Journal pudge's Journal: Party Lines 5
A friend of mine said he thought a representative should vote the way his constituents want, thinking that many Senators are not doing their job by voting against health insurance reform that their constituents don't want.
To me, however, this is not the republican form of government our founders instituted. Edmund Burke said in 1774, in one of my favorite quotes, "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."
I've always loved that quote, but in the case of health insurance reform, I think the context immediately preceding that quote is even more relevant: "... 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."
When a legislator is bought off, or when he otherwise allows himself to be swayed for the good of the party or some other thing besides the legislation at hand, he is doing something worse than going against the will of his constituents: he is going against his own judgment, abusing a sacred trust.
I do not respect representatives who vote on legislation on a basis other than their own views of whether that legislation should or should not be law. That's their job, that's the power they've been entrusted with. But that's not how the parties expect representatives to act: they expect them to tow the party line, and at the very least, be willing to be bought off.
I understand this to some degree: parties exist to get agendas implemented. If you're a member of the party, you're expressing agreement with a significant portion of that agenda. But that is short-sighted. A strong party, long term, will nurture not fealty to specific (and ever-changing) agendas and compliance with leadership, but, rather, consistent application of the principles that support that agenda.
When you do that, you might lose some bills, but you get something much more valuable: a party comprised of representaives that the public trusts to follow their established principles and vote their conscience.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Yup. (Score:2)
Absolute agreement.
There is something to be said for the state legislature picking electors and senators, freeing them from the need to be in constant campaign/PR mode that they're in these days. The "public" is swayed so easily by the media and the opposition party that it makes it impossible for politicians to look beyond their next election. The end result is politicians passing bills to buy votes.
Re: (Score:1)
The alternative may be even worse, tho. Assuming Mass. (I am *not* spelling that out! :) is about as blue a state as Calif., and as jerrymandered to effect effectively permanent Democrat majorities in the state legislature, what happened tonight (i.e. the people deciding to shake things up in the U.S. Senate) wouldn't have been possible. That's why I like, as another example, our ballot initiative process here in this otherwise extensively effed-up state -- despite causing some problems, it's another way fo
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming Mass. (I am *not* spelling that out! :) is about as blue a state as Calif.
It's not, anymore. It was 20 years ago, but CA has dived much farther to the left.
and as jerrymandered to effect effectively permanent Democrat majorities in the state legislature
It's "Gerrymandered" with a "G" ... named after former legislator Elbridge Gerry from ... Massachusetts! :-) So yes, MA is the HOME of gerrymandering, and this is why there's currently only Democratic representation in Congress from the state (though soon to be broken with the addition of Brown).
But you can't gerrymander a Senate (or Governor) race. That's a big part of why you don't see Republicans in the House from MA, bu
On the other hand... (Score:2)
... if his judgment turns out to be mostly at odds with his constituents, then he owes them a resignation letter.
While I agree we shouldn't necessarily have poll-driven government, Congressmen are called "representatives" for a reason. And you're not representing me very well if you're constantly voting opposite of what I'm saying to you.
Re: (Score:2)
... if his judgment turns out to be mostly at odds with his constituents, then he owes them a resignation letter.
If he deceived during the campaign, painting himself to be something he was not, or was hiding his principles, or somesuch, I agree.
But if he got elected on his principles and those principles lead him to different judgments than his constituents want, or is his constituents change their mind ... no, absolutely not. We have periodic elections to resolve this problem.
And you're not representing me very well if you're constantly voting opposite of what I'm saying to you.
If he did not deceive you in getting elected, then how can you blame him? Better luck next time. You elected him for the judgment he has, a