NationStates Jolt Archive

While I am not, in theory, an advocate of the American form of government, it puzzles me that Americans should complain that a candidate for public office might only be doing what it takes to get ahead... or, in other words, "flip-flopping" with public opinion.

Apparently, too few Americans have read what their founders intended the Constitution to do... Madison, for instance, assumed that people -- politicians included -- are essentially self-serving. In fact, it is upon this belief that he expected the government to work.

The idea -- a pretty innovative one at the time, I have to admit -- was that if you construct a government in which a politician's career depends on doing what people want, then you've created a government in which "the people" rule. To have a politician acting on "his own" beliefs, rather than those of the people who elected him, would indicate a failure in the system! (Ok, so we've veered toward Jefferson now.)

Apparently, we have just given up on self-government of any form... for we are disappointed in a leader who asks us, rather than telling us, what is right.

I must agree with you completely. It seems however that at some point in her history the United States has taken on a British tang to her politics. In the Westminster system candidates subscribe to an ideology, or stand as independents. In either case they are expected to sollow the ideology that they subscribe to (this is known as the Whip system, the members who enforce the ideological discipline being known as whips). Ideologies are drawn up and form political groups known as "parties".

I believe I am correct taht the majority of the authors of the US constitution wanted only political independents, not parties. They didn't like the idea of dividing everything up into partisan groupings, as is entirely natural to the British constitution.

Unfortunately for America, principled politicains are as old as the parties, and both are bad for politics and the constitution.

While I am not, in theory, an advocate of the American form of government, it puzzles me that Americans should complain that a candidate for public office might only be doing what it takes to get ahead... or, in other words, "flip-flopping" with public opinion.

Apparently, too few Americans have read what their founders intended the Constitution to do... Madison, for instance, assumed that people -- politicians included -- are essentially self-serving. In fact, it is upon this belief that he expected the government to work.

The idea -- a pretty innovative one at the time, I have to admit -- was that if you construct a government in which a politician's career depends on doing what people want, then you've created a government in which "the people" rule. To have a politician acting on "his own" beliefs, rather than those of the people who elected him, would indicate a failure in the system! (Ok, so we've veered toward Jefferson now.)

Apparently, we have just given up on self-government of any form... for we are disappointed in a leader who asks us, rather than telling us, what is right.
Excuse us for expecting our leaders to actually ... you know ... LEAD! And I realize that not everyone in the world values honesty, but most Amercian voters do, so we tend to look for that too.

The fact that Kerry's positions were changable with the discovery of new facts was seen as a positive by more sophisticated voters, who saw it as a way to adapt to changing circumstances and come up with solutions that work well in the real world. It was seen as weak by less sophisticated voters who beleived that a leader must have all the answers right now and then impose them on the world as if new data are never forthcoming. Feel free to flame away.

The fact that Kerry's positions were changable with the discovery of new facts was seen as a positive by more sophisticated voters, who saw it as a way to adapt to changing circumstances and come up with solutions that work well in the real world. It was seen as weak by less sophisticated voters who beleived that a leader must have all the answers right now and then impose them on the world as if new data are never forthcoming. Feel free to flame away.
Exactly, and it's a shame too, because everyone who didn't see it that way jumped on his statements like "I voted for it before I voted against it."

Excuse us for expecting our leaders to actually ... you know ... LEAD! And I realize that not everyone in the world values honesty, but most Amercian voters do, so we tend to look for that too.

But surely as an elected official, the most honest thing a politician could do is adapt his policies to fit what the voters want? The only way this could be dishonest is if a politician does this to get elected and then doesn't follow through on his/her promises.

There's nothing wrong with principles. Also, the Framers wanted a republic, where the people SELECTED the rulers, not a democracy, where the people themselves rule! Simple majority rule is the tyranny of the majority, capable of madness, hysteria, breach of personal freedoms (case in point, Socrates), and chaos. No, the Founders wanted a strong, but limited Federal government, balanced by more democratic state governments, so that popular will was checked the more educated and thoughtful people in society- in other words, leaders!

An old story makes this point.

Jefferson, who was the most democratic of the Founders, but even so believed in representative rather than democratic government, complained to Adams that the new government was slightly too aristocratic for having a Senate. He asked Adams why.

Adams pointed to the saucer that Jefferson used for his cup of hot tea.

"Why did you put your cup on the saucer?" he asked.

"Why, to cool it!" Jefferson replied.

"And that is why we put legislation on the senatorial saucer- to cool it!" Adams answered him.

The Founders knew that the masses, like statesmen, were self-serving, and frequently hot-headed, so they set up various obstacles to an overly democratic system.

Despite the anecdote I mentioned, Jefferson himself believed in some restraint, which is why he suggested a Bill of Rights to limit the authority and scope of power of the legislative branch.

To quote a man whose name I have strangely forgotten "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe, while the legislature is in session."

The Framers wanted leaders to listen to the people, but use their own minds to make decisions, and then accept the people's verdict about those decisions. After all, leaders are not picked at random- they are chosen for their higher intellects, greater courage, or stronger convictions.

The fact that Kerry's positions were changable with the discovery of new facts was seen as a positive by more sophisticated voters, who saw it as a way to adapt to changing circumstances and come up with solutions that work well in the real world. It was seen as weak by less sophisticated voters who beleived that a leader must have all the answers right now and then impose them on the world as if new data are never forthcoming. Feel free to flame away.
Kerry changed his postions more often than most people change channels!

Kerry changed his postions more often than most people change channels!
Mostly in response to new information or changing conditions. For instance, the "I voted for it before I voted against it" line that so many Kerry bashers like to quote. He voted for one version of the bill, then voted against a different version. He didn't change his opinion on the original bill, the original bill was changed and he formulated a new opinion on the altered bill.

Mostly in response to new information or changing conditions. For instance, the "I voted for it before I voted against it" line that so many Kerry bashers like to quote. He voted for one version of the bill, then voted against a different version. He didn't change his opinion on the original bill, the original bill was changed and he formulated a new opinion on the altered bill.
God. I have gone over this and over this during Kerry's failed campaign for the US Presidency until I'm sick unto death of it. John F. Kerry had a position on everything for every interest group in the entire US. If he had thought it would buy him another vote, he would have sacrificed his own mother to Baal. Kerry is an amoral opportunist who tells everyone exactly what he thinks they want to hear, and that's the end of this argument because I'm sick of it and sick of him and sick of the whole damned thing!

God. I have gone over this and over this during Kerry's failed campaign for the US Presidency until I'm sick unto death of it. John F. Kerry had a position on everything for every interest group in the entire US. If he had thought it would buy him another vote, he would have sacrificed his own mother to Baal. Kerry is an amoral opportunist who tells everyone exactly what he thinks they want to hear, and that's the end of this argument because I'm sick of it and sick of him and sick of the whole damned thing!


Being an opportunist is fine with me, as long as he was going to act on his promises. Did he take conflicting positions? No, he would have got ripped to shreds in the media.

Hey, 3000th post, Eutrusca! I'm easily amused.

Bump. Dammit, nobody's very interested in this thread.

While I am not, in theory, an advocate of the American form of government, it puzzles me that Americans should complain that a candidate for public office might only be doing what it takes to get ahead... or, in other words, "flip-flopping" with public opinion.

Apparently, too few Americans have read what their founders intended the Constitution to do... Madison, for instance, assumed that people -- politicians included -- are essentially self-serving. In fact, it is upon this belief that he expected the government to work.

The idea -- a pretty innovative one at the time, I have to admit -- was that if you construct a government in which a politician's career depends on doing what people want, then you've created a government in which "the people" rule. To have a politician acting on "his own" beliefs, rather than those of the people who elected him, would indicate a failure in the system! (Ok, so we've veered toward Jefferson now.)

Apparently, we have just given up on self-government of any form... for we are disappointed in a leader who asks us, rather than telling us, what is right.

excellent point. I ask other to look at this from a pre-electionmadness perspective and just as a view on the system. I however don't think a 'true democracy' in which people rule (as in the case where the above system works) is best for the people as most people don't have all the information and/or are incapable of making the right decision given all the information.

This is why I am in favor of a system in which everyone has at least one vote. Certain professions, diploma's, etc. would give a man/woman extra votes. This would lead to the people that are more likely to know something about how the economy works, how diplomacy works, etc. having more impact on decisions. The rest of the people will still have an impact so that politicians can't just ignore them.

The fact that Kerry's positions were changable with the discovery of new facts was seen as a positive by more sophisticated voters, who saw it as a way to adapt to changing circumstances and come up with solutions that work well in the real world. It was seen as weak by less sophisticated voters who beleived that a leader must have all the answers right now and then impose them on the world as if new data are never forthcoming. Feel free to flame away.

This is what I would have to agree with 100 percent. I would take adaptation over stubborness any day.

What was it, adapt or die? Isn't that one of the underlying principles of evolution.

Bump. Dammit, nobody's very interested in this thread.

If nobody was very interested, why were there posts?

If nobody was very interested, why were there posts?

Few people were posting at the time. When you post on a thread it bumps it to the top of the page, which was what I was doing.

John F. Kerry had a position on everything for every interest group in the entire US.a position for the NRA?
A position for pro-life groups?
A position for CEOs with offshore bank accounts?
A position for air and water heavy polluters?
A position for people who need the government to remind them to get married?
A position for US representatives who want funding for local projects?
A position for military contractors who want to build more missiles that don't work?
A position for that Iowa rainforest?

I agree.