Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
On Oaths & Pledges
Late last summer, all of the Republican candidates signed the following loyalty pledge:
I, [name], affirm that if I do not win the 2016 Republican nomination for President of the United States I will endorse the 2016 Republican presidential nominee regardless of who it is, “I further pledge that I will not seek to run as an independent or write-in candidate nor will I seek or accept the nomination for president of any other party.
Well, two of the candidates now seem to have realized that this was a bad idea. Asked at one of the recent debates whether he intends to keep the pledge, Senator Ted Cruz said “Yes, because I gave my word that I would,” in much the same tone that one says “We shouldn’t announce the divorce until after your sister’s wedding.” Senator Marco Rubio also promised to abide by the oath, but — pressed on it this weekend — was open about his regret over the decision:
I don’t know. I mean, I’ve already talked about the fact that I think Hillary Clinton would be terrible for this country. But the fact that you’re still asking me that question — I still, at this moment, still intend to support the Republican nominee but [it’s] getting harder every day.
As much as I want to feel for Cruz and Rubio on this, this is entirely their fault and it was a foolish thing to do at the time (FWIW, Governor John Kasich also promises to abide by the pledge, but doesn’t seem very troubled by it). Taking this sort of oath means, among other things, that no matter what any of the other candidates do or what positions they adopt, one’s support both can and should be taken for granted. That’s a high order.
No one ever makes a pledge with full information, but oaths are serious matters, best reserved for situations where the possible outcomes and their respective likelihoods have been carefully considered. To his credit, Trump seems to have done that well and — considering how easy it would be for him to claim mistreatment at the hands of The Establishment™ — it’s hard to see how he’d come out of the matter a loser. In contrast, the other candidates all look rather foolish.
The question now is whether they’ll now choose their honor over judgement. I don’t envy them.
Published in General
Oh, dear.
Despite my contempt for Trump, I thought his refusal at the first debate was exactly right. Unfortunately, he missed the opportunity to turn it into a teaching moment for the GOP, by not saying something like “guys, you’re doing it again! You’re giving away all your leverage before we have the argument. You don’t tell people you’re not going to shut down the government like McConnell did before you get in the room with the President! And you don’t say you’re going to support someone a year before the final votes are tallied.”
But they didn’t specify how much they would support the nominee. Radio silence might be the best tactic.
What’s funny is that the pledge was designed to trap Trump. Now it’s biting his rivals. Law of unintended consequences and all that.
I think asking for the pledge was a bad idea, but anyone running for the Republican nomination should be a Republican, which means you should be willing to support the nominee.
It only came up this year because we had a candidate that was at best marginally attached to the Republican party.
I cannot understand any Republican who thinks voting for Trump is worse than voting for Hillary or Bernie or not voting at all. He is not a “true conservative” but he is certainly a better option than either Socialist on the Democrat side. Life is full of choices and compromises and the National Review crowd should get behind whomever wins the Republican nomination. Cruz/Rubio/Kasich took a pledge and they should honor it, just as Trump should honor it if he loses. The alternative to Trump is far worse.
I agree that events have shown the pledge to be a mistake. But, since they did it, I prefer Cruz’s position to Rubio’s.
Cruz repeated this weekend that he will support the nominee.
I think Rubio’s waffling adds to the impression that he’s an unreliable conservative. He can’t be trusted not to shift positions under pressure. I think Cruz’s holding firm adds to the impression that he is that rare politician who keeps his promises to his constituents.
As for me, I will not vote for Trump. But I can respect those who will. It’s a terrible predicament with no simple answers.
Agree to disagree.
For myself, I think Hillary and Trump would both be disastrous, though in different ways. I’m not sure Trump would be worse on the whole, but I think there’s a distinct possibility that he could be a lot worse. Besides my concern about him blustering into an unnecessary war with Russia or China, I think validating his candidacy would severely damage the conservative movement in a way that Clinton would not.
I am in the camp that says the pledge was a bad idea. Let me give you an example of why, from my own life.
I worked at a tax and duty free store along the border between Canada and the United States, for a short time. I was a college student, and I worked the graveyard shift. There were 3-4 people working the shift on any given evening, plus the shift supervisor. One day, it became an issue that the till of one of the employees was consistently coming up short when she counted out. Not by $.37 one time, and a buck-forty-nine another time. But by $20, even, every time. You know, and I know, and everyone on the shift knew, and the shift supervisor knew, and the store manager knew, that she was lifting $20 from her till. But she swore up and down that she wasn’t. So you know what they did? they put new procedure in place for everyone, for counting in, and counting out. We all knew the new procedures would not prevent her from stealing, nor would they provide management with tangible proof that she was stealing. And we were right. In the end, her till continued to be off by $20, several nights per week, for a week or two longer, and they fired her. But all of us felt like chumps. Our tills were never off, there was never an issue before she arrived, why were we required to abide by new procedures? Because someone was to chicken [expletive] to look at her and say “If your till is off by so much as a penny, you’ll be fired.” At least, they didn’t do that initially.
And if you ask me, all these Republicans were asked to sign a pledge because of one guy. And it’s because the RNC is too [what I said before] to say to Trump “You aren’t a Republican, get the [some other word] outta here!”
I tend to agree, but the nightmare I foresee is Trump loses in an open convention and his supporters refuse to turn out in the General… or worse.
People are already talking this way (who are Cruz supporters!) because of all the paranoia drummed up about “the establishment.” To these people, if the first ballot doesn’t go for Trump (despite roughly 2/3 of the primary electorate opposing him), the rules should be changed such that the candidate with the most delegates (not the majority) should be nominated. They’ve painted us into a lose/lose corner.
If someone in 1933, based on the statements and actions at that time, promised to support Der Fuehrer, would he be required to cling to that pledge after the Sudetenland crisis? Munich? The Austrian Anschluss?
The Duke, KKK, Corey Lewandowski matters are irrelevant no matter what? Unless Trump shoots someone on 5th Avenue?
In fairness, Rubio hasn’t repudiated the pledge and I don’t think he should, either. If he’s visibly sorry about it, that’s okay with me.
The Oath struck me as showmanship, and it was a clumsy way to strike at Trump who was at the time most suspected of making a third-party move if he lost the primary. The problem is that at that time it is easily circumvented by just declaring, “Sure, I’ll do it.”
No one really expected Trump to abide by his word in the oath, but everyone expected the others to do so. So now, of course, his opponents have painted themselves in a corner.
I keep reiterating that we live in a Shame-based society now, and Trump’s superpower is that he’s shameless. He can make and break oaths with impunity and never lose face, but his opponents haven’t that ability and so if they back out should he win, they’ll look all the worse and he comes out on top because he can shame his opponents.
How is waffling on supporting a liberal statist proto-fascist being an unreliable conservative?
Katie, you need to stop with this kind of stuff. He’s not waffling. He’s conflicted, like a lot of us, over Trump. I thought it showed an element of concern and humility. It’s a BS pledge, we all know it. And we also know all of them signed it because they thought, like a lot of us, that Trump was a flash in the pan. None of them thought we’d be where we are right now.
It was not a foolish thing because they would’t be where they are in the mix today if they had not made it. When Trump was wishy-washy on it, he had to back track. You don’t get to play in the primary if you’re going to be a sore loser and not support the winner. That’s fundamental. If they had not made that pledge, then Jeb or Huckabee or Paul would be the opposition to Trump today.
I completely disagree. If another candidate isn’t worth supporting, then you shouldn’t support them. If you can’t be sure, then don’t make a promise.
Besides, saying that you’ll support someone no matter what is an invitation to be taken for granted.
I know this is a strange year, but even so, I disagree. If you want to run for the nomination, you should support the eventual nominee.
Of course, the possibility of someone like Trump winning the nomination is precisely why I have never joined the Republican Party
The problem I see with both the Republican loyalty oath and the pledge Donald Trump asks of his supporters is that they bind you to an individual.
I have taken two oaths, one when entering the Air Force, the other when becoming a police officer. Neither oath bound me to an individual. I obligated myself to uphold the Constitution and obey lawful orders. In the case of the police bureau I obligated myself to the Constitution and state law as well as city law. More importantly both oaths covered lawful orders, not the individual in power at the time.
As a Catholic you do not pledge yourself to an individual.
Just as a practical matter, whichever of the candidates said they would not support the winner, would have been destroyed with negative advertising. This is so highly competitive between individuals who’s positions are marginally different than any “traitor” distinction would have been easily exploited. If you still disagree, then we just disagree.
Who is the ijit who drafted that pledge and omitted “or vice-president.”
I think they should stand by their oath, stupid or not. But I have no faith in their doing what they said they will do. Principles of all kinds have already been thrown out the window, so no matter what we think they should do, they’ll do what they think is in their best interests. Heaven only knows what those interests might be–a position in the nominee’s administration?
They really did this? Honestly?
Tom,
This is the reality of this year. Let’s preface this by the fact that the base under its own steam won back the house in 2010. Then the establishment with Romney couldn’t quite defeat Obama even after 4 years of obvious BHO disaster. John Roberts truly knifed everyone in the back with his gutless Obamacare decision. Then the base showing incredible faith in the country came back again more seasoned and sophisticated and won the senate in 2014.
The establishment decided it was Jeb!’s turn. They continued their policy of taking the base for granted and Jeb! couldn’t get to the end of a paragraph before selling his position out to the democrats. Knowing that he would face her in 2016 he actually gave HRC an award.
In this atmosphere, Trump did the obvious thing and voiced the pain of the disenfranchised base. Seeing how volatile the situation was Priebus got Trump to guarantee he wouldn’t bolt the party. To do this everyone had to sign on.
I think there is little choice at this point but to stay with the agreement. I think Rubio was hinting that he didn’t consider it absolute and that if things got worse he would reconsider it. Other than that they will stay with the agreement.
If the FBI writes its recommendation to Justice and the AG chooses not to indict HRC I think the recommendation will leak. At that point, two incredibly flawed candidates will be running for President. This will be a very sad day for the country.
Just one thing Tom. Do not blame Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz for any of this. There was nothing they could have done. The left wing psychotic democrats, the lickspittle media, and the hopelessly detached Republican establishment are the guilty.
Regards,
Jim
I mostly agree with Katie.
These types of pledges are silly, but I understand that refusing to sign on comes at substantial political risk. I do feel that keeping one’s word is the more principled decision, but I won’t fault Rubio much if he decides to break his word on principle. (I also agree that this could cost him politically, since it reinforces the perception that he doesn’t keep his word.) On the whole, I think these are both decent men, and their decisions on this issue won’t move the needle much for me on that score.
I’ll part with Katie on not voting for Trump over Hillary as there is at least some reason to hope he might appoint better justices.
No, not required. Nor are the situations comparable.
The pledge was not to support Trump, but the eventual Republican nominee. It’s a pledge to the party and its voters. And the alternative is not between promoting evil or stopping it; it’s between two bad options.
Cruz is openly saying he thinks Trump is unfit for the office. It would be a terrible mistake for the party to nominate him. Nevertheless, if the party does nominate him, he, as a Republican, will support him against Hillary Clinton, who is even less fit for the office.
It’s a respectable position. I think Rubio’s position is respectable too, under the circumstances.
Both positions also reveal something of the respective men’s characters and styles, though. Both play into the developing narratives. Rubio shifts positions and reneges on pledges; Cruz doesn’t. Rubio can’t be relied on to do what he says he’ll do; Cruz can be.
Also, the pledge isn’t well described as “based on the statements and actions of the time.” The whole point of it was to establish whether the nominee would be supported regardless of the circumstances.
And it’s not like any of them didn’t know Trump would be running. It’s not like Trump’s egregiousness wasn’t a known-quantity at the time.
It looks very much like Rubio is spinning his pledge as conditional on Trump’s not being the nominee. But then it was an empty pledge, no better or more reliable than Trump’s “pledge” not to run third party.
“Oh, I thought that meant president of a party. I didn’t know you meant to say ‘nomination of any other party for president’ ”
These guys don’t employ lawyers for nothing. I repeat, the guy who drafted the pledge is an ijit!
Both trump and Clinton would be disasters for the country, but only one would irrevocably destroy the Republican Party.