Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Can a politician truly represent the political views of people who elect him/her

  1. Jun 18, 2008 #1
    ... if a particular politician holds personal political and religious beliefs that greatly contrast with their congressional district view? Frankly, I cannot see how a politician writes a law without his own personal views affecting what kind of law he writes. Ideally, citizens who elect public servants like US Congressmen and US Senators, alderman want those public servants to serve as mouthpieces for them so they're concerns will be heard in a larger forum of public discourse . Politicians are like a microphone to a person who voice wants to be hear in a large stadium arena filled with 20,000 people. They are not suppose to place their own personal views on the table but are basically the messengers for their constituents. This is never the case.Because politicians are human beings who have their own personal beliefs just like their constituents. You have politicians who pass laws that would put restrictions on mediums like radio and televisions to keep radio hosts and tv shows from saying certain things on tv because of their personal beliefs about what children should hear/watch and should not hear/watch. You have politicians passing laws that would ban gay marriage because of their personal beliefs of who should be included in a marriage. You have politicians who may vote on laws that fund physics projects like the SuperConducting Collider that is now a defunct project that many if not the majority of that congressman constiuents would not even know what a superconductor is let alone a superconductor collider

    Do you think most US politicians today truly represent the views of the people who elect them or do you think most politician who get elected have their own agenda to promote? We all know a lot of politicians in washington carry some degree of corruption, but is that the norm or do you think most politicians most of the time look out for the well-being of their constituents? I say US politicians because the United States is presented as a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2008
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 18, 2008 #2
    The bad ones truly represent the people who elected them. The really bad ones. Keep in mind that the majority of people range from dumb to truly stupid. Bush is in this category.

    The good ones tell a bunch of lies during the election and then do what is right. Reagan comes to mind in this category.
  4. Jun 18, 2008 #3
    what do you mean "The good ones tell a bunch of lies during the election and then do what is right. Reagan comes to mind in this category."? What lies did Reagan tell ?

    I don't think so . People who elected Bush and the majority of americans are strongly against amnesty for illegal aliens. I think you are right about people being misinformed about the politicians they elect though. Most congressman voted to raised their salaries even though I'm sure most Americans would be against congress raising their own salaries/
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2008
  5. Jun 18, 2008 #4
    Well, hmmm.... I guess Bush did lie about illegals. He is strongly for amnesty.

    I guess what I mean is that Reagan talked tough, but really was careful in the World. For instance he pulled immediately out of Lebanon when things went sour. He wasn't afraid to back off even if it didn't fit what he had said to his supporters. Bush talked tough and then tried to follow through with being tough with spectacularly bad results.
  6. Jun 19, 2008 #5
    Does doing what is in the interest of one's constituents necessarily mean doing what they would have you do?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook