Non-opposition pledge for candidates, not voters
By Ken Falkenstein | Saturday, January 7th, 2012 | Politics
Pat Mullins
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The loyalty pledge should be rescinded as a condition of voting.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.
Ron Paul
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.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Ken Falkenstein has been a staffer in the United States Senate and the Virginia House of Delegates. He has managed political campaigns. He was a military intelligence analyst in the U.S. Army in West Germany during the Cold War. He is currently the Vice President of the Down Syndrome Association of Hampton Roads and practices as a civil litigation attorney with the law firm of Poole Mahoney PC in Virginia Beach. His concern for his kids' future is what most informs his writing.
Comments
19 Responses to "Non-opposition pledge for candidates, not voters"
Well, there you go again. If one goes to the RPV home page, predominately positioned is the Republican Party of Virginia. It appears, as per your analysis, the pledge is ” outside of the Republican mainstream and often in direct conflict with our core values”.
I contend that Rep. Ron Paul more closely adheres to those edicts more so than any other Republican candidate in the current field. More specifically, my personal core values as in the pledge of allegiance is “ liberty and justice for all.” Any candidate that condones the violation of search and seizure through the Patriot Act, or suspension of habeas corpus, indefinite incarceration, military tribunals, and use of the military as a policing force on U.S. soil as per sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA (2012) is not my idea of Republican core values. So who really is out of the main stream?
I was referring to the RPV creed in the above post.
Ken, politically speaking you have so perverted what Ron Paul stands for that I want to turn a red light on for ya while you dance in a window on that narrow street of ill repute. You assign values to Ron Paul that attempt top paint him as unrepublican. So tell me, who in your opinion is more republican and what values of theirs makes them moreso than Ron Paul.
Ken,
That’s an interesting conjecture you make that some liberals might support Ron Paul. I think you might be correct that his foreign policy positions might appeal to many of them. Also his position on legalizing recreational drug use might appeal to many of them as well. After hearing those two positions, that might be enough and they might not dig any further. Perhaps this would help explain why he polls so well with younger voters (18 – 29).
It would be reasonable for a political party to be able to require party loyalty of those who want to be on the ballot and complete in the state party’s nomination process. That’s a very modest proposal. Some take issue with your view that Ron Paul is not a true Republican but your main point that party loyalty should be required of our candidates is uncontested. Good points, Ken.
If you want to deal with pledge nonsense you should try living in Loudoun County, where four Republican candidates have left the party in the last decade to run against the people who beat them fair and square in conventions. One of them was just rewarded by getting a seat on the county Planning Commission from an incoming Republican supervisor. Kind of like the whole Bill Janis mess. But I guess RPV will just gloss over that one.
Oh, and another one, Sheriff candidate Ron Speakman, was advised by Michael Giere, now running for 11th CD Chair. Speakman got famous by emailing a photo of a penis to a woman working on his campaign.
@littledavid – no wonder you’re in agreement with Ken – you have the same propensity for misrepresenting Paul’s position. I am getting so tired of pseudo intellectuals such as yourselves propping up your BS conclusions with support that you raise by MISQUOTING Paul…. he is not for LEGALIZATION of drugs. He IS for decriminalizing them on a FEDERAL level, thereby being truer to Constitutional LIMITS on what the Federal govt is supposed to be allowed to do. Those questions should be decided on a State by State basis – what is so tough about that? what is so tough to get? now i just spelled it out for you and Ken, PLEASE don’t try to manipulate those who don’t have the time to get the facts by flat out LYING about Paul. You are both very shameful for your tactics… and IF you truly just got it wrong… then educate yourselves before you offer up your incorrect AND ignorant quips.
Running against a Republican nominee worked out just great for Bill Janis:
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2012/jan/07/tdmain01-mcdonnell-taps-janis-for-veterans-service-ar-1593550/
Thomas Conway,
I think essentially decriminalizing and legalizing are essentially one and the same. Yes, he is only talking about at the federal level, and gee, last time I checked, the President of the United States was a position in the federal government.
I believe that federal drug laws have been tested in the courts and found to be constitutional.
I disagree with allowing the states to decide because then states like California might make it legal to grow/manufacture and use certain drugs and there is no guarantee that the drugs grown/manufactured there will stay within their borders. As a truck driver, I do not want to be forced to share the road with drug addicts. I’m even against Medical Marijuana as far as that goes. Initially I was convinced it would be OK due to the arguments made however seeing how it turns out in practice I’m now firmly against it. At a minimum, it is my opinion that anyone receiving a Medical Marijuana prescription should have to surrender their Driver’s License.
I agree with everything you say up until you begin to tear down Ron Paul for supposedly not being a Republican. As to your main point, yes, the oath is stupid, undemocratic, and undermines the right to vote. Then again, I also think that your suggestion for a candidate to sign a pledge to not run against their eventual party’s nominee is a heavy blow to our concept of free and fair elections.
You people keep accusing Ron Paul of the things I used to accuse him of when I was buying the bs the establishment wanted me to buy. What happened to Republican virtue such as unalienable rights? James Madison is taking a beating here..
Turbo,
What you fail to understand that America still stands for majority rules. The tyranny of the majority is dampened by the Constitution.
Now, just because your version of the tyranny is today popular, does not mean it is Constitutional. I would put forth that if your version of tyranny (the rich only keep wealthier and too bad for the less fortunate) became the rule, there is going to be a back lash at the polls.
My opinion is going to win out in the end. You Republicans can try as best you can to defend your ground for as long as possible before you surrender it. But the way things are going, you are going to end up surrendering.
Majority still rules here in the nation I love. I just wish there were more Republicans willing to help me to try to save it rather then become willing participants in helping it to expire.
Never argue with an (redacted). Observe JR, I did it for you.
As I always ask those who can’t seem to rationalize our foreign policy views, where do you think they can come up with the cash for our bloated military budget. If you can find a way to pay for it without making immediate cuts to popular entitlement programs or without, somehow, contributing to our trillion-dollar deficit, let me know.
Additionally, I can’t quite figure out the entirety of the ‘leftist’ label regarding non-interventionist foreign policy. Quite frankly, the Republicans in charge that deficit-spend trillions of dollars overseas could and should easily be labeled as ‘leftists.’
We Republicans aren’t always the most consistent with respect to small-government rhetoric. Consider the amount of money we spend overseas every year – near or over one trillion dollars, depending upon what you examine. One trillion dollars spent annually on anything doesn’t equate to small government. The fact is, most Republicans (or, at least, those in leadership positions) believe in big-government foreign policy. This sort of hypocrisy is what causes a lot of Americans to scratch their heads and drink a big glass of single barrel bourbon apathy.
There was a time when a sound majority of Republicans didn’t want to involve ourselves in the internal affairs of so many nations. What happened to the mindset of individuals such as Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater? I guess we just want to be throwback Democrats…!
I apologize for deviating from the subject matter.
Can you smell the fear?
Many republicans are democrats Chris.. from another era. When Jimma Carter drove them nuts they left the dems and wandered over here.. Now they have made us their tools.
Chris,
Impassioned appeal, but like most information that comes from the Ron Paul supporters, very inaccurate. To begin with, we spend more money on entitlement programs every three weeks than we spend on overseas military activity in Iraq and Afghanistan in an entire year. Further, the entire Pentagon budget is about $690B per year. That hardly squares with your assertion that we spend one trillion dollars every year overseas. What is bankrupting the United States is not military spending, either domestic or overseas. Military spending continues to shrink as a percentage of GDP, presently at about 3.8% and down from about 10% when Eisenhower made his famous “military-industrial complex” remarks in 1960. Taken another way, our defense outlays today are one-half of the percentage of the Federal budget that they were in 1960, even with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Entitlement spending, on the other hand, consumes about 14% of GDP today and is on pace to consume 25% of GDP in the next 20 years.
Of course, one solution would be to eliminate the Defense budget completely. Eventually entitlements spending would also be eliminated as we all learn to speak Chinese and adjust to their retirement and health care system.
Russ,
You’re absolutely correct. Yes, the Department of Defense budget rounds up to nearly $700 billion and the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq pale in comparison to our annual entitlement spending.
But you’re forgetting a few things…
If you count the portions of the budget for the Department of Homeland Security, foreign aid and the numerous appropriation bills that are passed every year to cover the overspending, you can come up with a $1 trillion very easily – all of it spent overseas on activities that, in my opinion, largely are not beneficial to the national security of the United States.
Under a Paul administration, the budget would be balanced in three years and defense spending would remain more than five times greater than that of our nearest competitor. $500+ billion annually isn’t exactly ‘eliminating the defense budget completely…’
Like I said before, let me know when you guys have some brighter ideas.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.