Mike Brewer

This thread is hopefully the first of several academic debates to get people thinking about what they think. Understanding your own beliefs requires testing, just like understanding your martial art does. For someone to truly know something, it has to be exposed to opposition and resistance, the same way your punches, kicks, takedowns, and submissions need to be put to the test by sparring. In that vein, consider this mental sparring.

The ground rules are simple.

#1: Attack ideas, not people. If things get personal, I'll delete the posts. It's fine to go after someone's ideas with intensity, but don't make it ad hominem (look that term up if it's foreign to you. It'll help your debate skills.)

#2: There should be an attitude of academic non-attribution in these arguments. In other words, people should be free to argue a point even if they don't believe it without worrying about others digging up irrelevant posts or opinions about the same topics stated elsewhere. This is not a debate to see who's consistent in all of their posts here. It's a debate to see who can ask tough questions and come up with tough answers.

#3: Keep the basic assumptions in mind, and try to argue only within the confines of the exercise. Any argument can be cut apart given the time and energy. This isn't about that. It's sparring, remember? Not a fight. So stick to the rules, and fight hard within them.

The only penalty is having a post deleted if you break one of the three rules. I repeat:

This thread and its follow-ups will not degenerate into insult wars or personal beefs. This is for learning. Now that the ground rules are established, the first topic is a tough one.

Is it more important for an elected official to have a consistent record, or for an elected official to effectively represent the people who voted for him, even when that requires that he vote against his own beliefs?

The assumptions:
The elected official is elected by a particular group of citizens, such as a state or province, by virtue of a popular vote.

The elected official's title is "Representative," and his/her job description is to represent his constituency in the legislative or governing body of his/her nation's highest government. An example might be someone elected to the Senate or House of Representatives in the U.S. Congress.

The election process requires open public debates at which inconsistencies in records can and will be brought to light.

All voting records for this candidate are transparent and can be verified by all.

Discuss.

Mike Brewer

I'll throw out the first argument to get things rolling.

I do not think consistency is in any way relevant, except as it applies to the consistency of the electorate. If a person is a representative of a state that is very liberal, I would expect the representative to vote liberally and try to pass legislature that best represents his liberal constituency. If that same person becomes a representative for a very conservative state, I think that he should then cast votes conservatively to represent the people he serves. I believe that the candidate's personal values and beliefs, stances on issues, and previous voting record means little compared with his willingness to truly learn what his people want done and then represent that interest in Congress. The representative, after all, is not there to be himself. He "represents" the voices of all those people who put him in office in the first place, and his job is not to vote in accordance with his own beliefs, but to serve the interests of the people he represents.

Mr. Arieson

Adolf Hitler was extremely consistent. He never wavered or flip flopped.

I think an elected official should vote the way his precinct or the way the majority of his supporters elected him to vote. Even if I don't agree with it. I also believe in states rights.

Don't laugh, but I wish there were certain states that kept liberals, and moderate dems like me happy. And other states for conservatives and republicans. I guess that in a sense, there already is (the heartland VS the coasts) but nothing is in writing. I don't think it is fair for peaceful, tofu eating tree huggers to be forced to have Ted Nugent for their governor, and equally, I don't think a gun toting, truck driving, country western listening guy should be forced to have Al Gore as his leader, either. You should be able to live where you want surrounded by people of the same stripe as you, without having to move to Holland or Sweden (Or Saudi Arabia)!!
I guess the perfect ideal would be two presidents serving at the same time, one from each party. And a totally equal house, senate and supreme court. Then people would be forced to compromise and work together.

Shoot, Jubaji is gonna jump all over this one!



PS, I got the clarence Thomas book coming for Christmas!

Mike Brewer

There's nothing saying that the hobbit-footed, crystal gripping, dirt worshipping tree huggers have to stay where they aren't wanted. They can always move someplace like California where the government bends over backward to keep them happy. Likewise, the rabod warmongering talk-showphiles on the Right can always move someplace that caters totheir bloodlust and fear pandering. That's the beauty of this country. There's a place for all of us!

However, a completely equal house and senate wouldn't be a very good answer either, since the majority is by definition unequal. Forced equality in terms of party or ideological representation wouldn't reflect the real makeup of the country, and would be against the very foundations of a democratic republic in the first place.

Mr. Arieson

Dude, that description is hilarious!

But, you have to take things in perspective. Yes, there are areas of california where hobbit-crystal-tree huggers are the majority (Like Berkeley-where the smell of unwashed armpits makes you want to retch and vomit) but equally, I come from a part of california that has, and always will be, extremely conservative. The John Birch society had enormous influence in my area until the 1960's, and remnants of extreme right wing ideology are still visible in the old money families who built this region, and still live here. So, as a conservative dem I both feel at home, and out of place. I know I definately could not, would not, live anywhere near the bay area. I like women who wear make up and don't have dirty-black toenails and breath that smells like garlic! And that's all you find up there in liberal land!

Mike Brewer

I went to San Francisco, and the smell of pachouli, feet, and liberalism made me choke. Same with the People's Republic of Boulder, Colorado. My point is simply that no matter where you live, there's always somewhere else. Just skip town! No one will ask for your papers or anything.

Mike Brewer

Mr. A:

Much has been said abot flip-flopping in the media, and people look to crucify any candidate that's ever changed his mind. Romney changed his stance (albeit while representing very different states), and Kerry was the master of the modern flip-flop. I can clearly see and agree with the need to represent the people you've been elected to represent. In fact, I would tend to respect and admire a man who voted against his own personal beliefs in order to provide the best possible representation for those in his district. It shows that he puts his offical duty above his own personal life, and that is a dedication few will ever understand. Conversely, it's hard to vote for someone who changes his stance on leading issues in tune with the polls. If a person truly believes in something, then he ought to stand up for that as something HE believes, even if he is willing to change his mind, grow, or just vote the other way in service to his electorate.

Now, what about people who stand clearly for something, and yet have no responsibility to the public? For example, what would it mean if, for example, a strong advocate of Global Warming and reducing the amount of fossil fuels we use in the world was also heavily invested personally and financially in Big Oil? What would it mean if someone who was not elected, but was more of a celbrity type - someone with no electorate or district to represent - made his fortunes championing an end to Big Oil, and at the same time, behind the scenes, made secret fortunes from the very demons he chastised in the public eye? Would that be different than seeing it in a politician?

I mean, imagine the headlines if it ever came to light that someone like Sean Penn or Rosie O'Donnell was a major investor in the huge oil conglomerates? Imagine the hypocrisy if it turned out that someone like John Stewart was a major benefactor for some Republican front-runner or owned millions of dollars in Big Oil stocks. Would that make the flip-flopping more or less severe? More or less relevant?