This sums up my feeling about it. I think that the job of the politician is to do what they promised to do when elected. Basically, the person elected is someone with a philosophy that is similar to his constituents, and then that philosophy should be the guiding principle behind his or her decision-making process. Voting based on poll results or feedback from constituents is exactly what he or she should not do.
The Rep should do what’s best for me in his judgment, not what’s best for the country. He doesn’t represent the U.S., he represents his district. I don’t have the time to know what’s best for me, however, but he does. So IMHO, a rep should ignore me, my fellow district citizens, and the lobbying of other reps and simply do what will help me the most.
The trick, of course, is knowing when to listen to the voters and when to do something that will be unpopular but necessary. Too many politicians spend their time listening to the voters (or to the loudest or most energetic people who are likely to vote FOR them) and not enough doing the right thing, regardless of it’s effect on the office holders political career. It’s pretty rare to find someone willing to go against the grain…and sometimes when we do it can be a bad thing as well, depending on what the office holder THINKS is the ‘right thing’ (i.e. our current president who doesn’t seem to really care about opinion polls and does what he THINKS is the best thing…regardless).
-XT
No, I seem to be saying that they are listening to the people as they should. And if they would have did what was best for the country all along this shit would not be happening right now. Partisan? Not even close, both parties should be ashamed for trying to ram this crap down our throats.
I hope you are being sarcastic.
While a U.S. representative does indeed represent his or her district, he or she is expected to do what’s best for the country.
That is part of the oath they take, which was quoted above (which incidentally, is the same oath that military officers take–I was bemused to find that I can still recite it by heart).
No. They are supposed to do what is best for the country, and/or for their particular states or districts, by their own lights. That is the nature of representative democracy.
Except, of course, five weeks prior to an election. ANYTHING that close to election day will stampede the House.
Yes. Definitely.
OK, I could go on about how I expect that pork to fulfill a pressing need, be good for the local economy, avoid waste, and in general be An All Together Good Thing. That’s all true. But as long as there is Federal money floating around out there, I want a nice chunk of it coming ashore in my district.
That doesn’t happen in the real world. 95% of the people tend to vote on the party platform not on the way a particular “representative” votes.
A far more accurate term for representative that is increasingly being used by the media is “lawmaker”.
I like the term.
The use of the more honest descriptor makes it easier to see through the fraud that “people” are genuinely “represented” by politicians, whether elected or not.
Letting constituents run the show is like letting a child choose all his meals.
Being a pol is a little more difficult that most think. They have to consider the wishes of their local constituency. They have to consider the welfare of the country as a whole. They have to think about the impact on the globe and our allies too. Would you not agree they have to deal with their own values and morals also. The right thing is not so easy to determine.
Then they have to run and get re elected. That means they have to listen to the big contributors and the lobbyists.
That’s the thing. They don’t have to run and get re-elected. They just really, really want to run and get re-elected.
On an issue important enough, a Representative should be willing to sacrifice his seat for the good of the nation.
… and they have to listen to their party; the party can, and will, do a lot to help a truly threatened seat.
Do you really think so? I think most people vote to keep an incumbent in office. I think they want reps who know how Washington works, and who are around long enough to get some power they can use for the people back home.
As for ‘what’s best for the country’: I expect my representatives to focus on local issues and my Senator to focus on national issues; on Really Big Issues, I expect my reps to emphasize national ramifications, and the Senators, the international.
‘What’s best for the country (or the world)’ can be best served by 50 or so groups hammering out a compromise. If they have enough time to do a little research and think things through.
A case of infant and cleansing water don’t you think? But the world is easier in monochrome.
It’s one of the two Catch-22’s of politics, the other being that the people who want power the most are the ones who should least have it.
A system that enables the leaders we get and don’t want is the fault of the system.
You are saying two different things here. Do you want the representatives to listen to the people or do what’s in the best interest of the country? These don’t always coincide, unless you think that the people always know what is best for the country (which manifestly they do not). This is why in the Federalist Papers you find such strong statements against direct democracy. I’m not saying representatives always do what’s in the best interest of the country (as manifestly they do not), but the thread is about what they *ought *to do–follow their constituents or act as they see fit, even if this conflicts with their constituents’ desires.
That’s roughly what I said.
It would take no more than half an hour to explain how government works at any level.
You wish, or, more horribly, you believe.
-
I think voting by party and voting for the incumbent are fundamentally different.
-
By ‘how Washington works’, I don’t mean government, I mean the people working there. Which Senator’s aid is in charge of education policy, and what arguments are most likely to persuade her your bill (or, more likely, rider) is a good idea.
-
Oh, I know. They never run on it; they run on national or international issues, but, in the end, they never forget that all politics is local.