Originally posted by MelanerpesPassing legislation with the hope of future reforms in the wings is a pipe dream. So tell me, how often do entitlements get reformed? In fact, they become sacred cows cast in stone.
[If your top priority was universal healthcare - you would probably want to exclude anything, including tort reform, that could interfere with getting a bill that could pass.
Originally posted by MelanerpesAnd some prefer to fall on their swords despite their constituents wishes. It will be interesting to watch either way.
[And, yes, people generally prefer to win their re-election campaigns, so campaign-related issues have to be factored in. And yes, some representatives are willing to sell their soul for another term of office.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyIf you were a representative, and there was a bill that you strongly favored (perhaps it eliminated a bunch of programs you believe are wasteful), but your constituents were strongly against it (perhaps they liked some of those programs). What would you do?
And some prefer to fall on their swords despite their constituents wishes. It will be interesting to watch either way.
Originally posted by MelanerpesIt depends. If it empowered the Big Brother to where the average Joe has less freedoms then I would probably vote against the bill. You see, NOTHING is worth the price of freedom.
If you were a representative, and there was a bill that you strongly favored (perhaps it eliminated a bunch of programs you believe are wasteful), but your constituents were strongly against it (perhaps they liked some of those programs). What would you do?
Originally posted by whodeySo this would answer the question of whether it is moral to vote against the "will of your constituents". There may be times when voting against your constituents is actually the only moral thing to do.
It depends. If it empowered the Big Brother to where the average Joe has less freedoms then I would probably vote against the bill. You see, NOTHING is worth the price of freedom.
Originally posted by MelanerpesTrue, however, I would have to be willing to fall on my sword if I chose not to abide by their wishes.
So this would answer the question of whether it is moral to vote against the "will of your constituents". There may be times when voting against your constituents is actually the only moral thing to do.
Originally posted by whodeyBut if you were following what you truly believed, you would be able to make a sincere case to your constituents about why you voted the way that you did. The voters might respect you for being true to your convictions. Your re-election chances might not look as bad as you'd think. Seems to me that politicans actually get into the most trouble when they try to follow every whim of the polls.
True, however, I would have to be willing to fall on my sword if I chose not to abide by their wishes.
A great example was when most of the Dems voted in favor of Bush's war in Iraq. At the time, the war was a popular idea and I suspect that many Dems voted in favor because they "didn't want to fall on their swords". But then the winds changed, as winds are wont to do, and a lot of Dems were left groping for ways to explain their earlier support of the war to their constituents.
Another example is Mitt Romney. As a former GOP governor of a very liberal state, he offered the party a point of view that almost no one else could. If he had remained true to this, he might have had a chance in the GOP primary, or at least would have had influence over GOP policy and tone. But instead, he looked at the polls and tried to change himself to "fit in" -- and I ended up feeling like I had no idea what Romney actually stood for. I still don't.
Originally posted by MelanerpesBut did they fall on their swords for voting to go to Iraq? It seems to me that when the war turned south they all rose up in defiance of "W" and then proceeded to lay the whole mess at his feet. In fact, most everyone blames "W" for the fiasco, not the democrats even though they should be blamed as well.
A great example was when most of the Dems voted in favor of Bush's war in Iraq. At the time, the war was a popular idea and I suspect that many Dems voted in favor because they "didn't want to fall on their swords". But then the winds changed, as winds are wont to do, and a lot of Dems were left groping for ways to explain their earlier support of the war to their constituents.
Having said that, now we have the democrats in the hot seat proposing controversial legislation, so now it is THEY who will go down in flames potentially. I think that is the main reason they desire bipartisan support, however, there is no reason for the Republicans to join in the frey. Politically, there is nothing but upside for opposing the legislation because if they don't support the bill and it blows up their faces they will look like the good guys, however, if it is successful it will be credited to the Democrats either way. In addition, they are but a minority, so the democrats really don't need them at all.
Originally posted by MelanerpesWell I suppose that is what the town halls are all about. The problem is, is when you bad mouth your constituents in the process because they oppose you. That does not sit to well does it? Really these town halls are nothing but an oppurtunity for these guys to do a little PR for what they are about to do anyway. From what I have seen, it really has not helped them, in fact, it has hurt them.
[b]But if you were following what you truly believed, you would be able to make a sincere case to your constituents about why you voted the way that you did. The voters might respect you for being true to your convictions. Your re-election chances might not look as bad as you'd think. Seems to me that politicans actually get into the most trouble when they try to follow every whim of the polls.