from Amazon
Thursday, March 18, 2010
I actually read something brilliant from a politician…
Non-sports post.
Unfortunately it is from an ex-politician who was voted out of office because she followed her conscience rather than bow to the majority in her voting district, at least according to her.
Whenever I hear a politician get criticized for voting the opposite of the majority of their constituents or even the country as a whole, I really get annoyed. Politicians get elected to use THEIR judgment and their knowledge to make decisions. What would the point be of even having a representative if they were just supposed to vote “the will of the people?” Just once, I’d like to hear a politician say something like, “You know, I know a majority of my constituents are against a certain proposal, but knowing everything that I do, I am certain that this proposal is in their best interests, and they will just have to trust me. If that is not good enough for them, then they are free to vote for someone else come next election. If they simply want a puppet or a parrot in office, then I am not their man (or woman).”
Or even, “While this proposal may not be entirely in the best interests of my constituents, I am certain that it is in the best interests of the country as a whole, and my people will just have to make some sacrifices for the good of country that they too live in and benefit from.”
Anyway, here is what ex-Congresswoman Marjorie Margolies said:
Is it possible that, while 55 percent of my reliably Republican district opposed the Clinton budget, a vote in favor of that budget was, in fact, in the best interest of my district? Can a member of the House of Representatives ever vote with a minority of her district and still be voting in the district’s best interest? Is it possible that a majority of your constituents could be—dare I say it?—wrong?
Of course—and that’s why you’re there. Otherwise, we’d vote everything by referendum.