Candidate pledges defy democracy

There are those who would require our candidates to abide only to a pledge’s tightly scripted approach when dealing with such issues as tax policy, spending restraint, entitlement reform, and abortion, among others.

Such candidate pledges are folly. They serve only to substitute the demands of a narrow constituency for the judgment of the larger electorate. Indeed they undermine the most important aspect of a candidacy — the electorate’s opportunity to witness the candidate articulate his or her own positions and thereby ascertain what depth of intellect, understanding of the issues, and core values underlie those positions.

These self-imposed restrictions constrain a candidate’s opportunity to demonstrate, through the presentation and arguing of one’s own ideas, aspirations, and plans, those intangible leadership qualities which are crucial to the execution of the office in question. Candidate pledges only increase ignorance among the electorate by masking a candidate’s true beliefs, intentions, and abilities.

Moreover, for those who hold the framers’ vision dear, such pledges are an affront to their wisdom and forethought when defining the codified restrictions on government and the inherent protections of our freedom and liberties those restrictions provide.

In the end, there is only one pledge that matters and which, if faithfully adhered to, renders all such lesser pledges redundant if not all together meaningless. That pledge is to abide by the oath of office which requires its speaker not only to protect and defend, but to follow the Constitution in the execution of the duties of office.

The only restrictions a candidate, if worthy of election, should self-impose are those restrictions on government defined by the framers in the Constitution of the United States of America.

John Kauck

Grayslake