ltdiver 3 #1 December 5, 2002 Looking over the lives of political figures, got to wondering how they end up with the decisions they do. Examples: --The Cuban Missile Crisis --The Iran/Contra Affair --Desert Storm --Cloning --Segregation Seriously, does a Senator look to 'his' people and side with the majority lean? Or Does he/she look at all sides of every issue and make what he/she deems as the 'best' choice for everybody? And in some cases, pissing the majority of their constituents off... Look to the current crisis we're in right now with Iraq and Afghanistan. Some political circles would like to have us just move on and let these foreign nations be their own selves. Others want to crush those 'bastards' and wipe out a whole nation. If a politician makes the 'right' choice for a cause, they might not get elected to term the next time around (even if their plan was ethical and with a larger vision in mind). But...if they make the popular vote, the nation suffers in the long run... So, how do they decide? How do -you- decide? (just something that was boiling around work today....) ltdiver Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #2 December 5, 2002 Personally, I don't think Senators are as sensitive to the "will" of their constituents, as they are on 6-year terms. Congressmen/women though are far more sensitive. Then, there are the lobbyists. There are so many details that these people talk about. It's easy to write it off as "it's all BS" and "a bunch of hot air" but look at the transcripts from the missile crisis in JFKs Oval Office. The discussions that the Executive Committee had, etc. There was serious depth and concern about building a coherent, and workable policy. It also varies on the person's capacity, are they an elected official, or appointed? While the "voters" are a factor, it's only a piece of a sizable pie (appropriate considering the percentage of us that actually vote). I recall a report in the early "post-election" results that a lot of those that were RE-elected, were those that stood by their principles (regardless of left/right). How I arrive to a certain position is not all different, but, like a politician, is founded on set of ideas, from there, it grows into an opinion. Good question Lori!! So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
outofit 0 #3 December 5, 2002 they make their decisions by who gives the best blowjobs It is better to be dead and cool than alive and uncool! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ltdiver 3 #4 December 5, 2002 QuoteI recall a report in the early "post-election" results that a lot of those that were RE-elected, were those that stood by their principles (regardless of left/right). Good overall reply. As to the quote above, do you believe this? Can you give examples? Are these ethical decisions that the majority supported, or what the elected official believed was right (no matter what the majority opinion was). If we stand by the ethical point, despite the popular trend of others, will the truth eventually win out? Or does this just alienate? ltdiver Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #5 December 5, 2002 >If a politician makes the 'right' choice for a cause, they might not get > elected to term the next time around (even if their plan was ethical > and with a larger vision in mind). But...if they make the popular > vote, the nation suffers in the long run... You've answered your own question. There is an evolutionary process that takes place - politicians who are good at schmoozing, being folksy, placating everyone survive to move on to higher levels of the government. In an ideal republic, we would elect wise representatives who would make decisions that help the nation in the long run. In the world we seem to be in now, we elect the most popular people, and they make decisions that will allow them to remain in office after the next election. This gives us popular but often unwise decisions. Take the environment. Most people understand that pollution puts people out of business, destroys the ecosystem, and even kills people. But solving environmental problems takes a long time, and people want SUV's _now._ So they vote for politicians who are against CAFE limits, but who make sorta vauge promises concerning the environment. The politicians, desiring to remain in office, support the car and oil companies while making speeches about the environment. A wise man might push for environmental legislation that would help the people of the US in twenty years; a politician simply does not care what happens after he's out of office. When the problem finally does come to a head (i.e. the forestry mistakes of the last 30 years) it's someone else's problem. I once heard an interesting proposal. Everyone takes a civics/basic diplomacy test when they're 30. During an election, ten people who passed the test get chosen randomly. People vote on them based on their resumes. Once elected, you're not allowed to say no to the job unless you have a really good reason. Doing this would get non-politicians into office, people who simply understand how the country works and are not a product of the political evolution process. It also pretty much guarantees they're not tied to special interests. It was an interesting idea. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
