This is about what a politician personally believes vs what the majority of his constituents believe.
Imagine a politician says; “I personally don’t believe in abortion unless it’s under very limited circumstances. But the majority of my constituents are pro choice, so that’s what I’m going to fight for tooth and nail.”
Abortion, is just one example. You can replace abortion with whatever issue you like. It’s not relevant.
The question I’m asking is: If a politician has a polar opposite opinion than the majority of his constituents, yet does his best to advocate for his constituents rather than his own… Is he still a “flawed” or unfavorable politician in your opinion?
The vast majority of things that cross a politicians’ desk cannot be decided by following the whims of her constituents, because the constituents don’t know shit about copyright rules or Medicaid reimbursement or the Al-Nusra Front.
So the question is how they are going to decide all of those issues, which is usually a question of where their core values lie. If their constituents have opposite core values, then they’re probably going to decide the new issues different from how the constituency would if they were well-informed.
So the “defer to the majority” model of politician is flawed in that sense.
On an issue like the OP mentions, I don’t have a big problem until promises are broken. I’m not in favor of abortion, but I can accept that I’m in the minority and the laws aren’t changing any time soon. So, if I were a politician, that issue would just not be a major part of my platform.
I kind of thought the attacks on Bernie Sanders’ gun control record were off base for this reason. Bernie might be all in favor of every gun control (I’m not sure his personal opinion on the matter), but much of his constituency in Vermont consists of hunters and gun owners and I think he tried to represent their wishes on the issue.
Many politicians, maybe most, are not gun owners. But I have never heard a single politician, ever, quoted as favoring “taking everyone’s guns away”. Not one. Ever.
Politicians fulfill multiple roles and wear multiple hats- there are generally 3 main ones- the role as a representative of their constituency, in which they represent the wishes of their constituents to the larger body, a sort of ombudsman role, where they investigate and apply what influence and force they can on behalf of constituents, and finally, the individual role, where their judgment is called for, even when it may not coincide with the wishes of their constituents, or where their constituents don’t really have a direct opinion, and are trusting them to use their judgment on their behalf based on what they know of their general temperament and opinions.
If a politician’s personal best judgment on a subject was diametrically opposed to those of their constituents, I’d wonder how that person got elected to represent them in the first place.
But if say… a politician’s constituency was very conservative and very pro-life, and a bill came up to restrict Roe v. Wade, but came with too high of a cost, or was poorly written, or caused more problems than it would solve, then I’d think the politican’s obligation lies with making the best decision, not merely doing something asinine like deciding “My constituents are pro life, so I’m voting for this dumpster fire of a bill.”
It’s more a matter of integrity at that point; just letting the constituents decide is taking the easy and lazy way out.
Politicians in general should put aside their own personal choices to represent their constituency as long as the constituency’s preference is rational and constitutional. E.g., if the voters want everyone to wear green pants on Sundays, forget 'em.
Unfortunately, with today’s voters, ruling out such irrational matters is going to cost the politician greatly but it still needs to be done.
You don’t have to be a gun owner to support the Second Amendment.
An interesting discourse, prior to the 2012 election, concerning Ryan’s and Biden’s views on abortion. Biden, though a practicing Catholic, does not believe in imposing his views on non-Catholics.
I’d appreciate the honesty, but my concern would be that the politician might, consciously or subconsciously, not put all their effort into pushing X if they didn’t really believe in it. Also, if they didn’t believe in X, i might get the impression that they lacked true understanding of the question. So I would probably vote for another candidate if there was one available.
This - a person who is against my fundamental mindset is not going to act as I would want on hundreds of tiny things that cross his desk.
Yea, you put your own views aside on 3 or 4 “hot button” questions, but do your own thing on 371 other bits.
One biggie - Filibuster - tying up the body to prevent a vote. The GOP has used this much more than the Democrats. So your Senator votes for one issue, but then supports a filibuster to prevent something you’d like.
I want someone I can trust to think along the same lines as I.
Not someone who stands with me only on one or four issues.
More like “is there a politician out there who actually wants to represent and not lead” maybe if I’m reading the OP correctly. You may get some of those at the local and some state levels but I don’t see that type of person/personality going for National office.
I’ve seen first hand some politicians during their terms in office as well as AFTER they have left office.
It is not uncommon for them to suddenly “switch sides” on certain issues when they retire from office. What this boils down to is that they are bought and paid for by special interest groups, large corporations, or foreign governments (to pay for all those ads). So they need to support what their puppet-masters want while in office.
After they leave office, they are free to express their own personal opinions and many do - this turns my head - I say “What did he just say?”
This is the polar opposite of a state representative I worked for many years ago. His view was the people elected me for my views on the issues whether they agreed with them or not. I found many other elected officials from both parties had the same viewpoint. As long as his overall voting record in the house agreed with at least a majority of his constituents, he felt he did his job. This gentleman’s views on many issues is the reason I for the most part avoid voting for those of his party today.
It’s equally likely that while in office they were saying what their *constituents *wanted to hear. And only once out of office would you hear them say what they wanted to say on their own behalf.
IOW: your assumption that they were doing the bidding of special interests is unsupported in the general case. They are just as likely to have been doing the bidding of their constituents. Or at least of those constituents who were of their own party.
I think the question of whether a politician should put forward primarily his own views, regardless of what constituents may think; or should put forward his constituents views, regardless of what he may think; is purely a matter of taking different approaches to the same job. I can’t see that one is more right than the other, in any ethical way.
Compare for example the different approaches taken in management of Fortune 500 companies. GE used to (or maybe still does?) have a practice that the 10% of lowest performing employees ought to be shitcanned each year. Some high-tech companies feel compelled to offer silly benefits like sushi chefs and ping-pong tables. I’m not sure any of those approaches are inherently wrong, even though there are obviously different pros and cons to each.
I’d say same with politicians as with businesses: as long as you know what you’re getting into, I’d say evaluating the quirks of each approach is probably not as important as knowing what the quirks are and making an informed decision as to whether you will tolerate them.
On a technical issue like trade policy or tax issues I would have no problem for a politician to defer to his constituents, but on a moral issue I do. If a person is willing to go along with what he believes to be the murder of innocents just to keep his job, then that person is a monster and has no place in government.
I always understood elected officials could ‘honorably’ make decisions based on:
a) ideologically this is the right thing to do
b) the majority of my constituents desire this so I will pursue it even if it doesn’t reflect my personal opinions (as described in OP)
c) personally, my conscience says this is the right thing to do (to heck with what the majority of my constituents think)
I don’t see anything inherently wrong with it. If a politician says he’ll do X and then he does a reasonable job trying to accomplish X, then I feel like he’s lived up to his word. If he promises to do both X and Y and he compromises a little on X in order to achieve Y, I’m also going to be mostly understanding and supportive (though it depends a little on how I personally rank the importance of X and Y).
During a campaign, a platform vs personal opinion conflict might make me question his commitment to his promises, but I’m already pretty skeptical about campaign promises to begin with. If they have a record of keeping promises, that’s as much as I can hope for.
I’m not even all that opposed to the idea of “buying” politicians. Business are an important constituent to represent. Not exclusively or at the cost of other constituencies, but if business doesn’t thrive, where do jobs come from? If a politician takes campaign contributions and acts within the bounds of the law, then they are also doing their job.
A representative’s job is not to do what his electorate want. His job is to investigate the specifics of an issue, try to understand the different factors that tie into it, and to protect all of his electorate, regardless of what percentile they are of the populace, in accordance with the rights and penumbric rights of the Constitution. His job is to fight the tyranny of the majority.
If he’s bowing to the electorate, then he’s not doing his job.
The title of “representative” is intended in the sense that this person is respected by the community as someone whose judgement they respect, and who they trust to look out for them. Blindly doing what everyone is telling you to do isn’t looking out for your people, it’s just being a whipping boy. It’s a leadership position, not a subservient position. Political parties and party platforms are antithetical to the aims of the Constitution.