• Your one stop for college news and resources!
Opinion, Politics

Reflection, Not Rhetoric: I pledge to be partisan?

On pledges, partisanship and the people

Why can’t lawmakers come to a compromise on the federal debt ceiling?

The New York Times has an idea: written pledges that political activists and lobbyists ask politicians to sign. When it comes to assuring accountability, the thinking goes, making politicians stick to their campaign rhetoric and formalize promises in writing is the way to go.

Unfortunately, the Times said in today’s editorial, one of the most popular pledges “is the single biggest reason the federal government is now on the edge of default. Its signers will not allow revenues in a deal to raise the debt ceiling.”

The terms of that pledge, the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, are simple enough: “oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses” and “oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.” But, the editorial alleges, the pledge is not only simple, but too absolute.

According to the article inspiring the editorial, 95 percent of Republican Congressmen have signed the pledge, and the pledge’s Web site boasts thirteen governors and five lieutenant governors among its signers.

The Times argues that the prevalence of pledges among the conservative party has a divisive effect on politics, pushing absolutism to the extreme. Instead of being able to work out complex issues, the editorial argues, “each pledge they sign undermines the basic principle of democratic government built on compromise and negotiation.”

In the article, the Times also quotes one Republican strategist, Alex Castellanos, as saying, “The danger of these pledges is it does prevent candidates from achieving 80 percent of what they want.”

So what’s the real effect of these pledges, and if they’re so bad, why have them?

I think the Times has it right when it says these written pledges are simply responses to ideologues who were unhappy with existing methods of dealing with accountability. After all, a politician is held accountable by the media and his or her own party, but the ideologues felt that past cases like Ronald Reagan had shown that politicians could not be trusted to stick to their campaign rhetoric when in office.

Well, duh.

Sure, people vote for politicians because of their rhetoric, and because they agree with (some) of their policies, but not everyone agrees 100 percent with the politicians they vote for. As someone who doesn’t stand at a political extreme, I think it’s important to tackle individual cases as individual cases, rather than being held to blanket ideological statements. Maybe neither side can declare a victory when they have to compromise, but the idea is that the people win, not parties or politicians. Isn’t the idea of negotiation one of the core principles behind our system? Our elected officials represent us, and we are more than one person, more than one platform.

There’s a lot of talk these days about divisive, partisan politics, and commentators blame a lot of people for it. It’s the mainstream media’s fault for taking sides — the rise of Fox News, for instance — or the rise of political bloggers and the Internet, or the tea party, or anything, really. It’s easy to point at things and blame them for partisan politics, but hasn’t politics always been a tense struggle between partisan ideology and bipartisanship? Politicians have always had their views, and hasn’t it always been about getting people with different views to figure out where they could, should, or must compromise for the good of the people?

Glenn Beck is polarizing, and so is Sarah Palin — but their jobs have always been, essentially, to pander to us. So if we want to blame someone for partisan politics and for the ridiculous absolutism of modern political negotiations, maybe we should start with ourselves.

When I wrote about Nancy Grace, News of the World and tabloid media, I called for a greater self-awareness in the public, a deeper understanding of our own role in the things we hate. Sure, there’s always been the idea of voting out a politician we disagree with, but do we really need them to sign a pledge with no room for change?

I can understand why, for some, these pledges are a no-brainer. After all, for some people, signing a Pro Life Leadership Presidential Pledge is the same as signing a pledge supporting a fundamental human right. To them, asking a candidate to sign opposing abortion is like asking a candidate to pledge not to commit genocide, or not torture political enemies. For some, a Marriage Vow is like signing a Common Sense vow.

But they’re not.

See, it’s one thing to pledge to uphold some universal principle that most — if not all — would agree with. But here’s the thing: you don’t need a pledge to refrain from genocide, you don’t need to pledge support for freedom of speech. To most, that would be like signing a pledge to eat, breathe and drink. The whole point behind these pledges, though, is that these are issues that are contentious, issues that are not universally agreed upon. Ideologues want politicians to sign a pledge in order to bind them to their promises, but the problem is that their promises, their positions, can and should be open to change, interpretation and evolution.

Why wouldn’t we want our politicians to be willing to compromise, work together, and be willing to change? Why wouldn’t we want our lawmakers to be open-minded?

Being open-minded doesn’t mean being empty-minded — in fact, it’s quite the opposite. When people are open to opposing views, interpretations and theories, they’re able to take in more than people who have pre-judged situations and have closed off their minds to change. Aren’t open-minded, thoughtful politicians exactly what we want? I know I for one would rather have a politician be willing to contemplate than go straight into close-minded rhetoric. We sometimes make big deals out of politicians’ educations, comparing backgrounds as one proxy measure of their ability to be level-headed in the face of heated debate, their willingness to think rather than speak and their capacity for genuine, well-intentioned debate and negotiation.

We can blame pledges all we want, or the ideologues behind them, but we should start with ourselves. We might not be the only ones at fault, but we should first consider our own roles in the state of politics today. If more people called for compromise, if more of us paid more attention to newspapers and less to tabloids, we might find ourselves in a very different place not long from now. Written pledges? The external manifestations of all our internal desires to have our politicians do what we want — absolutely and at all times. But things like the economy, taxes, abortion, marriages rights, etc. are not simple, absolute issues in our society. For some people, the answers are absolute, but until we can all agree we should keep our hands as free as possible. Why tie ourselves down?

After all, who would sign a pledge opposing self-growth, introspection and open-mindedness? If we want to maintain a level of reason in politics, let’s stop calling for pledges. We could all learn a little from Jon Huntsman, who is quoted by the Times as refusing to sign any pledge at all. “I don’t sign pledges — other than the Pledge of Allegiance and a pledge to my wife,” Huntsman says.

Hmm, a leading politician refusing to sign any pledges? Just to make sure, we should probably have him sign something…

For the New York Times editorial that inspired this post, click here. For the related New York Times article, click here.

For Jonathan’s last blog post, click here.

Previous ArticleNext Article


  1. In the age of digital communications, birthday needs can effortlessly be shipped electronically. Cards can be despatched electronically, or greetings can be despatched by means of e-mail, textual content messages or updates on social networks.

  2. Good created details. It will likely be beneficial to anyone who employess that, as well as me personally. Carry on doing your work canr hold out you just read a lot more articles.

  3. Hi there, just became alert to your blog through Google, and found that it’s really informative. I am going to watch out for brussels. I’ll be grateful if you continue this in future. A lot of people will be benefited from your writing. Cheers!

  4. Pingback: Google
  5. Pingback: Bondage Toys
  6. Pingback: mp3 download
  7. Pingback: Ben Wa
  8. Pingback: king cock
  9. Pingback: large dildo review
  10. Pingback: how to color a dog
  11. Pingback: Philly
  12. Pingback: bondsman
  13. Pingback: سكس
  14. Pingback: we buy junk cars
  15. Pingback: ANIMAL FOODS
  16. Pingback: Abraaj
  17. Pingback: buy hoverboard
  18. Pingback: hovershoes
  19. Pingback: lesbian pleasuring
  20. Pingback: 50 shades of grey
  21. Pingback: buy hoverboard
  22. Pingback: free app download
  23. Pingback: seo service
  24. Pingback: Vanessa Lunnon
  25. Pingback: free phone cases
  26. Pingback: high performance
  27. Pingback: etf vs mutual fund
  28. Pingback: fishing gifts
  29. Pingback: Mentor
  30. Pingback: MILF Porn Online
  31. Pingback: Balance game
  32. Pingback: music news
  33. Pingback: top hotels.hotels
  34. Pingback: djkhan
  35. Pingback: Network Monitoring
  36. Pingback: rottweiler
  37. Pingback: Salsa dance
  38. Pingback: whatsapp
  39. Pingback: celine
  40. Pingback: custom patches
  41. Pingback: virtual reality
  42. Pingback: garden
  43. Pingback: xxarxx
  44. Pingback: handbags
  45. Pingback: Valentino Garavani
  46. Pingback: Prada
  47. Pingback: YSL
  48. Pingback: Stella Mccartney
  49. Pingback: porno
  50. Pingback: activiteiten
  51. Pingback: Wellness
  52. Pingback: downloader apk
  53. Pingback: سكس عربي
  54. Pingback: fun skin care tips
  55. Pingback: mcad test
  56. Pingback: Adam and Eve Box
  57. Pingback: bandar bola
  58. Pingback: Alexander McQueen
  59. Pingback: direct flights
  60. Pingback: Balenciaga
  61. Pingback: Tom Ford
  62. Pingback: Lesbianas
  63. Pingback: xmobile pro
  64. Pingback: discount
  65. Pingback: beeg sex
  66. Pingback: Fendi
  67. Pingback: Bvlgari
  68. Pingback: Chloe
  69. Pingback: hdmobilesex.me
  70. Pingback: Shoptips
  71. Pingback: travellergram
  72. Pingback: best sex toy
  73. Pingback: sex balls
  74. Pingback: سكس مترجم
  75. Pingback: FS19 mods
  76. Pingback: erotic podcast
  77. Pingback: xxnxx
  78. Pingback: Givenchy
  79. Pingback: Parfum kopen
  80. Pingback: erotica
  81. Pingback: best sex toys
  82. Pingback: male masturbators
  83. Pingback: smt reflow oven
  84. Pingback: w88
  85. Pingback: leaflet delivery
  86. Pingback: build a website
  87. Pingback: strap on dildo set
  88. Pingback: סרטי סקס
  89. Pingback: DIY Ideeën
  90. Pingback: سكس حيحان
  91. Pingback: branding
  92. Pingback: vibrator
  93. Pingback: beauty
  94. Pingback: jimmy choo
  95. Pingback: dolce and gabbana
  96. Pingback: lego city 60160
  97. Pingback: voyance web
  98. Pingback: dildo
  99. Pingback: Dr Garo Kassabian

Leave a Reply