Nancy Pelosi Is Right on An Elected Person's Role

Pelosi gets praise from the "evil" neocons as some view them. :) I largely agree with this. It is the age old question we have faced since the beginning.

.............The Speaker touched on one of the important debates in American political history, which is what the role of legislators is. Is it to reflect the views of their constituents, rather like a seismograph? Or, as Edmund Burke put it when speaking about constituents, “Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinions high respect; their business unremitted attention.” But in the end, a legislator owes them something more: his “judgment.” He should not be guided by merely “local purposes” or “local prejudices.” Parliament, Burke insisted, was a “deliberative assembly.” (For an excellent discussion of this matter, see George Will’s book Restoration, and especially the chapter “From Bristol to Cobb County.”)

I place myself in the latter camp, more now than ever — in part based on my own experience in the White House, when President Bush was advocating a new counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq that was unpopular with the political class, with Congress, and with the American public. He proceeded anyway; and the results were stunningly successful. If the surge had failed — if Bush had pulled back, or listened to key Republicans, or decided that his job was to mirror public sentiment — America would have been dealt a terrible geopolitical and moral defeat. What George W. Bush did was right – and it was also politically courageous..............

Read the whole thing at Nancy Pelosi Has a Point — Kind Of via Contentions

Now I can easily think of a far right version of Nancy Pelosi urging the same thing on a issue that was of huge importance to that segment of the population. No doubt we would be yelling QUIT WORRYING ABOUT GETTING REELECTED!!

We say that but boy we get mad when they don't fall in line with what we want.

Again I can think of many issues from the far right and Tea party movement where they would be demanding their folks fall on the swords for principle no matter how controversial the legislation.

It is one the underlying political questions of the Republic. When does a Congress Critter votes his best Judgement and when does he vote the will of the people.

I will add that a Reps "best judgment" should be tempered greatly with the idea that perhaps if the vast majority thinks this is wrong then perhaps it is.

On a related note ,I can recall when Perot was running for Prez the first time he floated some goofy idea that every American could have a vote box at the TV and each month we could all from our homes vote on issues of the day( TRUST ME I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP) .

Even as a person that had not been voting long I realized that was perhaps the most horrible idea I have heard as to American Politics. We sort of recognize we are not too comfortable with really DIRECT Democracy of the people when we think of Perot's grand proposed plan.

There is also the role of prudence. On controversial issues and even unpopular ones elected Officials should live up to their oath and at times get all Edmund Burke.

However the system can only take so much of this. It should get more rare if the legislation is really unpopular. Edmund Burke no doubt had to make accommodations and saw the wisdom of it. I have huge doubts that Burke himself was giving the finger to the people that elected him all the time and just voted his best Judgement ON EVERY SINGLE ISSUE if it was opposed to the popular will. It is again a balance

At this point looking at the possible collateral damage after passing Obama Care would do I don't think we are at that Edmund Burke moment.