If there are mass protests, that’s a sign that a lot of people (or at least a handful of loud people) think I’m* wrong. It might be useful to figure out which it is, and why they think that.
Of course, the answers might not change my* mind, but sometimes I treat negative Yelp reviews as recommendations.
I actually do agree with Edmund Burke rather than TriPolar, particularly for an executive (who isn’t a “representative”). However, “right” and “wrong” are above my* pay grade – my* perception of right and wrong is necessarily based on imperfect information, which includes imperfect information about whom a policy will effect and how much they care. I agree with OffBy’s reasoning,if not their implied conclusion; protests almost always present new factual information, if only about what the public wants, which shouldn’t be ignored in a putative democracy.
Also, protests, such as the two this thread isn’t about, aren’t necessarily fundamentally about specific policy proposals. I* would certainly strongly consider responding to protests about general conditions.
But this is about realistic numbers and duration. Tens of millions of people (in a country of ~300 million) for months on end? Damn right I’d* do what they wanted, assuming there’s a coherent and actionable thing tens of millions of people agree on wanting.
*That is, thankfully hypothetical President Hershele Ostropoler
Yeah, I agree with “what’s right is right and what’s wrong is wrong,” if we can actually know that, if there even is an objective right and wrong – which there seldom (if ever) is.
So, if we try some concrete examples here:
If you’re a President who supports gay marriage, but there are tens of millions of Americans peacefully protesting, insisting that gay marriage be banned nationwide (let’s say that you hypothetically actually have the power to ban it,) would you?
If you’re a President who supports abortion, but there are tens of millions of Americans peacefully protesting, insisting that abortion be banned nationwide, in all circumstances (again, you hypothetically actually have the power to ban it,) would you?
If you’re a President who supports the right to bear arms, but there are tens of millions of Americans peacefully protesting, insisting that gun ownership be banned nationwide, in all circumstances (again, you hypothetically actually have the power to ban it,) would you?
I don’t think protests should change my view on whether a constitutional right exists, so in all those cases, no. Of course, the legitimacy of homosexual relationships (and thus, to some extent whether they are constitutionally protected) is to some extent a matter of public opinion.
Not to fight the hypothetical, but if tens of milllions are peacefully protesting against a policy, it won’t take much longer than the next Congressional election to find a lot more of the other party, or members of my own party, who are elected to change the policy. So rather soon it is going to be legislated and pushed thru, probably over my Presidential veto. In that case, I would try to find some kind of compromise.
If no compromise is possible, then it depends on the importance of the issue and the irrevocability of the action.
I’m entirely comfortable fighting this hypothetical. Why does President Me have the power to ban same-sex marriage with a stroke of the pen, but not to call in drone strikes on these people? I think the question assumes a system more or less identical to … well, to the one in the current iteration of the U.S. Constitution, at least
But I guess I* wouldn’t automatically do what tens of millions of people wanted. If they were all from some discrete group, or if a discrete group were conspicuously absent, that would give me* pause. If they were brainwashed, so that tens of millions of people didn’t represent tens of millions of individuals’ wills, I’d* feel free to ignore them. I’m assuming (and I’m* assuming) these people are just the most highly motivated; if the demonstrators were actually the entirety of support for their position, no deal. If they were demanding something I* couldn’t justify ethically, I’d* resign.
You’re President. Would you let mass demonstrations affect your policy?
If there are that many people who have enough leisure time to participate in such theatrics, then the unemployment and underemployment rates are much to high. So I would definitely re-think my economic policies.
