But the whole point of national pledges is to convince electoral majorities a partys candidates are committed to things large public majorities ardently support. Republicans didn't float a pledge not to increase taxes on the indepedently wealthy, and Democrats (probably) would be just as savvy (though they are notoriously awful at retail politics even when large majorities support an issue; national healthcare has proven that repeatedly). I'm sure most Democrats would be happy to sign, and honor, a pledge not to cut elderly medical care and/or pensions--which is exactly what necessary entitlement reforms would do, in part. Many might find that pledge unreasonable, but polls have consistently shown 70-80% of Americans not only find it reasonable but demand it, and Dems attempting to curry favor by making necessary cuts impossible won't help the situation any more than Republicans making necessary tax hikes impossible.

If I'm not mistaken, that was Legolas' point: If the major parties paint themselves into corner (which one of them has largely done already, hence the "do we break our promise or allow the default...?" conundrum that the recent "compromise" only delayed without resolving) any flexibility is a degree of capitulation and no effective policy can be written. There's been too much of that already, from Dems treating already planned overseas troop withdrawals as "spending cuts" to Republicans talking about "revenue increases" because they're willing to eliminate a few loopholes as long as they don't have to raise a penny of taxes. It's gotten us a compromise that pretends to reduce spending without actually doing that OR raising taxes, but allows both sides to claim victory and the pretense of deficit reduction even though the whole country (including S&P) knows they've just put off facing reality yet again while the problem worsens.

I'll skip what I consider very strong and apt parallels between the current GOP base and the radical king makers who made Democrats unelectable in the '70s and '80s just because it's a tangent that I think would quickly descend into hopelessly subjective partisan analysis.