Clearly you and he disagree on exactly what his job entails.
No, I don’t. Because, see, normal fucking people would say “No, I fucking would not, because that’s a monstrous idea and it’s not acceptable to do that sort of thing.” Not, “Golly, I wouldn’t like it but I would go along with it because gosh, oh golly gee, my constituents are in control!”
[
](http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NSA_SURVEILLANCE_CONGRESS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-10-29-12-24-31)
A blowhard and an idiot, but at least he’s now realizing it and trying to unmake the mess he helped to create.
So you’re saying that, at heart, this assemblyman is a Quisling, not a slave trader?
Well, I guess we just disagree then. You’re blinded by your biases to the point where you’re unreasonable and verging on hysteria and I’m able to read and understand things that I don’t agree with. You have a nice day now.
A representative’s job is to represent the people of his district. Ideally, he does so in one of two ways
- On topics that his district cares about and makes their opinion known, he votes that way.
- On (the vast majority of) topics where (the vast majority of) his district doesn’t care, he will vote in a way that supports his personal ideology or he believes will be best for his district.
So it’s a little of column A and a little of column B. Yes, he’s there to lead. But he’s also there to represent. Sometimes it’s a tug of war between the two.
I think a combination of both is not only acceptable, but ideal. If a representative votes the way his constituents would have it done, he is clearly doing his job and his duty. But if his constituents are wrong, if they would require him to vote for something that is unjust and hurtful to the nation as a whole, he has a duty to commit political suicide. He must vote against it, and return to his constituents and explain why it must be so.
If he is turned out of office for doing what is right and just, so be it. He has not failed them,* they *have failed him, and all of the rest of us.
The Nevada Congressman could easily have solved that problem, he could have said, “Of course I will not vote for something that is blatantly unconstitutional. We had a WAR to settle the slavery issue, I won’t be revisiting it.”
That said, I don’t think his comment implied any desire to reinstate slavery on his part.
Whether he has any duty at all WRT 1) is highly debatable. Neither, of course, is a defined legal or constitutional duty, so the debate is one for political scientists/philosophers/commentators, not for lawyers.
Desire to reinstate slavery? No. A lack of automatic understanding that the very idea is beyond acceptable? Yes. He shouldn’t need to sit around and wonder whether he should vote to re-institute slavery. The sort of “Well, hmm, I really need to think about that. Gee, I wouldn’t like it but I would go along” answer is absolutely unacceptable.
Yes, I am sure that I am biased against people who say they would vote to reinstitute slavery. I must be hysterical to think that.
Oh, don’t hang an albatross on him, you boobies! Quit sniping! If you think he’s being serious you’re just too gullible!
Yes, you seem to be so against slavery that you also believe it must not be used as a metaphor or to illustrate a point. That’s why you’re coming off as nearly hysterical and completely unwilling to listen to and consider the actual words and context of Assemblyman Wheeler’s comments.
Have a nice day.
Or, you know, maybe I disagree with you. Does it advance your argument to try to say that I am “hysterical”?
Slavery can easily be used to illustrate a point. Observe: “Someone who would say that they would vote for slavery in order to serve the republic is not someone I believe should ever be in a position of power.” And “Someone who would entertain the idea of voting for slavery in order to serve the republic is unacceptable.” And “People I would consider voting for or respecting would not say that.”
Using slavery to prove a point.
In this context, it is a sign that he knows better, and thus lacks the only possible excuse (profound stupidity and/or ignorance) for his cowardice and opportunism.
Return with us now to the thrilling days of yesteryear, when the phrase “conservative intellectual tradition” could be uttered with a straight face, and see what it has to say about this issue:
[QUOTE=Edmund Burke, Speech to the Electors of Bristol]
Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
[/QUOTE]
I really don’t see what point you’re trying to make here, js. Do you think that Assembleyman Wheeler was advocating in favor of slavery?
I think I’ve already said what my issue was with it. I said it again in the post you quoted. I have no idea how to make it clearer.
:mad: Missed the edit window.
Or is it just that, to you, the subject of slavery is so evil that you think that any use of it that doesn’t include a declaration of how evil and distasteful it is automatically means that the person using it must wish for slavery to once again be the law of the land? Even if the context of the discussion and the acknowledgement that it was a poor analogy contradict that? Even after an apology?
Ah, then it seems I have it right. The subject is so distasteful to you that it makes you unable to react in any way other than with revulsion.