This is a big day in the U.S. Senate. Late-afternoon is supposed to bring out the fireworks that will be the "non-binding" (read: political statement only) resolution opposing 43's troop surge.
Perhaps the most interesting question in this whole debate will be the one that will remain unanswered until the vote comes to the floor: how will the 21 Republican Senators up for re-election in 2008 vote? Five of them (Susan Collins (ME), John Warner (VA), Norm Coleman (MN), Gordon Smith (OR), and Chuck Hagel (NE)) have already announced support for the resolution. The remaining 16 are running from the media, trying to dodge any questions about how they will vote.
This is clearly a no-win situation for these 16 GOPers. Many of them are convinced that the troop surge is the best of all our bad options. Others are concerned about upsetting the conservative base in their home states. Still others want to remain loyal to the White House for one reason or another.
Speaking of possible defectors among the Republican ranks, Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (MS) had this to say: "This is a very, very serious matter...There are some things more important than getting reelected. This is one of them."
Easy for him to say. His seat in the Senate is more than safe, and even if it were not he does not face the voters this year.
In a perfect world Senators would vote for what they truly believe is best and leave political calculations out of the equation. In a perfect world Trent Lott's comment would be followed all of the time. We don't live in that perfect world. We live in the world that is. In this world the overwhelming majority of Americans oppose the war and do not favor anything but withdraw. Senators like John Sununu (R-NH) or Lamar Alexander (R-TN) have to deal with constituencies back home who would be willing to throw them out for supporting the troop surge.
Making decisions based on political calculations is horrible. That doesn't change the fact that these sixteen Senators are going to have to look themselves in the mirror and ask this question: how much is my integrity worth? If they support the troop surge will they vote for the resolution anyway to score political points? If they support the troop surge and vote against the resolution they are risking political death. I do not envy the decision they have to make.
There is a chance, however, that none of this will matter. The Senate Republicans may well filibuster the issue and this will all be for naught. The hypocricy of such a move will be thick on both sides of the aisle: the GOP cried foul when the Dems filibustered judicial nominees, and now the Dems are using the word "obstructionist". Oh how the tides have turned.
Political analysis from a (hopefully) intelligent conservative perspective.
Contributors
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(42)
-
▼
February
(16)
- Reality Sets In
- America's Most Powerful
- Guess Who's Back...
- Throne of Arrogance
- Thoughts on '08 and the Media
- The Field
- Around the Clock
- Pervading Partisanship
- The Stormin' Mormon
- The Euro Joneses
- Pomp and Pageantry
- Rove vs. Bush
- Not Like the Others
- The World that Is
- The Right Discussion
- The Freakshow at Work
-
▼
February
(16)
3 comments:
Do you think that there are times when the person we elect to Congress should base a decision on the views of their constituents? Of course there are times when the official has more information about the issue, or has such a strong conviction that they can't compromise. A brave Senator or Rep would vote their conscience and face the consequences. But shouldn't they also take public opinion into consideration? They're able to get a sense of where their constituents stand in ways that were inconceivable to the framers.
There is a great deal of philosophical debate surrounding your very question. How, exactly, are our Senators and Representatives supposed to base their votes? One camp holds that they are to vote as their constituents want them to vote. The other camp holds that they are to become experts in policy and make the decisions they deem best.
To answer your question, there are times when both of these philosophies need to be employed.
In modern day we have largely abandoned the idea that those in Congress should vote as the people want them to vote. What we have collectively established as a society is the idea that we elect people who are going to vote a certain way. If the people, in large enough numbers (50% + 1) would prefer those people vote a certain way, then they elect a new member to Congress.
Adopting this approach has advantages and disadvantages. The only way for this system to work perfectly in terms of representing the people is for them to vote their conscience all the time. In that way the people can determine whether or not the Senator or Rep truly represents his/her wishes.
With that said, I would prefer that, given our current system, Senators vote their conscience over "doing what the people want". If they do, and the people don't want whatever it is they voted for/against, they can then throw that politician out. That is the best way, given all the intricacies of our current system/philosophical understanding of how it all works, for the people to be authentically represented.
This is complicated by the fact that some office holders change their mind after they get elected. Ideally they learn a lot in their time at Washington and I think changing views can be a good thing. But constituents would be reasonably upset by a politician who is no longer the same person that they elected.
Post a Comment