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
I think Ann Coulter has gone over the edge. I want no truck with her.
Also, I am not an immigration absolutist. My own view is closer to what I suppose to be Rubio’s real view on the issue than Trump’s or Coulter’s.
But during his Senate campaign I heard Mark Levin ask Rubio directly if he supported a path to citizenship, and I heard Rubio (with my own ears) say no, he didn’t, because that was effectively amnesty.
Now, Rubio’s supporters may interpret that away, or they may not be concerned about it themselves, but I think there is no denying that a large segment of the kind of voters who propelled Marco’s victory over Crist felt betrayed by it.
So looking at it from the other side, why not stay in the party and continue to fight against the wrong turn you believe the party has taken? Why not be a protester instead of an emigrant from the party?
That would be a deft way to handle it. I’d like it better than Rubio’s way. But I still think Cruz’s is best, unless Trump were to openly repudiate the Constitution and/or the Republican party platform.
Each Republican member of Congress, Republican governor or state office holder derives support in greater or lesser degree from the RNC and other Republican groups. Unless I’m mistaken, they did not sign this loyalty pledge. They will make the determination whether it’s in their best interest to run counter to Trump to keep their own seats.
Given Trump’s many non-conservative/Leftist positions, any presumptions that Trump will keep any of his promises or preside as a conservative Republican are just wishful thinking. He’s likely not to have coattails that grows Republican representation in Congress. Thinking that he would seems far fetched. Given Trump’s massive unfavorables it is more likely that the Senate, once considered a lock, could be lost and there may be losses of House seats should Trump be the nominee – whether he wins the election or not.
Fewer Republican votes in Congress bodes ill for any attempt at a conservative agenda and makes it easier for Trump to get deals done with like-minded Democrat Socialists. Trump has the potential to annihilate the Republican Party by making it essentially just another Democrat Party. So, all the anger and furor about capitulating Republicans in Congress who have brought this on themselves won’t mean much. Because when all is said and done – perhaps after two or three years of a Trump presidency, the Party is either on life-support or effectively dead. A few Ricochet members have cheered this prospect because they’re angry and feel betrayed. So, none of Trump’s non-Republican and non-conservative positions, or his ignorance on virtually every issue, or his spotty business record, or his incitement to violence, or his failings as a husband or his braggadocio about bedding married women, or his inability to instantly denounce the KKK and white supremacist groups — unfortunately are sufficient to even question the viability of Trump as a suitable nominee.
Others, like myself, have warned that a Trump presidency is not just the death knell of the Republican Party but also is quite dangerous for the republic…especially given his ignorant and wild pronouncements on just about any given domestic or foreign policy issue – from damaging our relationship with certain Middle Eastern countries, to ignoring the looming entitlement crisis, to his threats to companies that will be punished if they don’t bring manufacturing back to America, to his desire to “open up the libel laws” and rewrite the laws prohibiting torture.
It’s difficult to advance a credible scenario where Trump helps the conservative movement grow or makes the Party more conservative. The opposite will more likely happen.
Trump as the presidential nominee bodes ill for any attempt at a conservative agenda.
If you are regular party member, I think that’s fine. Obviously plenty of people are loosely affiliated with a political party. I know plenty of conservatives that are registered Democrats in Chicago because the Democratic primary is the only election that matters on local issues.
But I think the higher up you go in elected office, the harder it gets to remain in the party if the head of your party holds and markets positions you find repulsive. I also think if you compete for the nomination of your party, you are compelled to support the ultimate nominee. If you can’t do that, you should leave the party rather than refuse to support your party’s nominee.
Related question. As I said earlier, I have never voted in a primary because I have never wanted to closely ally myself with the Republican Party. But tomorrow is the Illinois Primary. I believe it is an open primary, so I think I can vote in the Republican primary.
Given how I feel about loyalty, I actually feel that if I vote in the GOP primary, I’m obligated to vote for the GOP nominee, but I refuse to vote for Trump.
Should I consider the greater good of the country and vote in the primary against Trump and face the prospect of swallowing a small amount of personal respect if I vote against him in November, or should I just sit it out?
Or, since I’m likely to vote Hillary over Trump in November, should I just vote in the Democratic primary and vote for Sanders?
This seems easy for me, though I can’t answer for you. The country is what I’m voting to support, not the party. I fear that Trump is a madman and will destroy the country. If he wins, I hope that I’m wrong. But he’ll have to win without my vote.
You can write in a candidate for president in the general and vote for other down-ballot Republicans if they are suitable.
What malarkey.
Republicans could have stopped Trump in2015 by simply requiring that a republican candidate have been a party member for 8 years.
Republicans can stop him now by uniting behind Cruz and by Rubio, Fiorina, Bush pledging him their delegates.
I think Trump is a stalking horse for Hillary, whose work has gone spectacularly well.
The facts of Rubio and Kasitch being being too self important and of Carson and Christy having been co-opted are all that stand in the way of pushing him aside.
It’s time to renounce the pledge. Trump has proven he is trying to begin a civil war. I don’t think anyone can be held accountable for the direction this Primary has gone, other than the despicable race baiter, Donald Trump.
I WILL HOLD IT AGAINST anyone who honors that pledge to a racist, con artist. Now knowing full well that he is scamming America, appealing to the lowest of human motivations-racism. To get votes.
The moral thing at this point is to renounce Donald Trump and all his racist followers forever.
And if anyone can continue to support him after all that he has done and said, they do not belong in the Republican Party and certainly are not any kind of conservative.
A pledge made with misrepresentation, is not a pledge, it is a scam.
Reject the scam pledge with Donald Trump. Take it to court, see if that kind of contract made in bad faith could stand. Reject the pledge.
The Republican Party before Trump stood for moral behavior and good, smaller, efficient government. If you leave before the Primary is over you can’t try to save it. If Trump wins, then it is time to leave.
If the party betrays our trust by nominating Trump, it is no longer the party of Lincoln and Reagan.
The Party of Trump is what I will leave.
I’ll still vote down ticket R locally, but NEVERTRUMP.
Sometimes you have to stand for what is right, even if it means you stand alone.
Please. This blind, stupid adherence to an oath in the face of changing circumstances and further revelation of the character of the person at the other end of the oath is the stuff of pagan tragedy, not clear thinking. “I swear to kill the first man who says as word against my chieftain….oh, damn, my teenage son Thorvald said a word against my chieftain. Guess I have to kill him.” Wrong! And yes, if Trump is the nominee, not only should they – Cruz, Rubio, et alia- break this oath at the speed of light, but they should leave the rotting corpse of ther Republican Party draped around Donald J.’s neck and actively campaign against him.
Can’t agree.
It’s not blind. It’s not stupid. And whereas it would be immoral to kill anyone (never mind one’s child) for saying a word against his chieftain, it is not immoral to support Trump against Clinton.
Nor is a Trump nomination “changing circumstances”. He was among the candidates on the stage when the pledge was made, his character even then well-known.
If Trump were to descend to criminality, or if he were to disavow the party platform or the Constitution, then of course, it’s different: the pledge is de facto annulled.
As for me (who made no pledge and have not sought the office myself), I will leave the Republican party if Trump is the nominee.
I voted for Cruz. It was open, I just had to tell them which ballot I wanted. The Illinois process is designed to allow fraudulent voting. You only have to tell them the number of your street address and and first four letters of your last name. I guess when you are hiring homeless people to vote for dead people, you want to them to remember as little as possible (because they will need to remember a different combination of numbers and letters next hour).
I have my reservations about Cruz’s electability in the fall, but I think he is FAR superior to Trump when it comes to electability (admittedly like saying the tallest building in Wichita).
Apparently, the Democratic race is fairly close, so I’m somewhat hopeful that fewer Democrats will cross over the sabotage the Republican primary to vote for Trump.
Either way, I figure this is the last time I can vote in the Republican party. It either won’t exist four years from now or it will be the Donald Trump / Pat Buchanan / David Duke party of political irrelevance.
I should point out that the Presidential race was the ONLY contested primary I voted in, and there were maybe four other candidates for any office. The entire back half of my ballot had a single Republican candidate, the rest of the page said “No Candidate” by every office.
The back half is mostly judges, but it’s still a little shocking that the GOP doesn’t bother.
Which confirms my general election strategy of voting “No” on every single judge.
Related: Electing judges seems a good idea, but the problem is that the only people who tend to be qualified to be judges are lawyers, and these are the people bringing cases to judges. If you run a campaign against someone who’s elected, the odds are you might have a case brought before the guy you were running against. It makes people reluctant to run at all. So it’s not too surprising there’s “no candidate” in some of these.
Kati,
I am only in favor of withdrawal of support as a last resort assuming the bad behavior continues and even gets worse. However, just for the sake of argument, I don’t think Donald Trump has endorsed originalism. He then assumes the Constitution is just a suggestion and whatever you think it means it means. Trump may put his sister on the Supreme Court. She is as far left as anyone else already on the Court. That would be a disaster. Of course, Ann Coulter doesn’t even acknowledge that possibility. Only Rubio’s terrible possible weakness on immigration matters. Donald has already admitted his tough talk is just a bargaining position but that still makes him superman on this issue even though it makes no sense at all.
I pledge my support of the Republican candidate for President in 2016 unless that candidate has proven him or herself to be expressly malfeasant in regards to carrying out the duties of President. If HRC is indicted, I don’t think you would criticize a democrat who had taken an oath to support her if she were the nominee but now in light of the indictment declines to support her and in fact demands that she withdraw.
Regards,
Jim
Of course it was a mistake. And of course it was a mistake that almost anyone would have made. I struggle to condemn these men for not seeing what I did not — not merely that Trump would very possibly be the nominee, but that his movement would become so ugly. “I’ll support the Republican nominee against Hillary Clinton” — that’s like promising to cheer for your home team, to support the troops or some other really obvious principle.
Until it isn’t.
If you pledge yourself to your own harm, you follow through and face the consequences. But there’s no honor in a pledge to the harm of the country. If Rubio (or Cruz) cannot in conscience support Trump, they should repudiate the pledge.
I don’t think someone who signed that should run third-party. And yet if one of them did… I’d probably vote for him, too.
For my part, I think we may have in fact crossed that line. I do not think the other candidates fully appreciated the potential ugliness of his leadership or certain deeply troubling elements in his political appeal. I think it comes very close to disavowing the platform (in effect, if not in explicit words) and is at a minimum inconsistent with the Constitution.
You may be right, Leigh.