The Sunday Journal Gazette ran an interesting piece by syndicated columnist Margaret Carlson about the proliferation of pledges being shoved under candidates' waiting pens by special-interest groups. She dwells mostly on conservative pledges -- no new taxes, no to abortion, no to gay marriage; but she does briefly acknowledge that liberal groups have them, too -- the pro-choice pledge, for example. She makes the good point about all the pledges that candidates who sign them are putting themselves in an ideological straitjacket. Getting special attention is Michele Bachman's signing of the Family Leader Marriage Vow pledge:
Yet critics who argue that Bachmann lacks the judgment to be president are missing a key point. If Bachmann, a serial pledge signer, were to become president, she wouldn't have a prayer of thinking for herself. She'd be locked into special-interest pledges for every occasion.
Grover Norquist's Tax Protection Pledge, which has been signed by 236 current House members and 41 current senators, is cited (correctly, I think) as the best argument against "rigid pledges, which infantilize officials, giving them no leeway to exercise judgment." Norquist considers any revenue generation a "tax increase," even the closing of tax loopholes. Closing those loopholes has long been one goal of many conservatives, but that pledge kept many Republicans from evening considering that possibility, which has somewhat hampered them during debt-ceiling negotiations.
Although she hints at it, Carlson doesn't really spell out the main thing that's wrong with all these pledges: They are not in the spririt of our republican form of government. The founders were nervous about the accumulation of too much power anywhere, even in the hands of "the people." So to avoid the tyranny of the majority, and the real likelihood that they would trample on the rights of the minority, they were given on representative power -- elected officials would vote their consciences, not just enact the agendas favored by the most voters.
