vertizontal,
I really like your analysis of why a good representative should put what is right above popular opinion. Even though, in practice, many lawmakers put what will get them re-elected above what they believe is the right decision, in at least some cases.
I like the list Elendil’s Heir provided of competing imperatives as well.
I expect my representative to gather information and do research, just as you suggested. Then I expect them to publicly state their position on the issue and give their constituency a chance to respond. There’s no such thing as a politician whose personal viewpoint agrees with the majority on every issue. I want to elect the one who most closely mirrors my point of view, and then have him do what his contituents tell him to do.
Comparing a doctor to a politician is a very bad analogy, but I’ll run with it anyway. My oncologist told me what kind of cancer I had and what my options were. He then recommended a specific course of treatment. I had the final say in what happened, not him. If I told him, “no chemo,” he would not have given me chemo. I expect the same from a politician. When the majority of his constituents say, “no tax breaks for nonresident miniature yak farmers,” then I expect him to vote against tax breaks for nonresident miniature yak farmers.
The politician’s morals (when it comes to making laws) are irrelevant. His or her only concerns should be whether (a) the law is constitutional and (b) the people he or she represents want the law.
I’m sure that would be an appropriate expectation for many issues. But I’m thinking of a question I heard on the radio today. The subject under discussion was the nine day blackout in part of Queens , NY. The caller said that a couple of years ago the electric company had wanted to build a plant in the affected area and hadn’t been able to due to community opposition. He wondered if there would have been a problem if that plant had been built. The radio host didn’t know either, but I wonder how the people will feel if it turns out that the plant would have avoided the blackout. I suspect they’ll wish the policticians had considered their long-term interest instead of what they wanted at the moment.
Do you think that there’s an added layer of what’s good for the short-term vs. what’s best for the long-run?
Which makes my point exactly. Politicians are most concerned about the short-term (what will get them re-elected), whereas the rest of us know we’ll be stuck with the decisions long-term, after that politician is long gone.
I’m confused. You said
So when the residents of the community (thinking about such issues as construction, traffic and how the plant would look, rather than their own long-term interest in enough electric power ) said " We don’t want a plant here " you would expect the politicians to vote ( or otherwise work ) against the plant being built. Right?
My point is almost the opposite of what you said above. In my experience, people too frequently decide they are for or against something based on their own, individual short-term interests. They consider what’s best for their own small community , disregard the needs of the larger city, state or country, and pay more attention to their short-term interests than their long term interests. They want the prison or army base in their town to stay open because it provides jobs, even though it’s no longer needed and the money could be better spent in other ways. They don’t want a power plant, or sewage treatment plant or group home in their area, even though it’s needed and other alternatives are more expensive . If representatives (on whatever level) are supposed to do what their constituents want them to do, how can you blame the representatives for thinking of the short term if that’s what the constituents are doing?
This is a good plan and is pretty much what Jeremy Bentham proposed. He even worked out a numerical method for implementing it in Principles Of Morals And Legislation in which he outlined utilitarianism. Needless to say, it didn’t exactly sweep the world.
I’m a bit puzzled with those who thinks that a politician’s sense of morality has no place in his duties. I’ll give you two examples of why I think this is odd.
First, Congresswoman Jeanette Rankin. She was a pacifist who voted against World War I and World War II. By in large, those votes were guided by her conviction that war was an immoral means of attempting to achieve peace. Setting aside all other reasons why those wars may have been justified, do you then say she should be condemned for using her own judgment, including her sense of morality, for opposing the wars?
Second, Senator Sam Brownback. He’s as conservative a Christian as they come. For many years, he has been a leading voice in Washington calling attention to the disasterous situation in Sudan. His moral convictions led him to speak out about atrocities in Sudan well before most people could point it out on a map… heck, I’d say most Americans can’t find it on the map. His attention to this issue has nothing to do with what is popular in Kansas, with returning favors to his constituents, with safeguarding the Federal treasury, or with the duties of Congress as discribed by the Constitution. It is purely a moral matter of feeling responsibilty for those in need. Again, should be be criticized for allowing himself to use his moral compass to expose this crisis, or direct taxpayer money to some faraway country at times when barely any Americans had any knowledge at all about what was going on there?
Let me just throw in one more example. Environmentalists are trying to reach out to conservative lawmakers to point out that the Bible urges man to be a good steward of God’s creations, and to pass stronger laws to protect our air, our water, our flora and fauna. Is it okay for lawmakers to base their pro-environmental votes as simply something that their electorate wants, but somehow wrong to vote for the same law because a congressman feels a religious responsibilty to keep our planet in good shape?
IF the majority of her constituency felt that we belonged in the two World Wars, then she did the wrong thing by voting against them.
I have no objection to Brownback calling attention to problems in Sudan. I applaud him for doing it. But if he’s actually spending taxpayer dollars on it, then he should do so only with the mandate of the people. This is a big one for me. I feel that we have a lot of issues to deal with in our own country, and it should take some serious justification before we spend money (or send troops) outside the country. If money is set aside for disaster relief outside the U.S., then I’m fine with Congress allocating it, but I’m sick of hearing “we don’t have enough money to take care of crime/schools/borders/whatever in the U.S., but we’re sending a few billion to some other country to fix its problems.”
I don’t care whether lawmakers are Christian, atheist, agnostic, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, or whatever. It makes no difference to me, as long as it doesn’t cause them to act against the will of the electorate.
Laws are written in response to the amount of money donated to the elections. Pacs are able to make it possible to win elections. In turn we pass laws to ensure their legislation is passed. No public financing of elections no public interest. It is a dangerous system and those in charge have a huge advantage which they wont give up. We reelect 98%. They wont give that up. So legislation is passed to keep the system working.
I don’t really believe that a blind reliance on what the majority favors is an absolute good. I would argue that Rankin might have been right in the case of WWI where our national security wasn’t threatened and wrong in WWII where it was.
There are too many situations where public outrage would strip an unpopular group of their rights for legislators to merely take a poll and vote in what the majority wants.
I think the job of the legislators is to study the situation where laws are thought to be needed and enact the proper laws and then to follow up as to whether or not the laws actually worked as intended. And along the way they need to educate the public as to why they did what they did. I don’t believe it is the public’s job to analyze every case in detail and then tell the legislature what to do.