The Republican Party of Virginia recently enacted a rule requiring that anyone voting in the 2012 Republican primary election must sign a pledge that they intend to support the party’s nominees in the general election. The response to this decision was decidedly negative, with opposition being expressed from Gov. Bob McDonnell, Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling, and many other Republican leaders. As a result, state party Chairman Pat Mullins has called a meeting of the State Central Committee to decide whether to repeal the rule, and it is now pretty obvious that they will do so.
The loyalty pledge should be rescinded as a condition of voting. Voting is not only a right; it is a moral imperative, and no one should have to declare loyalty to a candidate that he did not support for the nomination in order to participate in our democratic process.
Personally, I do usually support the Republican candidate, not because of the party label but because the Republican candidate is almost always closer to my personal views than the Democrat candidate. However, there have been occasions when a Republican candidate had a jaded history that indicated poor character or had expressed views that were so far removed from my own that I could not in good conscience support him. Ron Paul falls into that category, and if he were to win the nomination (which, thankfully, he has zero chance of doing) I could not support or vote for him.
One of the many reasons that I oppose Ron Paul for the Republican nomination is that he is not a Republican in any meaningful way: His views are mostly outside of the Republican mainstream and often in direct conflict with our core values. He takes as much delight as John McCain in appearing in front of any available camera to assail Republicans and our principles. Furthermore, most of his supporters are not Republicans and, in fact, detest the Republican Party.
Consistent with the fact that Ron Paul is not really a Republican, as recently as yesterday he refused to rule out the possibility of running as a third-party candidate against our eventual nominee. Conventional wisdom is that a third-party candidacy by Paul would split Republican votes and virtually guarantee the reelection of Barack Obama. I am not convinced that this analysis is correct. As I noted above, most of Paul’s supporters are libertarians and liberals who would never consider voting for a Republican. His extreme dovish foreign policy and national defense views would strongly appeal to leftists who are disillusioned with Barack Obama and would repel most mainstream Republicans. So, I believe that a third-party run by Paul might actually hurt Obama more than the Republican nominee.
But none of that matters. What matters is that Paul himself believes that he would undermine the Republican candidate by a third-party run, and that is unacceptable in anyone who seeks to become our party’s standard-bearer. We have a right to expect that anyone who is running to become the leader of the Republican Party will not turn around in the same election and work to undermine our party.
I am not suggesting that any candidate should be required to blindly pledge to support the eventual nominee. However, I am suggesting that candidates for our party’s nomination should be required to sign a legally-binding contract that they will not run against the eventual nominee in the same election. That contractual agreement should be a condition for any candidate to appear on any state’s ballot for the party’s nomination, and the contract should include substantial monetary penalties for any breach.
Every candidate for the Republican nomination for President is also inherently running to become the head of the Republican Party. It is not too much to ask that any candidate for that job commit to not run against our party’s nominee.
