If elected I pledge not to post on the RPMB. 
- Edit 1
- Edit 1Before modification by Joel at 21/09/2011 01:02:21 AM
The Dems are free to circulate a pledge of their own, and live with the language in it, this pledge is signed totally voluntarily with no coercion from the party, overt or subtle. This is hardly the only pledge out there available to be signed. People must live with the consequences of their pledges and their votes, if the Dems want to try to get their caucus to sign pledges that many would consider unreasonable then come November they'll pay for it, or not, as appropriate.
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.
No, the whole point of pledges is to make it clear to the voters, primary and general, and the party leadership, that you hold a view and are voluntarily handing a loaded gun to them to point at your head if you betray your pledge. What the pledge is, and whether or not people respect or agree with it, obviously effects votes, good or bad, depending on the pledge.
Heck of a sacrifice, huh?
Pledges to do (or not do) what people were already going to do (or not do) anyway aren't a noble principled stand or voluntarily hostage to voters, they're a rallying cry to the base and ultimatum to fling at opponents. When a pro-choice liberal "pledges" to fight abortion restrictions, the whole planet already knew they would; pledging it publicly is just a cheap publicity stunt to tell the base electing anyone else is tantamount to slaughtering women in the streets. Such pledges are an escape clause, so opponents who insist MAKING concessions is contingent on RECEIVING concessions, and that the nations interest requires sacrifices from everyone, politicians can drape stubborn refusal in pretensions to principled commitment. The pledge doesn't change politicians behavior, it just lets them indulge the conceit they're bowing to the peoples will rather than doing what they please.When I was in HS, a friend of mine and moondogs had a poster of a mule in his stall, with a caption reading, "I'm not stubborn, I'm just true to my convictions." That's all the taxes pledge does: Present obstinance as commitment. Unfortunately, it incidentally makes compromise impossible because it elevates momentary rhetorical absolutism to non-negotiable long term policy. Again, polls shows 3 out 4 voters WANT a millionaire tax hike, and 5 out of 6 want NO Social Security cuts, so all that's missing now is Democrats reverently (and publicly) saying, "I have heard the peoples will: Tax hikes on millionaires and no Social Security cuts!" Then all routes to federal solvency will be eliminated; go, team....
