posted
In a democratic republic such as ours (in the U.S.), what is the proper role of a representative? Is it to do what [s]he thinks is best, or to represent the will of his constituents?
Would it be wrong for a candidate in Utah, knowing the odds against a pro choice candidate being elected, to decide to be a pro life candidate, even though, if it purely up to him, he would choose for abortion to be legal?
In once sense, he's being horribly dishonest to his people and to himself. It would be even more dishonest if campaigned as pro life but then voted pro choice once elected.
But in another sense, he's being honest with his people about what he's going to do. He said he'd be a pro life representative, and he kept the bargain. If only every candidate would be so honest about what they'll do when elected.
I don't know what I think about this. I am uncomfortable with both saying that it's OK and that it's not OK.
----
Of course, this is an analogue to some of the criticisms of Mitt Romney. I make no bones about that, but I would appreciate it if we could not make this a thread about him. There are plenty of other threads out there to talk about him.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When you say "decide to be a pro life candidate" do you mean he says:
1.) "If elected I will vote to make abortion illegal and consider this issue when making judicial appointments." 2.) "I believe abortion should be illegal." 3.) Something else entirely.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I meant 1, although I guess that practically all campaigning to communicate 1 would probably include implying 2.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me, this kind of sounds closer to what Rudy is doing with his campaign - he's pro-choice on abortion, but has promised to appoint strict constructionist judges to the Supreme Court. And that really is the single greatest impact a president can have on the abortion issue.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Edmund Burke, by way of 1776: "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
If you honestly portray yourself during an election and the people vote you in as such, then vote your personal convictions. That doesn't mean I'd ignore letters written to me by constituents if I were an elected official, but it also means I wouldn't throw away my personal convictions without a very, very good reason. Voting againt my conscience is a crime against myself, one that I'd think a constituency would not want their elected official to commit.
On the flipside, I like John Kerry's position on the matter too. He was personally against abortion, but he said he felt it was wrong to impose his beliefs on the whole of America, and would instead leave up to individual choice. A lot of people called that a cop out, but it's a position I respect. I think when it comes to a matter like that, personal choice vs. government telling you what to do, then I tend to agree with him.
On other matters, I agree with Edmund Burke.
The issue isn't clearcut.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Overarching caveat: expressly lying about what one believes is always wrong for a candidate.
Absent express lying, it depends on the nature of the belief. Let's use an inoccuous example first: suppose a local candidate thinks a road should be only 4 lanes, but most of his potential constituents think it should be 6 lanes. Then, there's nothing wrong with the analog to 1, even it if implies 2. There's no moral issue at stake.
If someone believes abortion being allowed is the correct policy choice, but that it's not an issue of fundamental rights, then then I can see a candidate being honest while doing 1, even if he implies 2.
If he thinks not allowing abortion is a serious infringement on fundamental rights, then he's promising to work to seriously infringe a fundamental right. I think that's wrong (even though I think the outcome is right). If nothing else, it seriously calls into question his fundamental character. I'm not at all sure we can know enough about a candidate to make this call, though, assuming he's at all careful about how he speaks to the topic.
Guliani's position does not raise the same questions. I know quite a few people who think Roe and Casey are bad law even though they agree with legalizing abortion. I, myself, think there are many things that it would be wrong for a government to do that I do not think are constitutional.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, the totally unhelpful answer to your initial question ("Is it to do what [s]he thinks is best, or to represent the will of his constituents?") is "Both."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that ideally the people will elect representatives whose idea of what is best reflects their own.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think a candidate has to vote his/her concience, which in theory will most closely match the will of his/her constituents. While the voters might want their representative to vote on every issue as the majority of them would vote multiple problems arise:
1) on every issue a representative might not know what the people would vote for. 2) on some issues the people are not adequately informed to make a knowledgable decision, so the "right" decision might be contrary to what they would vote at the moment. 3) especially on sticky moral issues such as abortion it would be hypocritical and dishonest to one's-self to vote against your own beliefs.
Basically if you're promising to vote one way even though you think that way is wrong, then what other issues are you going to subsume your own concience in favor of whatever other pressures? Certainly I expect you to vote a certain way if you campaign stating that you will vote that way. however, for those issues that you don't directly campaign on I'm voting because I think you are the candidate closest to my view on things in general, and so I'd expect you to vote as you see fit.
It is a bit of a sticky situation/question, but if you're asking your representatives to vote against their own beliefs, then why are they representing you, and how can they tolerate that themselves.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I had to choose, would I prefer a candidate whom I trusted to be smart, good, and wise, or a candidate whom I trusted to vote "correctly" on the topics important to me?
posted
I'd pick the former. The breadth of the responsibility of a federal lawmaker is such that I, as a regular person, can't anticipate all of the decisions they are supposed to make, and that's just if the legislator is playing defense. If we want a legislator to intiate policy, I think it even more important to pick the former.
posted
Will, you admit that you don't trust the politician's judgement, so you will vote for a politician when he has expressed support for an issue you find critical.
The problem is that the same politician is going to be responsible for other issues. For example, if you vote for Bush because of his views about abortion, you can't really wash your hands of Bush's sloppy influence on the mess in Iraq or Bush's eagerness to spend on the deficit. The alternative is that you pick someone you consider generally bright, compassionate, and curious, then you can trust that even on the issues you disagree on, all of the issues have been given a reasonably thorough treatment.
The support you have for the first candidate is shallow and contingent. The support you'll have for the second candidate will be more complicated but deeper. I think it's on the backs of the second class of candidate that public trust is built.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Edmund Burke, by way of 1776: "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
If you honestly portray yourself during an election and the people vote you in as such, then vote your personal convictions. That doesn't mean I'd ignore letters written to me by constituents if I were an elected official, but it also means I wouldn't throw away my personal convictions without a very, very good reason. Voting againt my conscience is a crime against myself, one that I'd think a constituency would not want their elected official to commit.
This is how I feel too.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
