Darryl Paulson
Candidates and political parties consistently pledge to the electorate they will either support or oppose a particular issue.
For some candidates, the pledge is a signal of their support for a particular issue. For others, a pledge is a vehicle to win the support of the voters and political groups.
Various political groups have drafted pledges in an attempt to get candidates on record as supporting a particular issue they believe is critical to the success of the party or the nation.
For Republicans, perhaps the most significant pledge issue involves taxes. Grover Norquist has made a career out of getting political candidates, especially Republicans, to sign a “no new taxes” pledge. Most Republican candidates, including almost all of the presidential candidates, have signed the pledge.
For many Republican voters, a candidate’s decision to sign the “no new taxes” pledge is a determining factor in their vote. Failure to sign and support the pledge may end a political career.
In 1988, George H. W. Bush not only signed the pledge but told delegates at the Republican National Convention that even if Congress pushed for new taxes, he would not support them. “Read my lips: no new taxes.”
An economic downturn combined with a Democratic Congress led Bush to accept some tax increases. For many of his supporters, Bush had broken his pledge and did not deserve to be re-elected.
The tax hikes led to a third-party challenge from Texan Ross Perot. Perot won just under 20 percent of the national vote compared to 37.4 percent for Bush, and Bill Clinton was able to win the election with only 43 percent of the vote. Two years before the election, Bush’s popularity hovered around 90 percent due to the quick and decisive victory in the First Gulf War.
Many Democrats have signed the “Social Security Protection Pledge,” which promises never to cut Social Security benefits or increase the retirement age. Given the nation’s $18 trillion debt, many economists believe Social Security needs change if it is to remain solvent.
Shouldn’t a political candidate have the flexibility to make adjustments if circumstances change? Do we want to put our candidates into a political straightjacket?
Pledges have become little more than campaign gimmicks designed to inflate the importance of the individuals or groups that demand the pledges. Legally, such promises are unenforceable.
Republican Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri notes that he has supported “enough pledges. I’ve restricted myself too much this Congress.”
Fellow Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire argues that although she supports “no new taxes” in principle, “what matters most is my pledge to uphold the United States Constitution.”
An important issue in the 2016 presidential campaign is the requirement that all Republican candidates sign an oath to support the party nominee. The original intent of the pledge was to force Donald Trump to agree to support the GOP nominee and not bolt the party for a third-party campaign.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio called Trump “dangerous” and “catastrophic” during the campaign, but now says he will vote for Trump because Rubio signed the pledge.
Jay Caruso, a Rubio supporter, criticized Rubio’s support of Trump. “The idea that a pledge cannot be broken is nonsense. There needs to be good faith on both sides.”
On Sept. 3, 2015, Trump signed the pledge and announced: “I will be totally pledging my allegiance to the Republican Party and the conservative principles for which it stands.”
Six months later, Trump announced at a CNN Town Hall in Milwaukee that he no longer stood by his pledge because he felt he had been “treated very unfairly” by the Republican Party.
I swear Trump must have really been born in the south if France. Isn’t that where all the “fine whines” come from?
Although Trump had no problem backing away from his commitment, he attacked Jeb Bush when Bush announced he wouldn’t support Trump. Bush was “not a man of honor” according to Trump. The pledge was “a guarantee; there’s no outs.”
It seems only reasonable that a pledge to support a party nominee be based in part on that person’s loyalty to the party. During his adult life, Trump has been a Democrat for 28 years, a Republican for 19 years, a Reform Party supporter for three years, and he spent two years as an independent.
Since Trump has spent more time as a Democrat, maybe that party should demand a loyalty oath from Trump.
The least loyal and least conservative Republican candidate has won the Republican nomination. I see no reason for real Republicans or real conservatives to support a candidate who has seldom identified with the party he is leading and its conservative principles.
I pledge to support a real Republican and a real conservative, and Donald Trump is not on that list.
___
Darryl Paulson is Emeritus Professor of Government at the University of South Florida St. Petersburg.
