What Politician Fits Your Bill?

[Vintage]

I am curious.

Would you rather have a politician who truly represents what his people want? For instance, if a politician passes legislation that a majority of Americans approve of regardless of potential outcomes?

Or would you rather have a politician who will ignore what the masses want, and pass legislation he/she feels will ultimately serve their people better. IOW, someone who will do what is best for the country regardless of what their constituents say.

___________________

Yeah, a combination of the two would be nice. But I am not asking that. Choose one of the two options.

(I guess, I am sorta asking if you prefer a true representative government versus a philiosopher-king type approach.)

[burmafrd]

People are fickle. And politicians that are slaves to polls will be changing all the time. Besides, polls can be manipulated by changing a couple of words or moving the words around. Its better to have a principaled, honest person who will do what he/she thinks is right for the country.

Know any?

[Vintage]

Originally Posted by burmafrd

People are fickle. And politicians that are slaves to polls will be changing all the time. Besides, polls can be manipulated by changing a couple of words or moving the words around. Its better to have a principaled, honest person who will do what he/she thinks is right for the country.

Know any?

Its a two way street. They listen to the polls so much because they know it works. Why does it work? Because a majority of Americans don't pay attention to politics and we enable them to get away with it.

Until we start to hold politicians accountable, nothing is going to change. There was a time when that would happen.

Now, its rare to see it happen.

But FWIW, I agree with you. Though I do like the idea of a truly representative government, I think a majority of Americans are apathetic towards politics, and as a result, wouldn't be informed of decisions that need to be made.

Which, with a large population, is understandable to some extent. But with 50% voter turnout rates and people being, well, people, if you could find "true politicians" (someone who does things with the benefit of the populus in mind, first and foremost), I think the latter scenario would work.

[Danny White]

Originally Posted by Vintage

I am curious.

Would you rather have a politician who truly represents what his people want? For instance, if a politician passes legislation that a majority of Americans approve of regardless of potential outcomes?

Or would you rather have a politician who will ignore what the masses want, and pass legislation he/she feels will ultimately serve their people better. IOW, someone who will do what is best for the country regardless of what their constituents say.

___________________

Yeah, a combination of the two would be nice. But I am not asking that. Choose one of the two options.

(I guess, I am sorta asking if you prefer a true representative government versus a philiosopher-king type approach.)

What you define in the second option is the ideal, although I think it's wrong to describe it as a "philosopher-king" option. That suggests a form of monarchy, where the representative is forced on the people. The people need to be able to choose their representative democratically, but after that point, the representative should be free to exercise his best judgment on the issues put before him.

Direct democracy, or a democracy where the representative is purely a mouthpiece of the masses, is a disaster waiting to happen, IMO.

[Vintage]

Originally Posted by Danny White

What you define in the second option is the ideal, although I think it's wrong to describe it as a "philosopher-king" option. That suggests a form of monarchy, where the representative is forced on the people. The people need to be able to choose their representative democratically, but after that point, the representative should be free to exercise his best judgment on the issues put before him.

Direct democracy, or a democracy where the representative is purely a mouthpiece of the masses, is a disaster waiting to happen, IMO.

True. I was trying to convey the point of the politician being, essentially, a philosopher of sorts in terms of ignoring the populace and going by what he thinks is best for the people.

Similar to the actual philosopher kings themselves (with, as you pointed out, a difference in how they are 'chosen' : appointed versus elected) in essence.

[Eric_Boyer]

The first option is dangerous. I cherish liberty, not democracy!

[burmafrd]

There were very few kings that ever qualified as philosophers; and not many more that really did a good job.

The american population has been educated and conditioned over the last 30 years or so to be cynical and to care less about politicians and campaigns.
Virtually no candidate NOW carry out promises they make; this is known and adds to the cynicism. The apathy by so many people as regards voting, let alone even TRYING to understand the various issues, just completes the mess.

[Danny White]

Originally Posted by Vintage

True. I was trying to convey the point of the politician being, essentially, a philosopher of sorts in terms of ignoring the populace and going by what he thinks is best for the people.

Similar to the actual philosopher kings themselves (with, as you pointed out, a difference in how they are 'chosen' : appointed versus elected) in essence.

It's that distinction, however, that makes all the difference though.

Whether or not you have the ability to choose your leader or have him forced upon you.

I'm sure you're familiar with the famous quote from Ben Franklin where he responded that our new government was "A Republic, if you can keep it." But do you know what the question was he was answering?

The question was: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"

[Crown Royal]

:squint: This was my discussion.

[CowboyJeff]

Originally Posted by Vintage

I am curious.

Would you rather have a politician who truly represents what his people want? For instance, if a politician passes legislation that a majority of Americans approve of regardless of potential outcomes?

Or would you rather have a politician who will ignore what the masses want, and pass legislation he/she feels will ultimately serve their people better. IOW, someone who will do what is best for the country regardless of what their constituents say.

___________________

Yeah, a combination of the two would be nice. But I am not asking that. Choose one of the two options.

(I guess, I am sorta asking if you prefer a true representative government versus a philiosopher-king type approach.)

I want a politician who shares what I want. Screw everyone else

[Jarv]

I would rather have a leader than a politician, of course that brings up my stupid term limits thing I keep pounding.

I voted for Ross Perot years ago, just because I was sick of career politicians. They just end up owing to too many special interest groups and lobbyist by the time they take office. One of Perot's campaign promises was to make lobbying illeagle.

Its one of the reasons I really liked Regan also, politics wasn't something he did his whole career, as a matter of fact he started out as a Dem I belive.

Jack Walsh, Don Corleon, Tom Landry, Chuck Yeager, Dirk Pitt...These are folks I admire and wouldn't mind being president...Heck, 2 of them are fictional characters.

[Danny White]

Originally Posted by Crown Royal

:squint: This was my discussion.

That is true... you get credit for getting the ball rolling in that other thread!

[CowboyJeff]

Originally Posted by Jarv

I would rather have a leader than a politician, of course that brings up my stupid term limits thing I keep pounding.

I voted for Ross Perot years ago, just because I was sick of career politicians. They just end up owing to too many special interest groups and lobbyist by the time they take office. One of Perot's campaign promises was to make lobbying illeagle.

Its one of the reasons I really liked Regan also, politics wasn't something he did his whole career, as a matter of fact he started out as a Dem I belive.

Jack Walsh, Don Corleon, Tom Landry, Chuck Yeager, Dirk Pitt...These are folks I admire and wouldn't mind being president...Heck, 2 of them are fictional characters.

So did Rudy.

[Eric_Boyer]

Originally Posted by Jarv

Its one of the reasons I really liked Regan also, politics wasn't something he did his whole career, as a matter of fact he started out as a Dem I belive.

Reagan switched to the republican party in 1962 (when Goldwater was running for office). He gave the speech at the republican nomination.

The three men in politics I respect the most - Goldwater, Reagan, and Dr. Ron Paul, all claimed to have strong libertarian leanings. It's something I look for in a candidate.

Few people know that Dr. Paul was 1 of only 4 sitting congressman to endorse Reagan in his initial run at the white house.

[Jarv]

Originally Posted by CowboyJeff

So did Rudy.

Another guy I would vote for is Rudy, but not the mayor of NY, but the Rudy that was a scrub at Noter Dame...lol.