Donald Trump, Never Accused Of Party Loyalty, Winning GOP On 'Duty'

Having unofficially secured the Republican nomination for president, Donald Trump is experiencing a surge in many national public opinion polls, essentially pulling even with Hillary Clinton after trailing her for months.

Despite a remarkably divisive primary race with particular rancor directed at the long-time frontrunner, all signs indicate that the GOP, at least for now, has begun to accept the once unthinkable candidate as inevitable.

• John McCain, once ridiculed by Trump for being captured in the Vietnam War, has offered his endorsement.
• Paul Ryan indicated that he and presumptive nominee are working "toward unification."
• Reince Priebus has publicly stressed the need for party unity on "Fox News Sunday."
• Even social conservatives, thus far not a core part of Trump's support, seem to be coming around to favor the real estate mogul turned Commander in Chief hopeful.

Loyalty to the party ticket, it seems, has abated the multifarious concerns that countless conservatives have voiced about a Trump presidency.

Yet support for Trump is neither resounding nor unanimous in the GOP. Some express ambivalent support for Trump, while others have denounced him.

Consider Mike Krikorian, writer for the conservative National Review, who wrote, “Donald Trump is unfit to be president.”

Just a few sentences later, he continued, “And I’m going to vote for him anyway.”

Are Republicans obligated to support Trump out of party loyalty? Let us know what you think in the comments.

Representative Scott Rigell, a Republican from Virginia, taking an opposing view, declared that he will not support Trump in November.

“My love for our country eclipses my loyalty to our party,” Rigell said.

Party loyalty

Do Republicans have any special reason to vote for Trump, the presumptive leader of their party, even if they think he’s unqualified for the position?

Josiah Royce, the late, preeminent writer on the philosophy of loyalty, took the position that loyalty is a central part of human life and moral obligation. In his words, “Unless you can find some sort of loyalty, you cannot find unity and peace in your active living,”

By staying loyal to an individual, group, or institution, we privilege and protect their interests above others. While this helps us create incredibly important relationships such as friendships, partnerships and social groups, it can also lead to conflicting loyalties.

This may be most apparent when people feel loyalty to their political parties.

T. M. Scanlon, professor emeritus of moral philosophy and civil polity at Harvard University, argued that loyalty to one’s party may be overridden by a person’s other obligations and duties.

“It is one thing for a private citizen to turn a blind eye to crimes committed by a family member, but much worse when the person who does this is also a public official,” he said.

“It is difficult to see how party loyalty could make it justifiable for anyone to vote for a candidate who would be irresponsible as president,” Scanlon continued. “It would be worse for an elected official, who has duties to promote the Constitution and the welfare of the country, to support such a candidate.”

We expect political leaders to put the interests of the country above all else; that's why we elect them. Though leaders are usually Democrats or Republicans, the parties only exist to coordinate interest groups and policy positions.

Duties to the country should be an official's top priority.

Yet many of Trump’s supporters are criticizing Republicans who have come out against the presumptive nominee. A writer for Red Alert Politics said this kind of behavior on the part of party elites, showing disrespect for the voice of primary voters, led to Trump’s overwhelming success.

Major Republican donor Sheldon Adelson, who had been far from enthusiastic about Trump’s presidential bid, finally embraced the reality TV star’s rise. “I’m a Republican, he’s a Republican,” he said.

“He’s our nominee. Whoever the nominee would turn out to be, any one of the 17 — he was one of the 17. He won fair and square.”

Loyalty pledge

Parties, as political entities, are supposed to be about both country and principle. The Republican party, in particular sees itself as both the defender of traditional American values and as the home of ideological conservatism.

Political parties were formed to unite people with shared values and principles under one banner, even if people disagreed on more narrow issues. But to do so, parties need to cultivate a sense of loyalty; otherwise, the membership could fracture over every little disagreement. In short, political parties rely on people's shared broad ideological preferences, not necessarily their opinions on specific issues.

So there’s a deep tension for those who would abandon the GOP ticket in the face a nominee – duly selected by the official primary process – who is so unacceptable that they might consider a third party candidate.

Many point to the loyalty pledge, which Republicans pressured Trump to sign along with the party’s other candidates, promising to support the eventual winner of the primary races. It was brought up repeatedly as a way to forestall a potential third-party run from Tump.

Had Trump lost, and not supported the victor, surely he would have faced widespread criticism from the GOP leaders.

But as the dust settles on the once unimaginable primary outcome, Trump’s nomination is earning him at most a tepid response from these same leaders.

Does Trump have grounds to complain that his former opponents are not living up to their pledge?

Marcia Baron, professor of philosophy at Indiana University, said that while we usually have good reasons to keep promises. However, there are also reasons to make exceptions to this rule.

“I would not be as concerned to keep my promises to someone who is a chronic promise-breaker,” she said, “than I would to someone who really seems to take part in this important institution of keeping promises.”

So the question becomes, would Trump have lived up to the loyalty pledge if he had lost? Or would he have denounced the party, and perhaps run as a third party spoiler candidate?

Trump essentially abandoned the pledge back in March, and it’s never clear he felt bound by it at all. So it seems easy to argue that the other candidates shouldn’t feel bound to follow it now, at least, given that it would mean supporting Trump.

Principles over party

Scanlon believes the idea of party loyalty demands further scrutiny.

“The case of loyalty to a political party is complicated by the question of what a person is supposed to be loyal to,” he said.

He continued, “Is loyalty merely a matter of promoting the party’s electoral success? Or is it a matter of fidelity to the party’s aims and values?”

Charlie Sykes, the conservative radio host, emphasized the importance of values over party when he told MSNBC anchor Jane Snow, “The idea of party loyalty only goes so far.” He denounced Trump as a con man and has promoted the so-called “Stop Trump” movement.

In his view, supporting Donald Trump is a betrayal of the conservative movement. And loyalty to the cause is much more important than loyalty to the party supposedly supporting that cause.

For Baron, political parties generally are not the proper objects of loyalty anyway. Rather, she views them as instrumental means for political action, rather than organizations that demand our allegiance.

“The word ‘loyalty’ tends to get used more as something that the less powerful person owes to the more powerful person, more than the other way around,” Baron said. In other words, asking for "loyalty" can be just another way for people with power to control others.

And Trump, as the de facto leader of the GOP, holds all the leverage in his current spats with other party officials.

Loyalty becomes more questionable when the conflict is with the interests of other people, with the common good, or with one’s official duties.

Some uses of the ‘loyalty’ concept are outright insidious, such as when white supremacists argue for loyalty to one’s race. Baron argued that much of the “America first” language, often used by Trump and tinged with a legacy of racism, may be a case of this objectionable loyalty.

“Of course it’s appropriate under some conditions to favor one’s country over other countries,” she said. “But I think there’s a rallying cry that has a particularly ugly and extreme version of that, and that comes in the ‘America first’ idea.”

Scanlon argued that loyalty is most naturally viewed as a virtue when people sacrifice their own interests for the good of another or of some group.

On the other hand, he notes, "Loyalty becomes more questionable when the conflict is with the interests of other people, with the common good, or with one’s official duties."

This is why we don't commend white supremacists for racial loyalty. Such "loyalty" involves the unjust oppression of other groups, which isn't virtuous.

When it comes to political parties, a loyal devotion to electoral success, regardless of the principles that a given candidate supports, makes little sense. Parties are formed for a reason: to promote certain valuable interests and principles, most central of which is good governance.

“If you accepted the idea that we could be loyal to a political party, then our concern should be not just to make it as powerful as possible, but to make it something we could be proud of,” Baron said.

But if you find that your party no longer promotes the principles that attracted you in the first place, there's little reason to stay loyal, especially this election cycle.

So where does that leave Republicans? For those officials who believe Trump will make a poor president, but support him anyway, this choice may end up being more about short-term self-interest rather than loyalty.

But as Scanlon points out, party loyalty runs deep in the tradition of the GOP.

“We have, of course, already seen excessive loyalty of this kind in the behavior of Republican members of Congress who stuck together to stop anything President Obama proposed, regardless of the merits of his proposals,” he said.

“We will see whether they are going to do better this time around.”

Photo Credit: Michael Vadon via WikiMedia Commons