bush has made a lot of statements saying that he made “unpopular desicions” for the good of his country.
my question is: isn’t the whole point of representative government for the elected to “represent” the will of the people, and base their decisions on that?
why am i the only one who notices this?
You’re not.
Tony Blair has been saying the same thing recently to a largely irritated population. Comes down to the meaning of “representative democracy” aka “I don’t listen to polls”, vs “democracy by the people, for the people” which is also known as “the tyranny of the majority” (the latter usually used by someone trying to justify unpopular decisions that they happen to agree with).
I don’t think a representitve is supposed to necessarily do a poll of his constituants everytime he makes a decision. He’s supposed to represent their best interests and make decisions accordingly, but that doesn’t necessarily means he has to follow popular opinion in everything.
Lets face it, I don’t have the time or desire to keep up with all the vast implications and nuances in, say, the Kyoto Protocol and the dumbies that share my congressional district, even less so. The vast amounts of relevant scientific and economic data is staggering, so in theory I choose somebody who I think shares my values and will protect my interests, and they and their staff go and do the research and hopfully vote yea or nay, depending on what they think is in my best interest.
Every coupla years I look at what they’ve done and how they voted and how everything shook out from those votes, and then if I still think they’re representing me well, I put them in for another term.
This of course is theoretical, I’d be hard pressed to prove that this is how it works in actuality, but the point is that, in theory, the president can still be doing his job by making choices that a large chunk of the country disagree with at the time. In theory
Malodorous is right. An elected official’s job is not to do the will of his/her constituents, but to do whatever is best for them in his/her own independent judgment, whether they like it or not. That’s how republican government is supposed to work.
I agree with Malodorous and BrainGlutton but would add one important caveat: In order for this to work successfully, there has to be a certain openness or honesty in what the representatives tell you the truth about what they are doing and what they or others (like the intelligence services) believe objectively to be true. Of course, there will always be a certain amount of spin put on things…But, it becomes dangerous when such spin gets out of hand. That is especially true if the media fails to do its job of providing another “check” on the representatives.
I would like Bush to list his top 3 or top 5 unpopular decisions for the good of the country, and I can decide for myself if I agree.
Part of the process, for an elected representative, is to sell their decisions to the public. Through speeches, interviews, commentary in newspapers and magazines, there is always a concerted effort to “manufacture consent” for a decision that may not initially be agreed to or supported by a majority of the constituents. The goal is to turn an unpopular decision into a popular one.
So, China Guy, you already have been given the opportunity to decide for yourself if you agree. And you may have decided that you didn’t agree with some of the decisions already.
If I were an elected official, I would think of my role like this. My decisions would reflect what “the will of the people” would be if the people had access to all the information that I have and if they all could devote their full time to thinking about the problems.
The point of representative government is to elect leaders who have the judgement to do what is right, regardless of whether it is popular or whether it would have passed by referendum. If every proposed legislation had to pass the “popularity test”, the government would have no revenue at all. If you’re really unhappy with your representation, you need suffer no more than two, four, or six years depending on the office involved. It seems to work.
Regarding Bush- I would like one example of Bush standing up for something unpopular. One, just one. I’d love to see it.
Knowing him, he’d probably refuse to admit there were any.
Actually, I’d like Bush himself to personally stand up and say the 3-5 that he thinks were unpopular but were the “right” decisions. That would tell us a lot about the man, the way he thinks, and how in tune he is (with my thinking at least). But just standing up and saying “I’ve made unpopular decisions for the good of America” is the same as mouthing some platitude.
If government did only the will of the people… you would have zero taxes and high spending. So unpopular decisions are normal and expected part of governing any political system.
Now when the people have a good point and government insists in doing otherwise… then democracy suffers IMHO. When Blair and Aznar went to war against the will of a good majority of britons and spaniards… they dealt a blow to democratic ideals. Especially since the reasons for the war have turned up to be false. Bush on the contrary went to war with full popular support (even if they were given bull).
Of course the unpopularity of a decision grants it no legitimacy at all to decisions or governments... either they are better or not for their country. Part of the unpopularity can also be due to bad communication or bad "explaining".Stem cell research is supported by something like 65% of the public.
[evil partisan jab]His election was opposed by the majority of people in the US[/jab]
In Bush’s case, this is doublespeak anyway. Actually, Bush’s decisions are designed to appeal to those who are already on his side – pandering to his base. If he characterises them as “unpopular” decisions, he additionally gets to set himself up as a moral bulwark.
Slight correction… the majority preferred Gore 
This November we will see his election opposed by the majority.
Thank you! I knew there must have been one somewhere. OK, I’ll give him that one, although some may construe it as pandering to Christian fundamentalists.