Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

One oath’s enough

Vow ties representa­tives’ hands

- BY ROGER HARROD Guest writer Roger Harrod lives in Maumelle.

In May of 1860, Abraham Lincoln was in Springfiel­d, Ill., trying to keep his mind on his law practice, as others, including Judge David Davis, were in Chicago seeking to make him the nominee of the Republican Party for president of the “not so” United States of America.

Mr. Lincoln knew that he had received national credibilit­y, but also knew that William Seward was the party’s favorite. Salmon P. Chase and Edward Bates were also serious contenders. But Lincoln’s lieutenant­s worked diligently to insure that if neither the first nor second ballot produced a nominee, the third would name Lincoln.

With that background, and looking surprising­ly like Lincoln might have a shot after all, Judge Davis wired Lincoln, suggesting that a cabinet position be promised to Pennsylvan­ia’s favorite son, Simon Cameron, in exchange for that state’s critical support. Lincoln replied: “Make no deals that bind me.”

Incredibly, with the presidency within grasp, Lincoln would not authorize a commitment that would likely assure his nomination, but simultaneo­usly make it impossible to be objective in choosing that which might prove to be best for the country. By his actions, he demonstrat­ed that he believed one oath was sufficient.

Today, our congressme­n and senators take the oath to “support and defend the Constituti­on of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;” to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same” and to “well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office.”

One must wonder—had he been confronted by Mr. Grover Norquist, founder of Americans for Tax Reform, with both a promise of support if he made an oath of support for his agenda of no new revenue, coupled with the threat of aggressive opposition if he refused, what would Mr. Lincoln have done?

There can be little doubt. Mr. Lincoln refused to put anything, not even his assured election, ahead of the country’s interest.

That attitude was again evident in August of 1864, as he stood for reelection, opposed by Maj. Gen. George Mcclellan. With the prospects of his re-election in doubt, and the probabilit­y of Mr. Mcclellan’s looking more likely than not, Mr. Lincoln signed a memorandum of support for Mr. McClellan, pledging: “to so cooperate with the president-elect, as to save the Union between the election and the inaugurati­on; as he will have secured his election on such ground that he cannot possibly save it afterwards.”

I have been dismayed by the large number of congressme­n and senators that have signed Mr. Norquist’s “Taxpayer Protection Pledge.” For them, one oath was not enough. And indeed, that which should be primary—to “support and defend the Constituti­on” and to “well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office”—has become secondary to the commitment made to one who is willing to let the nation’s economy crash, and those at greatest risk perish, rather than even to consider the possibilit­y that under some circumstan­ces, new revenue might be appropriat­e.

The health of our economy and of our people is too important to take viable options off the table. The hands of our representa­tives must be untied so that they can thoughtful­ly consider all that might be best for the country without fear that such patriotism would be answered by angry men and women seeking their ouster.

One oath is enough!

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States