Posted on 11/15/2017 5:12:27 AM PST by Kaslin
Warning Graphic Language
During America's founding era, a significant debate took place about the nature of representation in a democratically elected government. Were representatives supposed to act as simple proxies for their constituents? Or were they supposed to exercise independent judgment? Edmund Burke was a forceful advocate for the latter position: A representative, he said, was supposed to exercise his "mature judgment, his enlightened conscience. And "he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living." John Stuart Mill, too, believed that representatives ought to act independently; he said: "A person whose desires and impulses are his own...is said to have a character. One whose desires and impulses are not his own, has no character, no more than a steam-engine has a character."
Then there were those who argued that to exercise independent judgment would be to betray voters, that they sent you there with a mission, and your job is to fulfill that mission. This so-called delegate view of representation is supremely transactional -- we only bother electing representatives in this view in order to do the work we're not willing to do. They aren't elected to spend time learning about the issues or broaden their perspective beyond the regional. They're there to do what you want them to do.
This debate has finally come to a head recently, not because sectional representatives have forgone their voters but because characterless people are running for office more and more. Those who believe in the Burkean model oppose such people -- we say that to put those without character in charge of policy is to leave our future in the hands of the untrustworthy. Those who believe in the delegate model can embrace such people -- they say that so long as the representative votes the right way on the issues, they can murder dogs in the backyard or allegedly molest young girls. Nina Burleigh's perspective on then-President Bill Clinton falls into this second camp. "I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal," she said. So does Rep. Mo Brooks' perspective on Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore. He said: "Roy Moore will vote right ... That's why I'm voting for Roy Moore."
There's a certain freedom to this perspective. It allows us to forgo discussion about the nature of the people we support -- so long as they're not lying about how they vote, we can trust them in office. The founders, however, would have rejected this perspective. The Federalist Papers are replete with explanations of just why a good government would require good men. The Founders greatly feared the constraints of a parchment barrier against characterless men; they didn't trust human nature enough to believe that child molesters or puppy torturers would be bound by simple conformity with the public will.
And the Founders were right. History has shown that bad men in positions of power rarely get better; they often get worse. They tend to abuse power. They tend to exercise their judgment -- or lack thereof -- even when they pledge to do otherwise. That means that we must measure our candidates for character as well as position. "May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof," President John Adams prayed regarding the White House. He didn't pray that they agree with him on tariffs.
I think every member of Congress who has sinned should hang themselves for the good of the Republic.
This is the exact reason why term limits need to be put in place for all elected office holders. It’s not a lifelong job. It is a privilege to serve the people and do it in a way where the entire country benefits.
A politician for life is not about the people you serve but the donors you serve.
Sorry but I'm not connecting those dots.
It saddens me to see how many on this site are lining up and defending the indefensible actions of Roy Moore. Most just refuse to believe the mounting evidence that is being put forth. The same type of evidence they would readily believe if Roy Moore had a ‘D’ after his name.
I’m afraid if he does get elected, there will be litigation and court battles ahead and that is also no good for the agenda. I hate to ask this of Luther Strange because I believe him to be a good man and he’s voted with the Trump agenda almost 100%. However, for the good of the party and the country, I hope he resigns so that the governor can re-appoint a new temp Senator, cancel this election and set new primaries/elections. I see that as the best resolution. If Moore wins, chaos ensues and if Moore looses it will tear the Trump coalition apart.
Well it is obvious they do not have a clue as what their job is. Sadly enough we keep on electing dead beats to office knowing they are lying through their teeth. Their only interest is themselves, piss on their constituents
Hows about “WE ARE SICK AND TIRED of all this leftwing bullshit”????
You could not craft a more despicable bunch of dhimmocrat liars if you went to Weinstein’s bunch.
I would say to Ben Shapiro, Never-Trumper: I have two works for you: McCain. Menendez. You’ve not said word one about the corruption and adulterous ways of these two “sectional representatives” (note globalist language). Menendez was diddling underage prostitutes. Shapiro, admit it, you just hate Roy Moore.
I’m willing to believe that Moore, a long time ago, did most of what he’s been said to have done. However, you are certainly aware that the Democrat party has been infested by Leftists, a.k.a. Communists. Such people were responsible for the deaths of over 100 million people in the 20th Century, and unfortunately, Moore cannot be removed from the ballot.
So I suppose we can hold Moore accountable at the ballot box and let the seat be filled by another potential Communist.
If Shapiro has not said anything about the cradle-robbing Juan McCain or the corrupt Menendez, could he be a part of the Globoh*mo Elite?
Given the age of the allegations, Royboy apparently has been able to control his for nearly 40 years.
Still not able to put it together. If a person has his own “desires and impulses” and they are wicked and evil does he still have character? Perhaps bad character but that’s no virtue to be emulated.
If Roy Moore declared himself a democrat all this would be over tomorrow and he would be hailed as the second coming.
The court of public opinion doesn’t exist. Until he is convicted of what isn’t against the law, dating. I think I will remain skeptical of the so called mounting evidence of his indefensible actions.
So he is already convicted in your opinion? What "evidence" is there?
What actions specifically do you mean? That he dated 18 year old women when he was 32? That is the only credible accusation I have read so far.
Regarding the latest woman to make an accusation, did you see the signature on the page? The close-up CNN version? The ink color doesn't match, and neither does the 2nd date written. The woman's own stepson says she's lying.
And the woman who said she had a relationship with him when she was 14 or 15? From what I read, she said that Moore called her on the phone in her room, but I also read that her mother said she didn't have a phone in her room at that time.
Some FReepers are good at sniffing out a hit job, and these accusations have that stench. The most odoriferous part is that Gloria Allred is involved. That ought to be a big flashing warning sign to anyone, if someone wants to see it.
Besides that, the fact that they had to go back to the 1970s in an effort to dig up dirt on the guy says a lot.
Sounds good to me. That would neatly sidestep the admittedly creepy strategy of voting for Roy Moore, which I currently advocate, to get him expelled from the Senate and replaced by another conservative, after putting pressure on the AL governor to appoint that conservative.
Unfortunately, the big loser in all of this would be Luther Strange. I don’t understand why people are so against him. He’s in lock step voting wise with Trump. However, politically it is just not feasible to have him continue to be the appointed temp Senator and we are asking him to step down for the good of the party. He also would probably have no chance in a new primary as this would be seen as a power grab by the “swamp” to get him into the Senate permanently.
1. Government officials (elected, appointed, hired) should do the right thing. Most of the time, that means they should do what the people who elected them want them to do.
2. They should exercise good judgement. If they choose to vote contrary to what the voters wanted, there should be a good reason for it. It should be something that the average voter is unaware of or does not understand. Considering the low IQs of so many in government, this would be a rare occasion.
3. Special interest groups should not have special leverage.
4. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should a government official act in a way to benefit himself at the expense of the people. This includes taking bribes, voting to increase the value of his stock portfolio, appointing family members or friends to jobs, etc., etc. This is the most important rule of all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.