|The "Dean" comment I thought spoke volumes.||94Nole|
Nov 6, 2003 11:04 AM
|I will admit that I am paraphrasing and there may be more to this than I heard (I am sure that OldEd will let me know if so). Dean was replying to his ability to handle controversy when he said something to the effect of "As governor, I supported and signed the legislation allowing same sex civil unions in the state of [wherever the heck he was governor] when the majority of the people in [state] was opposed to it."
I know that I am simplifying this but what the heck are politicians supposed to do other than act in a manner that their constituants agree with? I know all won't agree but when he blatantly admits to acting in ways that the majority of his voting public disagrees with, why should an undecided voter vote for him? Hard decisions are one thing, blatantly opposing the public view is another. Does that make sense?
|Pandering to the leftist media and the PC group ...||Live Steam|
Nov 6, 2003 11:08 AM
|who he hopes contribute big bucks to his campaign. Great observation on your part.|
|No that doesn't make sense||TJeanloz|
Nov 6, 2003 11:11 AM
|Part of governing is doing what's best, even if people are opposed to it. Doing what's right, even if it means you're getting tossed out of office, is the job of every politician.
Imagine if, post 9/11, there were popular support for jailing everybody of Arab descent. Just because the people want it doesn't make it right.
|I agree, somewhat...||94Nole|
Nov 6, 2003 11:20 AM
|not to spark this debate but...I am of the belief that if one polled American voters he would likely find that a majority of voters are opposed to same sex civil unions.
What defines "right" for a society? Not political right but right as in "the right thing to do". Shouldn't that be defined for a society by the majority of the voting public of that society?
|If it were easy, we'd have an answer by now,||TJeanloz|
Nov 6, 2003 11:26 AM
|I think the "right" thing to do is defined by a set of very basic human principals. I don't think popular opinion is the appropriate barometer of "rights" - too many times in the past it has failed us. Slavery, for extreme example. The civil rights situation in the South in the early part of the last century. Local popular opinion were with these policies, but that didn't make them "right."
If you start with the basic premise that all men (and women) are inherently equal, and work from there, I think you get to the "right" place.
|I think you have evolved the question too far.||94Nole|
Nov 6, 2003 11:35 AM
|I am talking strictly about a politician elected by his constituants and then totally disregarding them and their beliefs when supporting or not the proposed laws that will be imposed on those same constituants. Aren't they public "SERVANTS"? They measure their experience by reference to their years of or in public "service".
I believe that you speak of the effects on an evolving society as it becomes more educated and enlightened and thereby changed. Different issues in my mind.
|I don't think so,||TJeanloz|
Nov 6, 2003 11:47 AM
|I entirely see where you're coming from - they work for us. But, at the same time, they are the custodians of what's "best" for us, whether we know it or not. Part of the role of representative democracy is to protect the masses from themselves. They serve the public by doing the right thing, even if it's not popular.
Their job is to serve EVERYBODY, not just the majority. It would be immoral for them to neglect the needs/rights of a particular constituency (in the civil union case, the gay community) for their own political gain.
|It could mean he has principles that go beyond that||ColnagoFE|
Nov 6, 2003 12:57 PM
|I'm sure supporting the abolition of slavery wasn't a popular thing in many states but it was the right thing to do. Same with this. In my opinion of course.|
|To equate the two is irresponsible.IMHO (nm)||94Nole|
Nov 6, 2003 1:09 PM
|How? I don't understand the irresponsibility (nm)||TJeanloz|
Nov 6, 2003 1:14 PM
|me neither...I don't get it||ColnagoFE|
Nov 6, 2003 2:09 PM
|Why are people so threatened by same sex unions? No heterosexual couple has to sign an agreement to have kids when they get married so that throws out the procreation argument. The only thing that I can see is that they have prejudicial views on what gay people are like and that allowing same sex unions would soon result in men dancing in the street in pink tutus and youth being "corrupted" into deviant lifestyles.|
|Huh? Only because you oppose slavery, but||OldEdScott|
Nov 6, 2003 2:49 PM
|think denying basic civil rights to homosexuals is OK. I guess you could call that 'irresponsible,' but it sounds more to me like you just don't agree. There IS a difference.
Dean made that comment in the context of whether he'd ever fought bigotry, by the way. Another rebel flag-related question.