HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Dec 16, 2003 As the election year gets started in earnest there is a question that occurs to me quite often. The question is, as suggested by the title, “Should a Congressperson or other elected official act based on his or her conscious, or should voting and other decisions be based on what ‘constituents’ think at the time?” This question can quickly lead to two very different discussions, one based on the all-to- often-unfortunate nature of today’s politicians and the other centering on ideals and noble goals. I know that we live in the real word, but I firmly believe that we should strive for ideals. As my dad likes to say, “I’d rather aim for the stars and miss than aim for a steaming pile and hit it dead center.” So the question remains. The daily and painful reality is that politicians take polls and conduct ‘focus group’ research looking for guidance. We all know what the goal is, they want to get re-elected. And who can blame them? However, since we’re engaged in a discussion of ideals, we’ll stick to how things ‘should’ be for the moment. There are at least two schools of thought on this issue. The first would contend that a representative is literally just that, a person chosen to travel to the seat of government and act exactly as his or her constituents would if they were there instead. By this reasoning, an elected official should act on the needs and desires of his or her constituents on a continuous basis and so should do what the voters demand at any given time. On the other hand, one might argue that the voters should actually elect a person whom they trust, on balance, will best represent their needs and desires because of the type of person he or she is. Following this line of reasoning, the voters select the person they think holds beliefs and values more or less in line with their own and, most importantly, has the strength of character to hold the line on those convictions in the face of adversity. After all, the latter argument would go, what good is someone agreeing with you if they’re not willing to defend that position when challenged? The feedback, in this case, comes not from daily polls and focus groups, but on Election Day when the voters let their elected officials know how they have done over the intervening term (i.e., they vote with their vote). I, obviously, have an opinion on this topic. I believe that we should vote for government officials based on their character, with less (but of course more than zero) emphasis placed on their positions on the issues of the day, and that they should stand by their convictions during the ensuing term. Perhaps the most obvious argument in support of this position is the simple fact that the Founders of this country constructed a representative republic. In this republic, we allow others to represent our interests while we are not physically present. If the Foundering Fathers had wanted each and every issue to be decided by a direct mandate from the people, they would have set up a true democracy wherein each and every issue is put to a popular vote. They obviously did not take this route. While their reasons may have stemmed from a certain level of mistrust of the unwashed masses (as typified by the electoral college), or were simply due the logistics of the time is perhaps up for debate. However, the fact remains that we live in a representative republic and not a direct democracy. Aside from such Founder-logic, there is a very important reason that we should vote for the person we see as having the most pure moral character and greatest strength of will. Elections are always won and lost on a finite set of issues that seem important at the time. This is obviously necessary given our form of government. However, it is almost certain that novel issues will arise during a politician’s term in office that were not anticipated prior to the election. Such situations can be quite drastic and of utmost importance. When these cases arise we get to see what a politician is really made of, and each voter hopes for two things. First that the elected official will recognize the ‘right’ course of action, and second that he or she will have the intestinal fortitude to actually follow through in the face of adversity. One might ask, however, what harm would be caused by electing a person on the basis that he or she will carry out my wishes on a case-by- case basis? The simple answer is that, when it comes to serious and unforeseen circumstances, such a person will almost certainly not have the guts to do what he or she sees as being the ‘right’ thing. Rather, such a person is likely to take a poll, ask a few supposedly stereotypic-focus-group-types for their opinion and then do what will offend the least number of people. This type of person should never be allowed to represent anyone. When I elect a person to office, whether for the legislative or the executive branch, I fully expect that person to be a LEADER for as long as he or she holds my favor. Therefore, I demand that he or she do what is ‘right,’ based on that person’s internal standards that originally got them elected, even if it is unpopular at the time. Do I have any right to ask such a thing of my elected officials? Absolutely! Do I have any realistic expectations that such a thing will happen? Yes, but perhaps not as often as I might like. After all, the successful prosecution of such a strategy requires a few things. First, a politician must be willing to stand up during a campaign and reveal his or her internal standards in an honest way so that voters can make an informed decision. This is a risky proposition in today’s political scene, since you are offered no guarantee that your opponent will follow suit and therefore run the risk of being ‘too honest.’ Second, I (the voter) must be able to recognize high moral standing when I see it. If I’m blind to such things, or just don’t care, the whole system falls apart. Third, I must be willing to compromise on some issues for the sake of voting for a person of strong moral character. This can be a tough one, and there will obviously be some issues on which I am not willing to compromise. In that case I might be forced to choose between quality of character and agreement with my views. On the other hand, if I agree with some wishy-washy windbag, what assurance do I have that he or she will follow on the issues we agree on in any case? Finally, we must expect that politicians have noble goals at heart. In other words, politicians must be willing to sacrifice elected office for consistency with their internal standards. Does any such animal exist? Is there even a single person in politics today who has the wherewithal to go against the grain? To see that the ‘right’ thing is done regardless of the potential political consequences? In other words, is there anyone out there in American politics who is a LEADER? Fortunately there are at least a few. Since it is nearly impossible, and obviously subjective, to provide a comprehensive list I will mention just two. The first on my list is President Bush. GW has shown amazing intestinal fortitude in the uncharted waters into which he has been forced by unforeseen circumstances. In the face of never ending, but ever-changing, opposition Mr. Bush as held steadfast to his stated goal of wiping terror from the face of the earth. Whether or not one agrees with the President’s actions in the War on Terror, it is undeniable that he has exhibited truly impressive leadership on a host of issues that were in no way part of his, or his opponent’s, election bit. Second, I see Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) as being near the top of the intestinal fortitude list. Here is a guy who drew a line in the sand and has refused to back down to members of his own party. Again, regardless of whether or not you agree with his opinions, he has exhibited the characteristics of a leader. In both cases, these men have remained true to their internal standards in the face of fierce opposition. They have staked out clear moral ground and have been unwavering in their views. These two men embody what it means to be a leader, and what it should mean to be an elected official in America. For those of you out there who vehemently disagree with either, or both, of these two men, you will have your chance to provide feedback. Simply go to the polls and voice your displeasure. And the same goes for those who support either of them. You’ll have the same chance to be heard. Just don’t, either side, expect to sway them with phone calls or emails. All of this, however, should not be misunderstood to indicate that I think voters should not contact their elected officials. While, I obviously think that our representatives should not be easily swayed by public opinion, it is entirely reasonable to make an attempt to convince them that they are simply wrong. Anyone with the strength of character that I would like to see in politics is ever-willing to entertain opposing points of view. The important point, however, is that politicians should have formed solid opinions prior to being elected and be comfortable enough with those positions that they do not feel the need to flip-flop when challenged. Wouldn’t American politics be great if every voter held each candidate up to the Light of Character? I think we’d all sleep a little better knowing that, even if we didn’t agree with an elected official on some topic, at least we had someone with intestinal fortitude representing our interests and, more importantly, us. ------------ About the author: Tom is a conservative medical student in liberal New England who probably spends too much time paying attention to politics and never finds himself lacking suitable subjects for friendly arguments. Email Tom Carroll: carroll@student.uchc.edu Comment on this column in the forum. Tell a friend about this site! ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
