Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, officially pledged to vote Donald Trump for president. The Speaker of the House posted on his personal twitter account today announcing his official endorsement.

After weeks of reluctance, what changed his mind?

In an article written for the Janesville Gazette, Paul Ryan explained his newfound support for the republican nominee: “My goal has been to unite the party so we can win in the fall. And if we’re going to unite, it has to be over ideas. I feel confident he would help us turn the ideas […] into laws to help improve people’s lives. That’s why I’ll be voting for him this fall.”

Speaking in regards to his previous meeting with Trump a few weeks ago, Speaker Ryan says that he believes Trump will fight for the agenda of the House. This agenda, or set of “ideas”, is the key to unification within the party. Although he recognizes their major differences in policy, Ryan justifies his endorsement with an all too common buzzword– unity.

The term unity has been a common argument to validate voting for Donald Trump in the general election. In the midst of an idealogical crisis, our party must come together behind one candidate in fear of falling apart. While this may or may not be true, is it really a sustainable reason to see past such significant differences in policy? Can we really ignore our own principle in hopes of bringing together a party so split in ideology?

Or, will a Trump presidency tear apart any remaining values our party has held on to? Is there a limit to the concessions we can make before we are no longer fighting for the same cause? If Trump does not accurately represent our beliefs, his presidency will not fix the issue. It is impossible to unify a party under a man who doesn’t fight for that party’s ideals.

Ryan has been quite forward with his mission for unity within the party. He has frequently called on the people to unify behind the agenda of the House. His article published today is yet another call for us to look past our differences and fight for unity. The question is this time, do we answer the phone?