Yes, that's why I inserted the caveat that a leader should be able to convince me that he is acting correctly. I can see both viewpoints. There's evidence that George Wallace acted more racist to reflect the beliefs of those who voted for him. Therefore, a person who "represents" his voters isn't always a good thing.
But I am not going to vote for someone who can't listen to me either. I've had enough of writing my representatives and getting no answer or a one-line note saying "thank you for your letter". They can't defend their actions at all, not even in written form. --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > well, that's the balancing act of being a leader of any kind: weighing what you think is right versus what those you serve think. Always keep only your own counsel, and you're an autocrat, harmful to the people. Do whatever is popular, and you're a weakling, not helping the people to see what's best for them in times when they don't know it themselves. > > Maybe I'm a cynic, maybe I distrust authority. But I always think of those times in history when the majority (or the most vocal and influential minority) of the population wanted something that wasn't right or moral, or simply efficacious in the long run: when whites wanted slavery, then later, Jim Crow. When men didn't want women to vote. When Germans actively wanted--or passively agreed with--the subjugation of the Jews. When white South Africans wanted their colored countrymen to remain as second class citizens. A century from now, perhaps some will look back on a society that taxed gays but refused to let them serve in the military equally, or enjoy the same domestic rights as the rest of us, and say "If only there had been a leader who'd done what was right instead of what was popular". After 9-11, this country wanted blood--anyone's blood. I always liken America's mood then to that of a crazed dog that snaps at and attacks whomever happens to be near. Bush and his gang poin > ted us in that direction, then said "This is what they want". And all of our leaders--almost every dang one of them with a few notable exceptions--went along with that fevered fervor, afraid to buck the will of the people. Well, that's why I have a leader: to see things more clearly in times when perhaps I can't, to make decisions based on more information and considered thought than I have. > > If I'm going to have someone lead me, it's because he or she has the capacity sometimes to make me better, to see the bigger picture in ways I can't always do. That requires someone with certain convictions and basic principles that will guide him or her, that won't change with the times or the whim of the public. A leader should be a rudder for a ship in a storm (lots of metaphors I know!) that can guide us in the right direction. Yes, sometimes sticking to a set of beliefs stubbornly can be wrong. Bush is proof of that in the way he's singlemindedly pursued a disastrous foreign policy. But you know, at least I know where Bush stands, and that's a good thing because i can then decide that he's not right for the job and get him out. I know who and what he is, and I've decided he's not right for me. There's a certain honesty and courage in his stance, that allows me to see him for what he is and then--fire him. And that's the point: a leader leads by trying to get us to go in cert > ain ways, based on what we want and what he or she thinks is best for us. If those two views differ greatly, then perhaps that leader will be sent packing. Look at how McCain is hated for ultra-conservatives because he wants a more reasoned approach to illegal immigration, and the Bush tax cuts. But despite what it's costing him, he still holds to those views. yet at the same time, he's trying to modify them somewhat to go along with the people. A balancing act. > > But with someone like Romney, who keeps changing to meet the mood of the day, how can we ever know whether he's ultimately good or bad for us? How will I know that in that one moment when I am wrong, and I need him to be right, he won't do the popular thing instead of the right thing? > > A > -------------- Original message -------------- > From: "maidmarian_thepoet" [EMAIL PROTECTED] > I may be stepping into it...but what exactly is wrong with a public > official supporting the wishes of his constituents? I wish that my > officials here really supported my beliefs instead of catering to the > religious right. Of course, you can say that they are supporting > them---but that's my point. Wasn't he being a true representative of > Mass. voters at that time? Now he is claiming that he could be a true > representative of conservative voters. Isn't that his job? > > I am still recalling listening to a "This American Life" episode in > which a guy who was pro-choice supported Bush because he didn't > flip-flop on issues. He admitted that he didn't like any of Bush's > stances on issuses, but he voted for him because he didn't flip-flop. > Why on earth should I vote for someone who won't vote my way? He's my > representative, not a representative of his own convictions. If he can > change my mind because he believes me wrong, that's one thing. But he > shouldn't be voting his convictions whilly-nilly. > > Ok, I will get off my soapbox now. :-) > > --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, KeithBJohnson@ wrote: > > > > Like i said, an opportunistic flip-flopper. He was pro-choice, pro > immigration (in terms of working something out instead of sounding like > a Klansman), not averse to taxes as needed (which he calls "fees", but > same difference). I heard a speech he gave just a few years back where > he explicitly said he didn't want to try and recreate the Reagan days. > Now he's a rabid ultr-conservative nut who evokes Reagan more than some > of us call on God! > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
