I pledge a grievance

Regardless of what you may think of Donald Trump, if you have even an inkling of political or pop culture interest, I’m sure those thoughts are strong; his presence in the upcoming presidential election has been captivating, to say the least. From the interesting to the unintelligible to the insane, his campaign has earned the undivided attention of the cable news war-rooms. More often than not, the punditry’s emphasis on his rhetoric and positioning are emblematic of a larger, corrosive fascination with the sensational. Yet, the intense scrutiny over Trump’s decision to pledge allegiance to the eventual Republican nominee – turning down the possibility of a third-party run in the process – actually hits on an important point. Are elections about parties or people?

The most memorable moment of Fox’s first Republican primary debate last month was when Bret Baier asked the candidates whether or not, in the event that they lost, they would support the eventual Republican nominee. Clearly baited, Trump proceeded to tell a booing audience that he wasn’t ready to make that pledge and that he could not commit to an unnamed candidate who he did not genuinely support. A lot of people were stunned by that position. I personally found it to be the most genuine moment of the night.

The growing concern with America’s partisan split is well placed, and the moderate public’s frustration with Washington’s bitter stagnation fuels a large portion of Trump’s support. However, blind allegiance to political parties is perhaps the single biggest factor in the growth of hyper-partisanship. The notion that diametric opposition to the other side of the aisle will ultimately advance political discourse roots itself in a kindergartener’s logic. My way or the highway didn’t work when we were six, and it absolutely will not work now.

The value of political parties lies in their ability to catalyze participation in the American political process by rallying people around policy platforms that resonate with them. Squelching the ideological middle ground that many citizens find themselves in doesn’t fit that description. All candidates, from the presidential to the mayoral, have the right and obligation to advocate on behalf of the policies and beliefs that they’d govern by, not those of the Republican and Democratic national committees. As illustrated by sentiment nationwide, not all Americans think alike. There’s value in diversity of thought, and stratifying ourselves by political maxims will shepherd people into increasingly hostile camps. Political candidates should be leading people towards the middle of the room, not following an agenda to a far corner.

I was happy to hear that Donald Trump would not sign a pledge to the eventual Republican candidate. While his message or style may not resonate with me nor work towards the political middle ground the country desperately needs, I was still disappointed to find that, for the sake of his election, he had decided to sign the RNC’s pledge of allegiance. Committing to a to-be-determined candidate based purely on their party represents a failure to evaluate that individual on his or her own merits. For a job as big as President of the United States, it would serve us better to pick an individual, not a primary color.

John F. Kennedy began his 1961 inauguration speech by asserting, “We observe today not a victory of party but a celebration of freedom.” It’s not the catchiest, most invigorating or even most memorable quote, but it’s among my favorite in American history. It was a tremendous way to begin a presidency — to recognize that the country’s highest office should not be used as a trophy for the right or left. Trite as it sounds, the nation’s best moments are consistently the one’s built on compromise. If political parties are unwilling to engage and support candidates who fall out of line with what they deem acceptable, the willingness of future leaders to volunteer their true selves will continually fade.

That reality is a large part of why Donald Trump has stood out so starkly. In this case, the source of his opinion is irrelevant. What matters is that they are his, unhinged and unfiltered by a party more concerned with winning than anything else. The RNC might be bristling at the prospect of having such a divisive figure lead their early primaries, but by all accounts, they were equally perturbed by his unwillingness to swear an oath of fealty that has become a requirement of party politics.

Even in the early stages, this primary cycle has shifted the race away from the center — the idea that to earn a party candidacy, you must first prove yourself to be the most liberal or most conservative player in the field. That climate is unhealthy for candidates who are being forced to prove themselves to an institution rather than to the people.