they actually took office. But Darman was 00:05:54.689 --> 00:05:57.370 overruled by the political strategists. Media 00:05:57.370 --> 00:05:59.509 consultant Roger Ailes, among others, fought 00:05:59.509 --> 00:06:01.250 aggressively to keep the line in the speech. 00:06:01.449 --> 00:06:03.589 They argued it was vital to lock in conservative 00:06:03.589 --> 00:06:06.189 support for a campaign that was otherwise trying 00:06:06.189 --> 00:06:08.689 to position itself as centrist to general election 00:06:08.689 --> 00:06:10.089 voters. And there was a deeper psychological 00:06:10.089 --> 00:06:13.629 strategy at play, too, right? Yes. Bush was suffering 00:06:13.629 --> 00:06:16.290 from a public perception issue, what the media 00:06:16.290 --> 00:06:20.050 at the time dubbed the wimp factor. He was seen 00:06:20.050 --> 00:06:23.759 by some as vacillating or overly polite. Ailes 00:06:23.759 --> 00:06:26.319 and the campaign team hoped this hardline defiant 00:06:26.319 --> 00:06:28.639 stance would add an element of toughness and 00:06:28.639 --> 00:06:31.199 grit, especially since Bush was trailing the 00:06:31.199 --> 00:06:34.180 Democratic nominee, Michael Dukakis, by a significant 00:06:34.180 --> 00:06:36.939 margin in the polls. The campaign was far more 00:06:36.939 --> 00:06:38.720 concerned with winning the immediate election 00:06:38.720 --> 00:06:41.060 than with solving the hypothetical math problems 00:06:41.060 --> 00:06:44.050 of governing afterward. The delivery of that 00:06:44.050 --> 00:06:46.290 speech ended up being a masterstroke of political 00:06:46.290 --> 00:06:48.889 theater. Picture the convention hall in New Orleans. 00:06:49.009 --> 00:06:51.430 The energy is building. Bush delivers this incredibly 00:06:51.430 --> 00:06:54.290 rhythmic, almost musical buildup. I'll read the 00:06:54.290 --> 00:06:56.310 exact quote from the speech because the pacing 00:06:56.310 --> 00:06:59.269 is deliberate and brilliant. He says, and I quote, 00:06:59.850 --> 00:07:01.670 and I'm the one who will not raise taxes. My 00:07:01.670 --> 00:07:03.569 opponent now says he'll raise them as a last 00:07:03.569 --> 00:07:06.290 resort or a third resort. But when a politician 00:07:06.290 --> 00:07:08.350 talks like that, you know that's one resort he'll 00:07:08.350 --> 00:07:10.970 be checking into. My opponent won't rule out 00:07:10.970 --> 00:07:13.980 raising taxes. But I will. And the Congress will 00:07:13.980 --> 00:07:16.259 push me to raise taxes and I'll say no. And they'll 00:07:16.259 --> 00:07:18.120 push and I'll say no and they'll push again and 00:07:18.120 --> 00:07:21.160 I'll say to them, read my lips, no new taxes. 00:07:21.420 --> 00:07:23.980 The immediate impact of that specific delivery 00:07:23.980 --> 00:07:27.300 cannot be overstated. It was a massive, instantaneous 00:07:27.300 --> 00:07:30.199 success. Coming out of that convention, Bush 00:07:30.199 --> 00:07:32.259 didn't just close the polling gap. He surged 00:07:32.259 --> 00:07:35.240 past Dukakis. A Gallup poll taken the following 00:07:35.240 --> 00:07:37.959 week showed Bush leaping to a 48 to 44 percent 00:07:37.959 --> 00:07:41.009 lead. Wow. His personal favorability rating spiked 00:07:41.009 --> 00:07:43.610 by nine points. The prominent California -based 00:07:43.610 --> 00:07:46.069 pollster Mervyn Field was astounded by the data. 00:07:46.189 --> 00:07:48.589 He explicitly stated that he had never seen that 00:07:48.589 --> 00:07:50.629 kind of swing in favorability ratings going all 00:07:50.629 --> 00:07:53.389 the way back to 1936. Another major poll showed 00:07:53.389 --> 00:07:56.610 an even bigger lead of 51 to 42 percent. The 00:07:56.610 --> 00:07:58.790 strategy to project toughness had worked flawlessly. 00:07:58.970 --> 00:08:02.199 It won him the presidency. Bush takes the oath 00:08:02.199 --> 00:08:05.040 of office. He is in the Oval Office and the campaign 00:08:05.040 --> 00:08:07.800 is over. But here's where it gets really interesting, 00:08:07.980 --> 00:08:10.680 because the reality of governing comes knocking 00:08:10.680 --> 00:08:13.740 almost immediately. The stupid and dangerous 00:08:13.740 --> 00:08:16.259 trap that Richard Darman saw coming was suddenly 00:08:16.259 --> 00:08:18.759 sprung. The Bush campaign had built their entire 00:08:18.759 --> 00:08:21.079 economic platform on a very fragile assumption. 00:08:21.579 --> 00:08:24.100 They assumed that the historically high rates 00:08:24.100 --> 00:08:26.259 of economic growth from the late 1980s would 00:08:26.259 --> 00:08:28.800 simply continue uninterrupted throughout his 00:08:28.800 --> 00:08:32.340 entire term. If the economy kept booming, tax 00:08:32.340 --> 00:08:34.399 revenues would naturally rise without needing 00:08:34.399 --> 00:08:36.740 to increase the tax rates themselves. But the 00:08:36.740 --> 00:08:38.759 economy doesn't cooperate with campaign speeches. 00:08:39.200 --> 00:08:41.820 Exactly. Instead of booming growth, a recession 00:08:41.820 --> 00:08:45.320 took hold. By 1990, federal budget deficits were 00:08:45.320 --> 00:08:47.840 skyrocketing, fueled by a combination of growing 00:08:47.840 --> 00:08:50.559 mandatory government spending and a rapidly declining 00:08:50.559 --> 00:08:53.350 economy. So if the political fallout of raising 00:08:53.350 --> 00:08:56.710 taxes was so obvious, why didn't Bush just let 00:08:56.710 --> 00:08:59.570 the deficit run? Why fall on his sword in 1990 00:08:59.570 --> 00:09:02.389 instead of just ignoring the math? Because ignoring 00:09:02.389 --> 00:09:06.049 the math was no longer legally possible. A few 00:09:06.049 --> 00:09:08.769 years prior, Congress had passed the Graham Rudman 00:09:08.769 --> 00:09:11.870 Hollings Balanced Budget Act. This law legally 00:09:11.870 --> 00:09:14.450 mandated that the federal deficit had to be reduced 00:09:14.450 --> 00:09:17.720 by specific targets each year. If the president 00:09:17.720 --> 00:09:19.620 and Congress couldn't agree on a budget that 00:09:19.620 --> 00:09:22.139 hit those reduction targets, the law would trigger 00:09:22.139 --> 00:09:25.019 a mechanism called sequestration. This meant 00:09:25.019 --> 00:09:27.700 automatic, mandatory cuts to government spending 00:09:27.700 --> 00:09:30.059 across the board. Those cuts would be devastating, 00:09:30.299 --> 00:09:32.600 right? Completely unpalatable to both Republicans 00:09:32.600 --> 00:09:35.440 and Democrats. We are talking about massive, 00:09:35.480 --> 00:09:38.039 arbitrary slashes to deeply popular government 00:09:38.039 --> 00:09:40.740 programs like Medicare or drastic reductions 00:09:40.740 --> 00:09:43.519 in defense spending right as geopolitical tensions 00:09:43.519 --> 00:09:46.279 were shifting. So reducing the deficit wasn't 00:09:46.279 --> 00:09:48.559 an optional policy goal. It was a legal necessity 00:09:48.559 --> 00:09:51.200 with a ticking clock. Substantial revenue had 00:09:51.200 --> 00:09:53.200 to be found or the government would functionally 00:09:53.200 --> 00:09:55.980 cannibalize its own core services. Add the political 00:09:55.980 --> 00:09:59.039 math on top of the economic math. Bush initially 00:09:59.039 --> 00:10:01.389 tries to keep his pledge. He presents Congress 00:10:01.389 --> 00:10:03.409 with a proposed budget full of steep spending 00:10:03.409 --> 00:10:06.870 cuts and absolutely zero new taxes. But Democrats 00:10:06.870 --> 00:10:09.929 control both the House and the Senate. They look 00:10:09.929 --> 00:10:12.529 at a cuts only budget that guts social programs 00:10:12.529 --> 00:10:15.169 and they instantly dismiss it out of hand. Dead 00:10:15.169 --> 00:10:18.149 on arrival. Exactly. Negotiations stall completely. 00:10:18.509 --> 00:10:21.549 There is no viable path forward to meet the legal 00:10:21.549 --> 00:10:23.889 deficit targets without compromising on the revenue 00:10:23.889 --> 00:10:26.429 side. And it wasn't just Democrats pointing this 00:10:26.429 --> 00:10:28.539 out. Prominent Republicans were looking at the 00:10:28.539 --> 00:10:31.279 reality of the ledger and concluding a tax increase 00:10:31.279 --> 00:10:34.120 was unavoidable. Figures like former President 00:10:34.120 --> 00:10:37.000 Gerald Ford, Paul O 'Neill, and Lamar Alexander 00:10:37.000 --> 00:10:39.840 publicly favored an increase. Even within the 00:10:39.840 --> 00:10:41.899 White House, Richard Darman, who was now head 00:10:41.899 --> 00:10:44.259 of the Office of Management and Budget, and White 00:10:44.259 --> 00:10:47.360 House Chief of Staff John Sununu realized a compromise 00:10:47.360 --> 00:10:50.039 was the only mathematical way out. This overwhelming 00:10:50.039 --> 00:10:52.620 pressure leads to the breaking point. In late 00:10:52.620 --> 00:10:55.879 June of 1990, Bush releases a written statement. 00:10:56.460 --> 00:10:59.559 In it, he outlines the dire need for a bipartisan 00:10:59.559 --> 00:11:02.799 package to fix the deficit problem. He lists 00:11:02.799 --> 00:11:05.220 a number of broad requirements, entitlement reform, 00:11:05.559 --> 00:11:07.919 economic growth incentives, spending reductions. 00:11:08.799 --> 00:11:11.720 But buried in that seemingly mundane list are 00:11:11.720 --> 00:11:15.100 three explosive words. He officially admits the 00:11:15.100 --> 00:11:17.360 need for tax revenue increases. Tax revenue increases. 00:11:17.379 --> 00:11:20.279 It's a clear attempt at gentle bureaucratic phrasing, 00:11:20.299 --> 00:11:22.779 hoping to soften the blow. But the media saw 00:11:22.779 --> 00:11:25.460 right through the jargon. The explosion was immediate 00:11:25.460 --> 00:11:28.200 and merciless. The very next day, the New York 00:11:28.200 --> 00:11:30.580 Post ran a brutal, massive headline covering 00:11:30.580 --> 00:11:33.539 its entire front page that simply read, Read 00:11:33.539 --> 00:11:36.740 my lips. I lied. That is harsh. Initially, the 00:11:36.740 --> 00:11:39.110 administration tried to spin the statement. Surrogates 00:11:39.110 --> 00:11:41.049 went on television arguing that tax revenue increases 00:11:41.049 --> 00:11:43.149 didn't strictly mean raising the tax rates themselves. 00:11:43.710 --> 00:11:45.529 Maybe it just meant the government would work 00:11:45.529 --> 00:11:47.730 to increase the overall pool of taxable income 00:11:47.730 --> 00:11:50.289 through growth. But the math was too dire for 00:11:50.289 --> 00:11:53.330 spin. Bush soon had to publicly confirm that, 00:11:53.350 --> 00:11:55.669 yes, actual, literal tax rate increases were 00:11:55.669 --> 00:11:58.450 on the negotiating table. That confirmation triggered 00:11:58.450 --> 00:12:01.940 an immediate political civil war. What's crucial 00:12:01.940 --> 00:12:04.080 to understand here is that the most intense, 00:12:04.360 --> 00:12:07.139 visceral anger didn't come from the opposing 00:12:07.139 --> 00:12:10.000 party. It came from within Bush's own Republican 00:12:10.000 --> 00:12:12.379 ranks. Figures like House Whip Newt Gingrich, 00:12:12.539 --> 00:12:15.019 members of the Senate leadership, and even Vice 00:12:15.019 --> 00:12:17.580 President Dan Quayle were deeply frustrated. 00:12:17.919 --> 00:12:21.120 They felt betrayed. They felt Bush had just unilaterally 00:12:21.120 --> 00:12:23.419 surrendered the Republican Party's most potent 00:12:23.419 --> 00:12:26.480 election plank for years to come. Furthermore, 00:12:26.679 --> 00:12:28.820 the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill was 00:12:28.820 --> 00:12:31.600 furious that they were largely boxed out of the 00:12:31.600 --> 00:12:34.519 consultations before Bush signaled this massive 00:12:34.519 --> 00:12:36.519 concession to the Democrats. The interpersonal 00:12:36.519 --> 00:12:38.899 drama and the breakdown of party discipline were 00:12:38.899 --> 00:12:41.549 staggering. Take House Whip Newt Gingrich. Now 00:12:41.549 --> 00:12:43.809 the whip's literal job in Congress is to keep 00:12:43.809 --> 00:12:46.250 the party members in line, count votes, and enforce 00:12:46.250 --> 00:12:48.529 discipline. When White House Chief of Staff John 00:12:48.529 --> 00:12:51.029 Sununu called Gingrich with the news of the compromise, 00:12:51.370 --> 00:12:53.610 Gingrich was so furious he hung up the phone 00:12:53.610 --> 00:12:56.789 on him. When you chief enforcer defects, the 00:12:56.789 --> 00:12:58.970 president has procedurally lost control of his 00:12:58.970 --> 00:13:02.029 own party in the House. It got incredibly bitter. 00:13:02.460 --> 00:13:05.120 When Senator Trent Lott publicly questioned the 00:13:05.120 --> 00:13:07.860 reversal, Sununu went to the press and dismissed 00:13:07.860 --> 00:13:10.440 Lott as an insignificant figure in this process. 00:13:10.860 --> 00:13:13.840 The fallout had real career consequences, too. 00:13:14.000 --> 00:13:16.080 The Republican National Committee co -chair, 00:13:16.200 --> 00:13:19.039 Ed Rollins, issued a memo instructing Republican 00:13:19.039 --> 00:13:21.559 congressional candidates to actively distance 00:13:21.559 --> 00:13:23.399 themselves from the president if they wanted 00:13:23.399 --> 00:13:25.720 to survive their midterm elections. For giving 00:13:25.720 --> 00:13:28.120 that blunt political advice, Rollins was fired. 00:13:28.620 --> 00:13:31.220 You can track the devastating toll this internal 00:13:31.220 --> 00:13:34.159 war took numerically. Early in his term, Bush 00:13:34.159 --> 00:13:36.080 had enjoyed a historically high approval rating 00:13:36.080 --> 00:13:39.259 of 79 percent. But following this bitter public 00:13:39.259 --> 00:13:41.799 feud and the perceived betrayal of his core campaign 00:13:41.799 --> 00:13:44.960 promise, that rating plummeted to 56 percent 00:13:44.960 --> 00:13:48.220 by mid -October 1990. So what was actually in 00:13:48.220 --> 00:13:50.879 this massive compromise that caused so much political 00:13:50.879 --> 00:13:54.549 destruction? On November 5, 1990, Bush signed 00:13:54.549 --> 00:13:57.110 the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. 00:13:57.549 --> 00:14:00.330 Rather than just a list of hikes, this was a 00:14:00.330 --> 00:14:03.129 complex, agonizing negotiation. Let's look at 00:14:03.129 --> 00:14:05.110 the mechanics of the deal. The Democrats got 00:14:05.110 --> 00:14:07.450 their rate hikes. The maximum individual income 00:14:07.450 --> 00:14:11.289 tax rate went up from 28 % to 31%. Right. They 00:14:11.289 --> 00:14:13.950 also raised the alternative minimum tax, which 00:14:13.950 --> 00:14:16.590 is basically a parallel tax system designed to 00:14:16.590 --> 00:14:19.090 ensure high -income earners pay at least a baseline 00:14:19.090 --> 00:14:21.690 amount regardless of how many deductions they 00:14:21.690 --> 00:14:25.289 get. they claim from 21 % to 24%. The act also 00:14:25.289 --> 00:14:27.529 increased various payroll and excise taxes and 00:14:27.529 --> 00:14:29.590 limited itemized deductions for high -income 00:14:29.590 --> 00:14:31.990 individuals. But if we look closely at the legislation, 00:14:32.350 --> 00:14:34.950 the Republicans extracted highly nuanced trade 00:14:34.950 --> 00:14:37.549 -offs in this negotiation. It wasn't just a blanket 00:14:37.549 --> 00:14:40.450 surrender. To protect investments, the act placed 00:14:40.450 --> 00:14:42.809 a hard limit on the capital gains rate, which 00:14:42.809 --> 00:14:44.750 is the tax on the profit from selling an investment 00:14:44.750 --> 00:14:47.610 like stock or real estate, capping it at 28%. 00:14:47.610 --> 00:14:50.710 That's a significant concession. It is. Furthermore, 00:14:50.950 --> 00:14:53.389 the legislation expanded access to the Earned 00:14:53.389 --> 00:14:56.110 Income Tax Credit. This is a mechanism that provides 00:14:56.110 --> 00:14:58.850 a tax break and often a refund to low to moderate 00:14:58.850 --> 00:15:01.330 income working individuals and couples. It was 00:15:01.330 --> 00:15:04.690 a deeply pragmatic, complex legislative compromise 00:15:04.690 --> 00:15:07.470 designed to balance the budget while spreading 00:15:07.470 --> 00:15:09.490 the economic burden across different sectors 00:15:09.490 --> 00:15:12.000 of society. But in modern politics, pragmatic 00:15:12.000 --> 00:15:15.159 nuance rarely survives the headlines. The nuance 00:15:15.159 --> 00:15:17.960 was completely lost. Republicans lost ground 00:15:17.960 --> 00:15:20.179 in both the House and the Senate in the 1990 00:15:20.179 --> 00:15:23.080 midterm elections the very next day. However, 00:15:23.299 --> 00:15:26.059 we have to note a massive historical asterisk 00:15:26.059 --> 00:15:28.919 in this timeline. The political bleeding from 00:15:28.919 --> 00:15:31.340 the domestic tax issue was temporarily halted 00:15:31.340 --> 00:15:33.379 by international events. Right. The Gulf War. 00:15:33.500 --> 00:15:35.500 The Gulf War pushed the budget fight completely 00:15:35.500 --> 00:15:38.980 out of the news cycle. By February 1991, following 00:15:38.980 --> 00:15:41.340 the swift success of Operation Desert Storm, 00:15:41.620 --> 00:15:43.879 Bush's approval rating soared to an astounding 00:15:43.879 --> 00:15:46.240 89 percent, the highest level of his presidency. 00:15:46.539 --> 00:15:49.179 That wartime popularity, however, was temporary. 00:15:49.500 --> 00:15:52.980 The broken pledge was permanent. As we move into 00:15:52.980 --> 00:15:55.960 the 1992 election cycle, that broken promise 00:15:55.960 --> 00:15:58.940 becomes the ultimate political weapon. And again, 00:15:59.080 --> 00:16:00.940 the attack starts from within his own party. 00:16:01.159 --> 00:16:03.620 Conservative commentator Pat Buchanan launches 00:16:03.620 --> 00:16:05.720 a primary challenge against the sitting president, 00:16:05.879 --> 00:16:08.519 and he uses the reversal as his primary ammunition. 00:16:09.070 --> 00:16:11.669 He went right for the throat. He did. The very 00:16:11.669 --> 00:16:14.049 day Buchanan entered the race, he pointed directly 00:16:14.049 --> 00:16:17.049 at the pledge. He argued that Republicans could 00:16:17.049 --> 00:16:19.509 no longer blame liberal Democrats for the nation's 00:16:19.509 --> 00:16:22.269 economic woes because it was Bush who broke his 00:16:22.269 --> 00:16:25.269 word to cut a seedy backroom budget deal with 00:16:25.269 --> 00:16:27.870 the big spenders on Capitol Hill. Framing a necessary 00:16:27.870 --> 00:16:30.529 legislative compromise as a seedy backroom budget 00:16:30.529 --> 00:16:33.490 deal is incredibly lethal rhetoric. Buchanan 00:16:33.490 --> 00:16:35.549 hammered this point relentlessly. He used the 00:16:35.549 --> 00:16:38.210 1988 video clip constantly in television and 00:16:38.210 --> 00:16:40.250 radio commercials in New Hampshire, and the attack 00:16:40.250 --> 00:16:43.570 landed. Buchanan won a shocking 40 % of the vote 00:16:43.570 --> 00:16:45.629 in the New Hampshire primary, while Bush still 00:16:45.629 --> 00:16:48.309 won, capturing 40 % of the vote against an incumbent 00:16:48.309 --> 00:16:50.830 president from your own party is a massive, embarrassing 00:16:50.830 --> 00:16:53.789 rebuff. This forced a frantic change in strategy 00:16:53.789 --> 00:16:56.730 from the Bush campaign. Initially, Bush had tried 00:16:56.730 --> 00:16:59.210 to explain the mechanics we just discussed, that 00:16:59.210 --> 00:17:02.129 raising taxes was an essential mathematical requirement 00:17:02.129 --> 00:17:05.230 to save the economy from sequestration. And here 00:17:05.230 --> 00:17:07.049 is where the data reveals a profound insight 00:17:07.049 --> 00:17:09.910 into voter psychology, a concept we can call 00:17:09.910 --> 00:17:14.269 policy betrayal equals character betrayal. I 00:17:14.269 --> 00:17:16.349 like that phrasing. Pollings show that a majority 00:17:16.349 --> 00:17:18.730 of Americans actually agreed with Bush's policy 00:17:18.730 --> 00:17:21.480 decision. They understood the deficit was a crisis 00:17:21.480 --> 00:17:24.039 and agreed that some tax increases were necessary. 00:17:24.359 --> 00:17:26.940 The policy itself wasn't the primary obstacle. 00:17:27.140 --> 00:17:30.140 The obstacle was that voters had lost trust and 00:17:30.140 --> 00:17:32.680 respect for Bush's character because he had broken 00:17:32.680 --> 00:17:35.839 such a definitive theatrical promise. Sensing 00:17:35.839 --> 00:17:38.339 that the logical mathematical argument wasn't 00:17:38.339 --> 00:17:41.220 working, Bush pivots to an apology tour. When 00:17:41.220 --> 00:17:43.960 the primary campaign moves to Georgia, he starts 00:17:43.960 --> 00:17:46.880 apologizing openly. He tells the crowd, I did 00:17:46.880 --> 00:17:49.400 it and I regret it and I regret it. He tells 00:17:49.400 --> 00:17:50.940 the public that if he could go back in time, 00:17:51.059 --> 00:17:53.720 he wouldn't do it again. During a televised October 00:17:53.720 --> 00:17:56.299 debate, he flat out called the compromise a mistake 00:17:56.299 --> 00:17:58.160 and stated he should have held out for a better 00:17:58.160 --> 00:18:00.940 deal. But it was entirely ineffective. The broken 00:18:00.940 --> 00:18:03.579 pledge dogged him every step of the way because 00:18:03.579 --> 00:18:05.500 the apology couldn't undo the character damage. 00:18:05.839 --> 00:18:08.579 And then in the general election, the Democratic 00:18:08.579 --> 00:18:11.359 nominee Bill Clinton picked up the exact same 00:18:11.359 --> 00:18:14.680 weapon. Clinton's campaign strategist James Carville 00:18:14.680 --> 00:18:17.460 designed a brutally simple television commercial. 00:18:17.779 --> 00:18:20.880 It didn't feature complex voiceovers about tax 00:18:20.880 --> 00:18:23.700 brackets. It simply played the clip of Bush saying, 00:18:23.779 --> 00:18:26.039 read my lips to illustrate the broken promise. 00:18:26.400 --> 00:18:28.940 It is widely regarded as one of the most effective 00:18:28.940 --> 00:18:31.599 ads of the campaign. And what's crucial to understand 00:18:31.599 --> 00:18:34.819 is how this specific attack neutralized Clinton's 00:18:34.819 --> 00:18:37.900 own political vulnerabilities. Clinton was facing 00:18:37.900 --> 00:18:40.180 a variety of intense personal scandals during 00:18:40.180 --> 00:18:42.259 the election regarding his character and past 00:18:42.259 --> 00:18:44.740 behavior. Yet, because of the visceral reaction 00:18:44.740 --> 00:18:47.059 to the tax reversal, polls showed the public 00:18:47.059 --> 00:18:48.940 viewed Clinton and Bush as having roughly similar 00:18:48.940 --> 00:18:51.900 levels of integrity. That is a fascinating shift 00:18:51.900 --> 00:18:54.700 in voter psychology. A broken policy promise 00:18:54.700 --> 00:18:56.900 leveled the playing field on the issue of personal 00:18:56.900 --> 00:18:59.480 character against a candidate dealing with actual 00:18:59.480 --> 00:19:02.319 personal scandals. And we have to factor in Ross 00:19:02.319 --> 00:19:05.420 Perot. He enters the 1992 race as an independent 00:19:05.420 --> 00:19:08.400 candidate, drops out, then reenters, and his 00:19:08.400 --> 00:19:10.519 entire campaign is built on the idea that the 00:19:10.519 --> 00:19:13.740 establishment in both parties is corrupt, incompetent, 00:19:13.740 --> 00:19:16.319 and out of touch with regular Americans. He was 00:19:16.319 --> 00:19:18.920 entirely capitalizing on the public's disenchantment 00:19:18.920 --> 00:19:21.569 with the status quo. quo the exact disenchantment 00:19:21.569 --> 00:19:23.910 and distrust that Bush's broken pledge had fueled. 00:19:24.450 --> 00:19:27.630 While historians still debate Perot's total electoral 00:19:27.630 --> 00:19:30.509 impact, exit polling data indicates that Perot 00:19:30.509 --> 00:19:32.589 essentially drew votes evenly from both Bush 00:19:32.589 --> 00:19:35.430 and Clinton. Ultimately, the burden was too much, 00:19:35.470 --> 00:19:38.059 and Bush lost the election to Clinton. If we 00:19:38.059 --> 00:19:39.759 connect this to the bigger picture and look at 00:19:39.759 --> 00:19:42.079 how history views this moment, the records present 00:19:42.079 --> 00:19:44.839 four competing perspectives on the legacy of 00:19:44.839 --> 00:19:47.440 this decision. First, there is the fatal mistake 00:19:47.440 --> 00:19:50.579 view. Republican pollster Richard Worthland famously 00:19:50.579 --> 00:19:53.220 categorized the pledge as the six most destructive 00:19:53.220 --> 00:19:55.319 words in the history of presidential politics. 00:19:55.700 --> 00:19:58.339 And Marlon Fitzwater, Bush's White House press 00:19:58.339 --> 00:20:01.359 secretary, called the reversal the single biggest 00:20:01.359 --> 00:20:04.680 mistake of the administration. They view it purely 00:20:04.680 --> 00:20:08.579 as a catastrophic unforced political error that 00:20:08.579 --> 00:20:11.359 doomed a presidency. Then you have the economic 00:20:11.359 --> 00:20:14.140 view championed by Richard Darman, the very same 00:20:14.140 --> 00:20:16.319 adviser who tried to cross the line out of the 00:20:16.319 --> 00:20:18.720 speech in the first place. He argues that the 00:20:18.720 --> 00:20:21.000 tax reversal wasn't actually the central reason 00:20:21.000 --> 00:20:25.039 Bush lost in 1992. Instead, Darman posits that 00:20:25.039 --> 00:20:27.200 the broken promise just became a highly visible, 00:20:27.339 --> 00:20:29.480 convenient focal point for the public's broader 00:20:29.480 --> 00:20:31.960 discontent with a sluggish recession economy 00:20:31.960 --> 00:20:35.140 that Bush simply didn't have the tools to control. 00:20:35.789 --> 00:20:38.329 A third, highly sympathetic perspective is what 00:20:38.329 --> 00:20:41.769 we might call the noble sacrifice. Scholar Daniel 00:20:41.769 --> 00:20:43.970 L. Ostrander argues that while the reversal was 00:20:43.970 --> 00:20:46.349 politically disastrous for Bush personally, it 00:20:46.349 --> 00:20:48.029 was objectively good for the country's physical 00:20:48.029 --> 00:20:50.470 health. He posits that Bush's actions should 00:20:50.470 --> 00:20:52.690 be viewed as a profound act of leadership, willingly 00:20:52.690 --> 00:20:55.170 sacrificing his own political future to execute 00:20:55.170 --> 00:20:57.390 a necessary compromise for the nation's long 00:20:57.390 --> 00:20:59.809 -term economic well -being. And finally, there's 00:20:59.809 --> 00:21:02.769 the catalyst view. This focuses on the long -term 00:21:02.769 --> 00:21:05.559 ripple effects of the civil war it caused. Remember, 00:21:05.599 --> 00:21:07.700 House whip Newt Gingrich refusing to endorse 00:21:07.700 --> 00:21:10.920 the compromise. He led over 100 Republican House 00:21:10.920 --> 00:21:13.160 members in voting against the president's initial 00:21:13.160 --> 00:21:16.619 budget proposals. That open, televised defiance 00:21:16.619 --> 00:21:18.940 made Gingrich a hero to the conservative wing 00:21:18.940 --> 00:21:21.400 of the party, and it propelled him directly into 00:21:21.400 --> 00:21:23.240 the leadership role that ultimately launched 00:21:23.240 --> 00:21:25.619 the massive Republican revolution that swept 00:21:25.619 --> 00:21:29.319 Congress in 1994. Beyond the policy shifts and 00:21:29.319 --> 00:21:31.720 the electoral consequences, the phrase itself 00:21:31.720 --> 00:21:34.539 became a permanent cultural ghost. It haunted 00:21:34.539 --> 00:21:37.339 the political landscape for decades. When George 00:21:37.339 --> 00:21:39.519 W. Bush, the former president's son, was running 00:21:39.519 --> 00:21:42.039 for the presidency in 2000, he was asked about 00:21:42.039 --> 00:21:44.099 his own economic plans during a primary debate 00:21:44.099 --> 00:21:47.200 in New Hampshire. A reporter explicitly invoked 00:21:47.200 --> 00:21:49.779 his father's ghost, asking, is this no new taxes, 00:21:49.859 --> 00:21:52.019 so help me God? That's a trap. A total trap. 00:21:52.430 --> 00:21:54.349 George W. Bush had to carefully dodge the exact 00:21:54.349 --> 00:21:57.089 phrasing, replying, this is not only no new taxes, 00:21:57.150 --> 00:21:59.910 this is a tax cut. So help me God. The phrase 00:21:59.910 --> 00:22:03.200 even echoed globally. In 2009, the Irish Minister 00:22:03.200 --> 00:22:05.859 for Finance, Brian Linehan Jr., used the exact 00:22:05.859 --> 00:22:08.500 phrase when promising not to raise taxes during 00:22:08.500 --> 00:22:11.240 an economic crisis. And in the U .K., ahead of 00:22:11.240 --> 00:22:13.700 the 2019 general election, Prime Minister Boris 00:22:13.700 --> 00:22:16.000 Johnson evoked the exact same promise, telling 00:22:16.000 --> 00:22:18.660 voters, read my lips, we will not be raising 00:22:18.660 --> 00:22:22.160 taxes. And just like Bush, Johnson ended up reversing 00:22:22.160 --> 00:22:24.779 his pledge in 2021 by proposing a tax increase 00:22:24.779 --> 00:22:27.720 to subsidize health and social care. The absolutism 00:22:27.720 --> 00:22:29.779 trap remains the same no matter the country or 00:22:29.779 --> 00:22:31.769 the decade. It really does. So what does this 00:22:31.769 --> 00:22:34.130 all mean for you and me? The ultimate takeaway 00:22:34.130 --> 00:22:37.009 here is a profound lesson in the physics of political 00:22:37.009 --> 00:22:39.890 rhetoric. A brilliantly effective, flawlessly 00:22:39.890 --> 00:22:42.289 delivered campaign sound bite can provide the 00:22:42.289 --> 00:22:44.869 momentum needed to win an election. But if that 00:22:44.869 --> 00:22:47.329 sound bite relies on an absolute zero compromise 00:22:47.329 --> 00:22:50.630 guarantee, it becomes an inescapable trap the 00:22:50.630 --> 00:22:52.809 moment the rigid math of governing collides with 00:22:52.809 --> 00:22:55.650 the poetry of the campaign trail. George H .W. 00:22:55.750 --> 00:22:58.170 Bush learned the hard way that when you draw 00:22:58.170 --> 00:23:00.509 a line in the sand with language that absolute, 00:23:00.829 --> 00:23:03.109 stepping over it to do the necessary work of 00:23:03.109 --> 00:23:05.109 governing doesn't just look like a policy shift, 00:23:05.170 --> 00:23:07.230 it looks like a betrayal of character. And that 00:23:07.230 --> 00:23:09.390 leads to a final lingering thought I want to 00:23:09.390 --> 00:23:12.130 leave you with, based on how this single event 00:23:12.130 --> 00:23:14.990 shifted the entire landscape of political communication. 00:23:15.549 --> 00:23:17.849 You know, consider how rare it is today to hear 00:23:17.849 --> 00:23:21.410 a politician make a definitive, memorable, ironclad 00:23:21.410 --> 00:23:23.869 promise like that. This incident fundamentally 00:23:23.869 --> 00:23:26.930 altered modern political speechwriting. It arguably 00:23:26.930 --> 00:23:29.150 killed the use of absolute rhetorical flourishes 00:23:29.150 --> 00:23:31.710 in favor of focus -grouped, sterile language. 00:23:32.369 --> 00:23:34.269 Politicians today are heavily coached to use 00:23:34.269 --> 00:23:36.670 noncommittal phrases. We will look into. We aim 00:23:36.670 --> 00:23:39.009 to optimize. Our goal is to. Right. The safe 00:23:39.009 --> 00:23:42.480 corporate jargon. Exactly. This safe corporate 00:23:42.480 --> 00:23:45.220 jargon protects the politician from the absolutism 00:23:45.220 --> 00:23:47.640 trap, but it raises a critical question for you 00:23:47.640 --> 00:23:50.619 to ponder. In protecting themselves from ever 00:23:50.619 --> 00:23:53.180 having to break a definitive promise, has this 00:23:53.180 --> 00:23:55.240 shift toward hyper -cautious, non -committal 00:23:55.240 --> 00:23:57.960 language permanently alienated voters, leaving 00:23:57.960 --> 00:23:59.980 the public feeling like politicians never actually 00:23:59.980 --> 00:24:02.240 say anything at all? We also have to consider 00:24:02.240 --> 00:24:04.700 that Grover Norquist still actively urges politicians 00:24:04.700 --> 00:24:07.519 to sign his tax pledge, and majorities of Republicans 00:24:07.519 --> 00:24:10.180 continue to sign it today. In a modern political 00:24:10.180 --> 00:24:12.500 system where absolute pledges are still routinely 00:24:12.500 --> 00:24:14.519 demanded by interest groups on the campaign trail, 00:24:14.680 --> 00:24:16.920 has the mere act of political compromise the 00:24:16.920 --> 00:24:18.839 very thing required to govern a changing nation 00:24:18.839 --> 00:24:21.539 been permanently redefined as a betrayal? That 00:24:21.539 --> 00:24:24.079 is a fascinating lens to look through the next 00:24:24.079 --> 00:24:26.359 time you listen to a debate or a campaign speech 00:24:26.359 --> 00:24:29.319 and notice all the careful caveats and legalistic 00:24:29.319 --> 00:24:31.900 phrasing. Thank you for joining us on this deep 00:24:31.900 --> 00:24:33.960 dive. We hope you walk away with a totally new 00:24:33.960 --> 00:24:36.039 perspective on the history behind the slogans 00:24:36.039 --> 00:24:38.940 and the true cost of absolute promises. keep 00:24:38.940 --> 00:24:41.160 questioning the sound bites you hear, keep looking 00:24:41.160 --> 00:24:42.920 for the nuance, and we will catch you on the 00:24:42.920 --> 00:24:43.680 next deep dive.