Letters

Letters 07-25-2016

Remember Bush-Cheney Does anyone remember George W. Bush and Dick Cheney? They were president and vice president a mere eight years ago. Does anyone out there remember the way things were at the end of their duo? It was terrible...

Mass Shootings And Gun Control The largest mass shooting in U.S. history occurred December 29,1890, when 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee in South Dakota were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms “for their own safety and protection.” The slaughter began after the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms...

Families Need Representation When one party dominates the Michigan administration and legislature, half of Michigan families are not represented on the important issues that face our state. When a policy affects the non-voting K-12 students, they too are left out, especially when it comes to graduation requirements...

Raise The Minimum Wage I wanted to offer a different perspective on the issue of raising the minimum wage. The argument that raising the minimum wage will result in job loss is a bogus scare tactic. The need for labor will not change, just the cost of it, which will be passed on to the consumer, as it always has...

Make Cherryland Respect Renewable Cherryland Electric is about to change their net metering policy. In a nutshell, they want to buy the electricity from those of us who produce clean renewable electric at a rate far below the rate they buy electricity from other sources. They believe very few people have an interest in renewable energy...

Settled Science Climate change science is based on the accumulated evidence gained from studying the greenhouse effect for 200 years. The greenhouse effect keeps our planet 50 degrees warmer due to heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. Basic principles of physics and chemistry dictate that Earth will warm as concentrations of greenhouse gases increase...

Home · Articles · News · Other Opinions · Taking the pledge
. . . .

Taking the pledge

Stephen Tuttle - July 25th, 2011
Taking the Pledge
Republicans, especially presidential candidates, are on the verge of being
inundated with pledges. Not to the Constitution or their constituents
because that would actually make some sense. No, they are now expected to
sign on to a number of special interest group pledges. Failure to do so
could result in a candidate being shunned by the very voters he or she
most needs.
There is a certain irony in all of this. Our Constitution includes the
specific language of the president’s oath of office but not for members of
Congress. It only requires that our Senators and Representatives “...
shall be bound by oath or affirmation...” to defend and protect that
remarkable document.
In 1789, Congress came up with a pretty good little oath; clean, simple
and straightforward: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support
the Constitution of the United States.”
Alas, those 14 words lasted only about 75 years. After the Civil War a
new oath was conjured up, allegedly to protect us from those pesky
southerners and their traitorous northern brethren. And, of course, the
ubiquitous “so help me God” was added.
We now have plenty of oaths and pledges and none of them are especially
brief or elegant. The target for all of them seems to be Republicans who,
apparently, cannot be trusted unless they’ve signed some kind of pledge.
Special interest groups have always demanded a certain amount of loyalty
in exchange for their support. Nothing surprising or untoward about that.
But 2012 Republican presidential candidates are faced with more litmus
tests than a 6th grade science class.
For starters, there is the No New Taxes pledge of Grover Norquist and his
Americans for Tax Reform. This one is so old – it was first offered in
1986 – it’s practically an historical document in political terms. It
actually is simple; no new taxes, period.
So far, more than 230 Republican members of the House and 40 members of
the Senate have signed Norquist’s pledge. They aren’t raising taxes or
voting for any new taxes no matter what. It does sort of limit they way
in which they deal with the current budget mess and eliminates their
ability to become involved in any kind of rational budget discussions but,
hey, they signed a pledge.
As you would expect, there is also a Pro-Life Presidential Leadership
pledge. It is exactly what you’d guess; a promise to oppose abortions
under almost any circumstance and work to overturn Roe v. Wade. We’ve
heard both sides of this argument so many times over so many years we can
recite the entire debate by rote.
A new player in the pledge sweepstakes is something called the Cut, Cap
and Balance pledge. The idea is to cut the budget, create spending caps
that are actually enforceable and support a constitutional amendment that
requires the budget be balanced. The House has now passed cut, cap and
balance legislation but the Senate is incredibly unlikely to follow suit
and the president has already promised a veto in the unlikely event the
bill reaches his desk.
Far and away the most spectacular of the current pledges comes from a
newly minted special interest group in Iowa calling itself The Family
Leader. They’ve concocted a real dandy of a pledge, the “Declaration of
Dependence Upon Marriage and Family”, ostensibly to protect traditional
marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
That would have been simple enough as a standard anti-gay marriage
promise. But the Family Leader pledge contains 14 points. Among other
things, it requires support of “faithful constitutionalist” judges,
opposition to abortion, opposition to pornography, and in a delightful
bit of nonsense, opposition to Sharia law. Of course, there is no
Islamic Sharia law in our justice system, no one has suggested any such
thing, no such thing is even remotely possible but it’s a nice bit of
ugly Muslim-baiting by the conservative evangelicals who created this
abomination.
Most of the time special interest groups have enough common sense to
realize they’ll need to do more than just threaten candidates who don’t
necessarily agree with every single thing they want. They lobby them,
talk to them, reason with them, attempt to persuade them. At least
that used to be the case. Not so much anymore.
Those who now offer up these pledges have a different approach – sign this
pledge or we will destroy you politically. It’s not neighborly or
especially productive.
We understand that Republicans now pledging away their independence must
“appeal to their base”. That means mostly conservative voters, especially
those identifying themselves as evangelicals, who tend to turn out for
primary elections in larger numbers than other Republican voters. Signing
all these pledges proves the candidate is serious about issues important
to those voters.
It also makes it difficult to appeal to Independents, cross-over Democrats
and other general election voters who may not agree with every word of
every pledge. Having pledged themselves into an ideological corner,
there’s no room for escape.
If elected, adherence to the pledges becomes even more nonsensical since
elected officials are supposed to represent all of us, not just those who
agree with their pledge-taking. Governing requires room for
give-and-take, not rigid adherence to the narrow visions of a narrow
segment of the electorate.
A better pledge might be this – I promise to behave like an adult, refrain
from insulting those with whom I don’t agree, tell the truth, try my best
to represent all the people in my district (or state or country), always
understand that I work for my constituents and not the other way around,
and believe the Constitution is a living document I will support, protect
and defend.

 
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
 

 

 
 
 
Close
Close
Close