Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
A representative in a representative democracy is supposed to represent the best interests of his or her constituants, yes? According to every poll I've seen, at least a majority of people are concerned about the wire tapping issue, so much so in fact that the word "impeachment" has been thrown around not only by far lefties, but even several notable conservatives. This means that a group of people, those who have questions but not answers about the wire tapping (whether the questions are of the legal or ethical issue) should be represented in our goverment. If republican representatives in addition to independant and democrat are ready to voice their concern about the wire taps, the issue must be tabled. The president cannot have the power to strongarm the legislative branch. It is a clear breach of checks and balances.
Bush's approval rating is quite telling. When he was elected, he basically have an approval rating of just above 50%, which is enough to secure his presidencey...barely. Now, his approval rating continues to drop, and his disapproval rating continues to rise. This is a clear symptom of his not representing the people. This is a sign that he should NOT stay his course. He should reform his agenda.
It's in the closet, but I get your meaning. |
Let me give you a story.
Quote:
There was an old man, a boy and a donkey. They were going to town and the boy was riding the donkey, with the old man walking alongside.
As they rambled along, they passed some old women sitting in the shade. One of the women called out, ''Shame on you, a great lump of a boy, riding while your old father is walking."
The man and boy decided that maybe the critics were right so they changed positions.
Later they ambled by a group of mothers watching their young children play by the river. One cried out in protest, "How could you make your little boy walk in the hot sun while you ride!"
The two travellers decided that maybe they both should walk.
Next they met some young men out for a stroll.
"How stupid you are to walk when you have a perfectly good donkey to ride!" one yelled derisively.
So both father and son clambered onto the donkey, deciding they both should ride.
They were soon settled and underway again. They next encountered some children who were on their way home from school.
One girl shouted, "How mean to put such a load on a poor little animal."
The old man and the boy saw no alternative. Maybe the critics were right. They now struggled to carry the donkey.
As they crossed a bridge, they lost their grip on the confused animal and he fell to his death in the river.
And the moral, of course, is that if you try to please everyone you will never know what to do, it will be hard to get anywhere, you will please no-one, not even yourself, and you will probably lose everything.
|
As a member of a representative government you do NOT govern by the polls. You are elected because a majority of the people (or electoral votes) thought you were the right person for the job. You are privy to information that the public is not and can not be. I'll give you an example that involves both Kennedy and Nixon. In the 1960 presidential race, one of the BIG issues was the 'missile gap'. It was generally assumed that the USSR was much more capable of launching a strike against the US than we were at striking them. This is something that Kennedy ran on, and something Nixon, a member of the former administration had to deal with. There was a problem though for Nixon. There was no missile gap, and he knew it. He knew it from secret reconnaissance photos and other more mundane sources for the time that the USSR was in no position to strike at the US and that if we wanted we could have obliterated them with little retaliation. So what do you do? The polls say the American people are very worried about the missile gap, on the other hand you know there isn't a missile gap but if you were to reveal that you would be alerting the enemy to your surveillance? Or lets take the Cuban missile crisis. I don't know what the polls were about it, if the American people were willing to go to war over it or not, but the example is sound. Kennedy knew before we committed to a hard line stance that Kruschev would blink. One of his personal confidants happened to be a US spy. Knowing that he was able to take a stance which on the surface may have looked like WWIII in the making, and it was strong leadership, not polls that made the difference.
That is both the strength and weakness of a elected representative government, over all I’d say the good outweighs the bad.