|
The news story claims that he doesn't consider whether bills will benefit his constituency, instead he prefers to vote whether in his opinion a bill is authorized by the Constitution.
My statement isn't about placing "Profit" over "Principle"
It's about understanding some fundamentals about politics, that a political body is not about the decisions of one single person. That in order for things to move forward, often times multiple groups' interests must be served--not just one ideal.
It's great that you're so supportive of someone standing up and speaking his mind on a topic, but if everyone walks out of the room when he does so then it's ineffective at best, counterproductive at worst.
If someone like that ever became president, although it simply isn't possible, our politics would become a trainwreck. Absolutely nothing would be accomplished. Especially in representative governance, our officials are supposed to represent OUR interests, not what they personally feel about something. The disdain people have for elected officials when they "govern from the polls" or whatever is bizarre to me, that's the ideal representative--someone who shelves his or her own personal agenda for those who elected him or her.
Regardless, whether the constituents are satisfied with what he does or doesn't do is up to them. I'm not going to second guess what they evidently want. But it's an objective fact that if you talk and no one's listenging to you and you are the sole vote against a bill all the time and can't get anyone to vote with you, then you are a waste of political capital that can't accomplish a single tangible thing once your tenure is up.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann
"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
|