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
Huh. I read him as saying quite the opposite. That is, he clearly regrets making the pledge but intends to stick with it.
I read Rubio as hedging his bets and trying to redefine the “pledge” as a judgment call, leaving himself room to change his mind in future.
That’s fine. I certainly understand it. But, as I said, I like Cruz’s stance better.
When a politician says “at this moment I’m still intending…” he is not committing to stick to a pledge.
The other would destroy the Supreme Court, not to mention the lower courts.
Here is the video of Cruz explaining his position to Chuck Todd this weekend:
<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ghb20GA4BG4″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>
“I’m a very simple man. When I give my word on something I follow through and do what I say.”
Oh, please. First, it’s not an oath. It’s a loyalty pledge. There is a difference. Second, a lot of reprehensible things have transpired since the loyalty pledge was put forth. None of the other candidates would have thought that Trump would have promoted that his supporters beat the “crap” out people disrupting his events. No one expected Trump not to be instantly and immediately dismissive of the KKK, David Duke and other white supremacist groups when repeatedly asked on camera just prior to a primary. No one expected Trump to consider offering legal support for a supporter who has threatened to kill a protester should he show up again at a Trump event. Rubio’s loyalty (and I would have hoped Cruz and Kasich’s as well) goes beyond party loyalty. Any candidate and voter has a loyalty to their own conscience and to the nation that trumps loyalty to any party. If Rubio can’t in good conscience support such a vile and loathsome figure as Donald Trump who has only been shown as more repugnant and loathsome in the last few months and possibly dangerous for the country, then more power to him.
Katie, are you arguing that Rubio is “waffling” on the pledge for reasons other than grave doubts about Trump?
If you give your word to do something, but then learn that what you intended to do would inflict serious and lasting damage on your party and your country, is it immoral to “break” your word? Not in my view. I see that as principled rather than slavish.
I would like to see both Cruz and Rubio repudiate the pledge. It would be a dramatic affirmation of conservative values. Cruz is still hoping to pick up Trump supporters, so he won’t do it. I think Rubio — though he would have to consider down-ticket ripple effects — may.
I would be interested (truly) in learning what you see as the apposite difference between the two (I mean an oath and a pledge).
And again, I think Rubio’s view is respectable. I personally will not vote for Trump.
But backing down on a pledge like this adds to the narrative that’s doomed Rubio.
I hope he learns from it.
I hope Cruz, too, learns to be more careful about pledges. I loved Fred Thompson’s “No hand shows.”
How many times will I have to say I think Rubio’s wavering in this case is respectable before my interlocutors here quit supposing I’m implying that Rubio is doing something immoral. I’m not. I’m saying three things:
His role in the Gang of Eight is largely to blame for that narrative taking hold.
Let me say this. Any candidate that refuses to support Trump should quit the Republican party.
If you refuse to the support the party’s nominee, you shouldn’t be in the party.
Well, the last time I checked, an oath “is a solemn promise, often invoking a divine witness, regarding one’s future action or behavior.”
A party loyalty pledge, I don’t believe has the same gravitas. And given the present circumstances, breaking a loyalty pledge formulated by a party that may be destined to put forth a candidate that stands in stark contrast to the principles on which the party was founded and one whose rhetoric helps to incite his followers to violence might be more in keeping with Rubio’s Catholic teaching…which should also trump a party pledge.
If the Party nominates someone who repudiates every plank in its platform, then I will consider that the Party has exposed itself as bankrupt and I will look for a new political home.
Really hoping it won’t get to that point, though.
Be careful what you wish for.
Believe me that thought has crossed my mind during this election cycle.
I take issue with your number 3. That’s why I made the comment I did.
Hopefully we won’t get to this terrible dilemma but I would pick gridlock over a trump president….Hillary would be easier to stop than Obama. The people elected him to a second term and he continues to have 47% approval rating. Now that guy could shot someone on 5th avenue and his supporters would still support him.
I agree with you that it doesn’t have the same gravitas. That’s why I don’t think Rubio’s position is immoral or unrespectable. But it’s still a waffling. Breaking a pledge and/or suggesting you might soon break a pledge has political consequences, especially when compared against another candidate who is saying, “I’m a simple man; when I pledge to do something, I follow through.”
Nor does it say in the pledge that they will endorse or support the nominee exclusively.
Keep in mind everyone: Cruz is not following through on an immoral pledge. He’s not following through on a promise to, say, assassinate a rival.
The pledge may have been ill-advised, but the practical effect of keeping it (supporting Trump against Hillary) would be justifiable (as the lesser of two evils) even if he hadn’t pledged to do it.
This is why I said somewhere on here that Trump’s rise has confirmed the wisdom of my lifelong decision to not align myself with the Republican Party. I’ve long the thought the Republican Party was evil, albeit clearly less evil than the Democratic Party. Trump’s rise has, at a minimum, made the choice of the lesser evil a tough call.
I don’t see how that point can be disputed. As a senate candidate he promised not to back amnesty or a path to citizenship, then once in office he did an about-face. That’s killing him now. (Greg Gutfeld had a great piece on the point the other day, which I won’t link, because it was on Breitbart, which I’m avoiding these days.)
That’s still a less than honest assertion because it ignores what has come to light with Donald Trump since the pledge was put forth that I’ve cited. I’d be disturbed if Rubio wasn’t waffling. I am disturbed that most of the Republican Party isn’t waffling. It disgusts me when Sean Hannity tells Donald Trump that he’s reviewed video of Trump at his rallies and can’t find any instance where he has encouraged his supporters to act of violently.
Blanket amnesty, for what it’s worth. Whatever…wherever.
This is what baffles me, Katie. I can’t agree at all.
How might I advise a man to deal with this pledge position without compromising himself if in the end he felt he could not vote for the nominee?
Perhaps like this:
katie,
With all due respect, you seem to have fallen for the magic Ann Coulter litmus test. Rubio is forever blackened by his gang of eight stance even though he pulled out of it and has completely and openly recanted the position. What is so especially magic about it is that Rubio’s conservative rating is as high as Cruz the highest. Meanwhile, Donald Trump has supported single payer, partial birth abortion, supported democrats, and until rather recently was a democrat. Yet, magically Ann finds nothing to be concerned about when it comes to the golden Donald. Some litmus test.
Regards,
Jim
I can accept that logic. But I don’t recall if anyone on this thread has mentioned that Trump also agreed to the pledge and then claimed, falsely, it seems to me, that me meant a caveat: “Only if I’m treated fairly.” This, of course, is a full-on escape clause, as Trump means it. So, if Trump goes into the convention with fewer than the magic number and then isn’t the nominee, he will claim he wasn’t treated fairly and break his pledge. In fact, it is this very threat that has some people agitated about “What will Trump’s supporters do if he isn’t the nominee?”
So I don’t see why anyone owes any loyalty to him regardless of the pledges they made. He has already announced his own lack of loyalty, and that his pledge means nothing.
Oh, Trump is owed nothing.
But if Trump is the nominee of the party, then he is what the party wants. If that is a bridge too far you, then you should leave the party.
Staying in the party as an elected official but not supporting your party’s nominee for President is unacceptable.
Your argument has a certain appeal, but I wonder if you would feel the same if we were to substitute “country” for “party.”
Isn’t it okay to be against what your country has decided to do or support without having to abandon it? So, for example, if I don’t support Trump’s murder of Muslim civilians who happen to be related to suspected terrorists is it okay for me to join in protests against him while maintaining my citizenship?
Country is very different.
A political party is a voluntary membership organization that you can quit with zero cost. I didn’t make a voluntary choice to be an American, I was was given citizenship in this country by virtue of my birth.
Because I can’t change countries by picking up a different ballot, the threshold is inherently much higher and I don’t have to support everything the President does even though I campaigned heavily against him, but sure, there could easily become a point at which I am so disgusted by America that I need to withdraw my membership and pay the exit tax.