Politicians and the public

[Lori]

I'm probably not going to articulate this very well, but it's something Sean and I have been talking about a lot, and I'm not sure what I think about it.

To what extent do you think politicians must represent the will of their constituents, and to what extent are they responsible for making better choices than their constituents might? And, does the public have a right to condemn politicians for supporting positions that they wanted them to support?

I've been thinking about this in terms of Iraq. When we invaded, there was massive public support for it. Even if politicians at the time thought it was the wrong thing to do, or should have thought it was the wrong thing to do, in most cases their constituents, who they were supposed to represent, wanted us to invade. So were they right to vote in favor of invasion? And now that public opinion has turned, do the same people who at the time wanted the invasion have the right to criticize politicians who voted in favor of it? Should politicians do what the people want whether it is right or wrong, because they are supposed to be representing the people? If they don't, when should they make the choice to do the unpopular thing?

Does the media play a role in this? When it's very possible that people are getting false information from the media, and when corporations have so much power in shaping public opinion, should public opinion carry less weight with politicians than it might in an ideal world?

I'm really not sure how I feel about any of it.

[teawhisk]

I believe that people should do what's right no matter who they are. Doing something that you believe to be wrong and immoral solely because other people think you should strips you of your integrity. Politicians are no exception.

I disagree with the notion that politicians should make their decisions based on what they think the majority of their constituents want. The public can and does change its mind, polls are biased, and constantly switching horses in midstream will insure that the government wastes a lot of money and produces nothing to show for it. The public frequently does not understand the issues, and is greatly influenced by the press. It is the responsible politician's job to do what is right regardless of how much he is hated for it at the time.

I believe that politicians should stand up and say, "I believe in this, and this, and that, and these things are non-negotiable." Then I can pick from an array of candidates who know what they believe and can stand up for it. If the majority of my peers votes with me, great, but even if they don't, we all know what to expect.

A candidate who takes a poll and then says, "Ok guys, you all want this and this and that, so I'll give it to you," is also the same one who is going to arrive in Washington and agree with the most powerful person standing in the room at the time -- no matter who they are.

If a candidate will subvert his own moral beliefs in hopes that I'll vote for him, he'll subvert the promises he made to me the moment they might make him unpopular. The candidate who will stand up and be proud of what he believes (no matter what it is) even at the risk of alienating the voters is also the candidate most likely to stand firm against powerful influences already ensconced in Washington.

Governing by opinion poll is irresponsible. "Oh sorry, not my fault, that's what all of you said you wanted." We the public don't have the time to become thoroughly informed about the issues that politicians must deal with, so honestly, what good would it do to ask me my opinion on, say, water rights? It is the politician's job to become informed and then make the best decision possible for the long term good of the country.

A candidate who simply tells me what he thinks I want to hear is only interested in power, not responsibility.

[gr8mommy]

Isn't the point of representative government to protect the people from themselves? We need to go back to the early days, when common people were sent to Washington (or the State houses) for a single term. Then worrying about being reelected wouldn't be an issue.

[Jo]

I feel that if a person is elected as a conservative for instance, by a generally conservative base, then they should hold to those principals for the most part. I would hope that whatever their political beliefs are, they believe in them because they believe that is what is best for this country.

I don't think they should be poll guided or swayed by the mood of the country when deciding on issues. Take Iraq for instance. What if the country was against it at the time but there was credible(and continued to be credible) information that Saddam was going to do something? I feel they do have to put our national security ahead of what I might want as long as they are doing it for the right reasons. I don't have a problem with politicians saying now, that mistakes were made, or they wouldn't vote the same way again, as long as that is what they believe. If they are just doing it for public opinion, then it is meaningless. At this point, I am so disillusioned, that I don't believe nearly any politician's motive.

I do think the media does influence public opinion. I noticed on the CBS evening news that they honor heroes every night. These are soldiers that died in the war. I think it is wonderful but I have often wondered if they are trying to drive it home that Americans are dying. Why can't they celebrate a person who actually survived every now and then? I try to get my news from a variety of sources so I can at least feel I have a flying chance at forming my own opinion on issues.