And, observing on political pledges in general, Warren Throckmorton, an associate professor of psychology at Pennsylvania's Grove City College noted: "Overall, this is the kind of thing that should be ignored by any candidate who wants to appeal to the rest of the country and GOP, outside of a small group in Iowa."
Perhaps, but if so, denial of some form has enabled that reality to sail freely over the heads of pledge-addicted Republican incumbents, and many 2012 candidates both declared and potential. Evidently, it's time they begin to follow the advice Nancy Reagan offered addicts of another kind and "just say no" -- to give up the pledge pen. But given the narcissistic nature of politicians in general, resisting the temptation seems highly unlikely. Peer pressure alone render many Republicans defenseless against the enticement to sign on the dotted line. Norquist's Taxpayer Protection Pledge, for example, boasts a roster of 235 House and 41 Senate members; 13 governors; and 1,200 state legislators, and it's the original version of the Marriage Vow Pledge that includes the signatures of GOP presidential hopefuls Bachmann and Santorum.
There should be little ambiguity attached to the notion that many Republicans view pledge-signing as a means of establishing or further burnishing their conservative political cred among the noisiest, most recalcitrant, and easiest to pander to segment of their base: the Tea Party "patriots." It's difficult to downplay this particular voting bloc's penchant for becoming instantly raptured by any Republican politician able to shill with authenticity, his or her reverence for "upholding the Constitution; for fiscal sanity; and for the sanctity of traditional marriage."
For proof one need look no further than Herman Cain.
It's also likely that GOP candidates hope or believe that "the American people" will view their pledge-taking as a signed and sealed demonstration of the pledgers' politically macho, "take no prisoners" adherence to principle instead of a vow of tool-like subservience to the leaders of those interest groups -- some of which, like Norquist's Americans For Tax Reform, are stealth-funded.
At this point, a review of recent political history might prove useful in analyzing the possible outcome of the current GOP pledge drive. Could such "adherence to principal" exceed the disappointing level of adherence established some years back when term limit pledges served as one of the keys to the GOP's return to political power?
Recall that prior to the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, Republicans were having a difficult time getting elected to the House and Senate. So, via Newt Gingrich's 1994 Contract with America, they made a promise around which they weaved a tale of faux romanticism about ushering in a "new era" of citizen governance: "If you elect us," they assured voters, "we will serve only a set number of terms."
Today, many elected offices at all levels of government remain held by term limit promise-keepers who somehow forgot that promise once their self-imposed political time clocks ran out. Perhaps those who eventually took a pass on their own term limit pledge took their battle slogan; Term limits for Teddy! (Kennedy) a tad too literally.
Nevertheless, it's also worth pointing out that since terms limits at the federal level was ruled unconstitutional, the magic word impacting the term limits pledge for most of those Republicans and the Democrats who reneged was, of course, the word "non-binding." And certainly, over the years, that escape clause has served them well.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
4
3
2
