More Politics
I was chatting with my friend Anton earlier today, and we got into one of our frequent partisan free-for-alls. These are terribly amusing since we are not, on most things, far apart in politics. Our differences, where they exist, have more to do with method than policy. But Anton and I play up the differences for our mutual entertainment.
The jesting reminds me of the tone that members of different parties in the UK take when on interview shows. These people can be quite different in their views, but they always respect one another in a way our own politicians would do well to emulate. Yes, Canadian and British MPs can be pretty loud and rowdy in session, but if you sit them down to talk about an issue and possible solutions, you'll see people who concern themselves with those they represent. I like that. I want that here in the U.S., and not just when talking with my friends.
posted by Andrew Purvis @ 9:44 PM
4 Comments:
Fat fucking chance. Political bloodbaths are American heritage. Plus, if Americans and American politicians were to back down and respect one another, someone might think they were...[shifty-eyed]...gay.
[snicker]
Although they don't show it, I suspect that many politicians respect each other, either (1)as political adversaries or (2)on a personal level. I wouldn’t know for sure because, as anonymous said, they can't back down in public, even if they wanted to.
But anonymous groundlessly ridicules the reasons for the current situation, which in my opinion are pretty good. Politicians represent the people that elected them, thus they are not free to compromise the core ideas of these people. Politicians are elected to fight for their people and the ideals of their people; it's the purpose of their existence, their job, and their duty. Respect is desirable but subordinate to this primary function.
Depending on the subject matter, I disagree with Andrew on more than just method.
I think I disagree on policies or more exactly the interaction of conflicting policies, though we rarely disagree on fundamental values.
But even if I disagree fiercely, I still respect Andrew as an adversary and also as a friend.
I half agree with Anton's assessment of politicians here. True, politicians represent the people who elect them, but too often we see politicians who believe that an entire raft of policies and opinions is supported by the electorate.
I have never been so fortunate as to vote for a politician whose entire platform I have supported, though a number key planks will sway me. Even when I lived in Washington, I voted on issues without supporting others. In this way I always voted for Dan McDonald, a socially liberal Republican (and to be fair, a neighbor) in his state senate races. Considered on many issues, however, to be the most conservative Republican in the running for a gubernatorial nomination some years back, he was not the man I wanted in that position. I used the crossover primaries Washington offers to support the Republican who eventually got the nomination (and lost the race).
Similarly, another man who had served quite effectively as the King County District Attorney wanted to take the governor's mansion, but I did not want to lose the toughest DA my county had seen in decades. I want my bullldog biting bad guys, not setting policy.
Do my senators from California embody my views on every issue? Not even close. They just do it better than their opponents would have, so I count myself lucky. This is the true joy of the republic: our system corrects itself. When we no longer wish to have the services of a given politician, we have the opportunity to find and select someone else.
Any, are you going to keep me honest or something? I mean, that's not very sporting, now, is it? Here I am, a West-coaster, and you're going to make me think? For SHAME!
Post a Comment
<< Home