This issue has bothered me for a long, long time. The current healthcare debate in the US just lighted the spark once again.
In our 'democratic' countries, we, the people of the country, choose our leaders. Those leaders run the nation for the people who have elected them. However, and here is my question: should they run the country as the people want them to, or should they do what is best for the people (and their country), even though it goes against their wishes?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
The voters have placed their trust in the government by voting, by casting a ballot they are giving their blanket approval to the system of government. Ideally a leader strikes the perfect balance between popularism and personal agenda. That said, in a great many cases these coincide,in that the elected leader's personal policies must be popular enough to get him/her elected in the first place.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Saemar is not a wizard, is not fighting on a battlefield and is not casting spells.
Of course you're right there. However, new issues pop up even after a leader has been elected. What if the public says they'd like him to do one thing, but the president (or other democratically chosen individual or group) knows for a fact doing something else would be better for everyone, what should he do?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
In our 'democratic' countries, we, the people of the country, choose our leaders. Those leaders run the nation for the people who have elected them. However, and here is my question: should they run the country as the people want them to, or should they do what is best for the people (and their country), even though it goes against their wishes?
Well, that's pretty well situational, isn't it?
It should bear recognition that there has been a difference in terms, with democracy overtime going from a negative word to a positive word, and in this happening we have the interesting tendency in recent times to see ourselves as a kind of continuity stretching from the traditions of Athens onward. This isn't genuine at all. The government of the United States was crafted as much on the principle of keeping power away from the control of the people as it was giving them power.
Of course you're right there. However, new issues pop up even after a leader has been elected. What if the public says they'd like him to do one thing, but the president (or other democratically chosen individual or group) knows for a fact doing something else would be better for everyone, what should he do?
The latter.
Now, are you trying to argue that Obama is better off trying to get his healthcare plan passed versus backing down with his ridiculous Obamacare, because that I will argue against you on.
A boiled down rule might be that the elected officials act on the will of the people until or unless the will of the people would violate the fundamental liberties of a portion of the population.
Now, if the concept of a "nation" were abolished & we lived in small, voluntary communities in which collective decisions were more or less unanimous, violating nothing, this conflict wouldn't emerge at all, I think.
It should bear recognition that there has been a difference in terms, with democracy overtime going from a negative word to a positive word, and in this happening we have the interesting tendency in recent times to see ourselves as a kind of continuity stretching from the traditions of Athens onward. This isn't genuine at all. The government of the United States was crafted as much on the principle of keeping power away from the control of the people as it was giving them power.
Oh, I'm not here to discuss the history of democracy.
The latter.
Now, are you trying to argue that Obama is better off trying to get his healthcare plan passed versus backing down with his ridiculous Obamacare, because that I will argue against you on.
I have no idea about what Obamacare exactly is about. It sparked an interesting thought though: in a democracy, the majority decides what happens. However, if the majority is wrong and their leaders know that, should they act otherwise, that is what I'd like to discuss.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
in a democracy, the majority decides what happens. However, if the majority is wrong and their leaders know that, should they act otherwise, that is what I'd like to discuss.
Here are some elected officials who chose to ignore their people's wishes, believing what they did was for the best for everyone
Julius Caesar
Benito Mussolini
Vladimir Putin (sort of)
George Bush Jr
Bottom line? When a democratic leader no longer listens to the people, he becomes a dictator, plain and simple.
No single being can lead a country, wich is why any leader needs groups of people to balance his power, be it a council, a senate, and chamber of ministers, etc... Yet at the same time matters of state sometimes ned swift action, and thus cannot wait to see everyone's opinion, wich is when we need a single leader to make a choice. It's not a perfect system, far from it. But it's better than the current alternatives.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It is always easy to be tolerant and understanding...Until someone presents an opinion completely opposite to your own.
Here are some elected officials who chose to ignore their people's wishes, believing what they did was for the best for everyone
Julius Caesar
Benito Mussolini
Vladimir Putin (sort of)
George Bush Jr
Bottom line? When a democratic leader no longer listens to the people, he becomes a dictator, plain and simple.
Cherry picking at its worst*. Let me provide a few more names:
Abraham Lincoln
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Roosevelt geared up the country for a war he knew was coming, building up ties with the Allies and laying the groundwork for mobilization, even though the country was largely isolationist (and anti-Semitic). And you think GWB was divisive? Lincoln's election started the Civil War. But both men were eventually vindicated by history for their decisions.
*And for what it's worth, I'd dispute both Caesar and Putin. Caesar was the Barack Obama of his day, promising a hero-worshiping public that he'd sweep away the corrupt old system and bring change. Putin remains generally popular among the Russian electorate; the last election may have been rigged, but watchdog groups all conceded that it didn't really need to be.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Cherry picking at its worst*. Let me provide a few more names:
Abraham Lincoln
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Roosevelt geared up the country for a war he knew was coming, building up ties with the Allies and laying the groundwork for mobilization, even though the country was largely isolationist (and anti-Semitic). And you think GWB was divisive? Lincoln's election started the Civil War. But both men were eventually vindicated by history for their decisions.
To say nothing of the many uncontrovercially positive decisions by the Warren court which were, at the time of their issuance, widely unpopular.
Not to mention Octavian Caesar ascended power as Emperor with the approval of the Roman people and the senate, so to attack Julius Caesar (who, as Blinking said, was in fact hugely supported by the people) for trying to become a dictator is faulty at best.
I also counter your point: democracy's greatest problem isn't when the leaders no longer listen to the people, but when they become demagogues propping themselves up with the mob behind them. It's why Sparta always argued democracy to be linked to tyranny.
And to say that George Bush Jr. was either a dictator or didn't listen to the people is ignoring history. The Iraq War was very much favored at the onset by both parties.
Also, if we're going to go with people who were willing to make a decision that against the will of their party, a large portion of the populace, and even their own constitutional limitations of power, what about Thomas Jefferson? The Louisiana Purchase goes down in history as one of the ballsiest decisions ever made in my opinion.
The problem with this question is that all of this is subjective and up for interpretation depending on the time and or topic at had.
I'd have to argue that many leaders rationalize this predicament by saying that whatever they do is the best for the people and is what the people really want since they would not have been elected otherwise. Also, going off of the will of the "majority" of people is a hard thing to even do even if a leader so desired to. It is often difficult to ascertain what the majority wants from moment to moment. One second the majority appears to be in favor of a bill, etc, the next not so much. Obamacare is an example that falls under this category. At first not too many people were extremely opinionated or seemed at least neutral on it but as time went by more and more people became vocal about their disagreements with his plan. At this moment I think it is unknown whether or not a majority of people support obamacare.
These cases where its difficult to tell what the majority opinion is or what is best for the people are the only ones that truly matter. In cases where it is known that 90% of people support a particular or when a leader absolutley knows without a doubt what is best for his/her country are clear cut and the choice is obvious. Leaders have to tread carefully in these delicate matters. Listen to the majority too much and a leader will come off as erratic and unpredictable but listen too little and the people will uprise possibly leading to the ousting of the leader or other consequences.
When it boils down though the true answer is compromise between all parties involved. Unfortunately, certain democratic countries which shall remain unnamed don't understand or have lost the ability of compromise.
or dinosaur pirates!!! big hulking dinos with eye patches and peglegs and troll the ocean on their ships made of smaller dinosaur bones in search or treasures. I would sooo go for that. or better yet, slave dinosaurs that serve the pirates like some sick dinotopia world where people own the dinos.
Here are some elected officials who chose to ignore their people's wishes, believing what they did was for the best for everyone
Julius Caesar
Benito Mussolini
Vladimir Putin (sort of)
George Bush Jr
I wouldn't be so sure as to Caesar's wishes, there is no real proof as to what he was thinking. As for Putin, sort of doesn't even begin to cover it...
It's why Sparta always argued democracy to be linked to tyranny.
Only so much as light is linked to dark.
I think that this is really going to turn into a debate over the differences between a dictator and a democratically elected leader. As for the issue at hand, I believe a leader should do what they believe is best, as they have electoral mandate to do so.
As for the difference between a dictator and a democratically elected leader; the dictator operates outside the bounds of the constitution (or equivalent).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Saemar is not a wizard, is not fighting on a battlefield and is not casting spells.
Cherry picking at its worst*. Let me provide a few more names:
Abraham Lincoln
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Roosevelt geared up the country for a war he knew was coming, building up ties with the Allies and laying the groundwork for mobilization, even though the country was largely isolationist (and anti-Semitic). And you think GWB was divisive? Lincoln's election started the Civil War. But both men were eventually vindicated by history for their decisions.
*And for what it's worth, I'd dispute both Caesar and Putin. Caesar was the Barack Obama of his day, promising a hero-worshiping public that he'd sweep away the corrupt old system and bring change. Putin remains generally popular among the Russian electorate; the last election may have been rigged, but watchdog groups all conceded that it didn't really need to be.
Good point. Nevertheless in most cases the odds of politicians pursuing their own agendas will often end in disaster, mostly because no one's perfect and anyone's personnal view of a perfect world is unlikely to be shared by the majority.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It is always easy to be tolerant and understanding...Until someone presents an opinion completely opposite to your own.
here is my question: should they run the country as the people want them to, or should they do what is best for the people (and their country), even though it goes against their wishes?
As Blinking Spirit pointed out, going against the will of the people is sometimes received well in history. And sometimes it's received poorly. What makes it one thing, or the other, probably has to do with the nature of the rule. Progressive rulers are remembered well; oppressive rulers aren't.
Societies have a tendency to be conservative about political changes. Governments that further societal progress can be unpopular at the time but vindicated by the later generations once the paradigm shifts.
Tyrannical governments don't just go against the will of the public, they establish an authority that oppresses the will of the public. When the mainstream of society is able to notice their liberties being taken away or prevented from being established, the government will become unpopular. When it's just minorities, it's less likely to be noticed or in fact promoted by the the mainstream (hence "tyranny of the majority"). A senator who votes against the will of his constituents isn't necessarily a tyrant, more like someone who might not get re-elected. The democratic system is designed for the public to be able to get rid of uncooperative leaders as easily as possible. Tyrants are corrupted by power and will attempt to extend their power both in its duration of office and in the level of authority that the office possesses.
However, those same societies can show great fervor in choosing charismatic leaders and continue to support them for much of their reign, only for it to later be viewed more negatively. That's usually an instance of those tyrannies of the majority where the number of minorities persecuted doesn't reach a critical mass of greater public awareness contemporaneously.
Finally, sometimes the will of the public ends up being somewhat timeless in terms of the later historical perspective towards a cooperating leader. This is the most ideal form of rule, but rarely happens due to some combination of a stupid public or a corrupt leader.
Ideologically speaking I think there are some issues with the idea of a leader deciding what's "good" for the people independently of their wishes. You have to distinguish what's good for the individual vs. what's good for the group.
Personally I would say the most reasonable thing to do is take the libertarian perspective, allotting the individual as much liberties as is possible without substantially impacting the group in a negative way. I say substantially because the group can in fact infringe upon the individual when attempting to enforce ideological values over issues that actually have no impact on them. So the individual can't go out and shoot a member of the public, and the public can't say what's good for the individual to do involving only him and all consenting parties just because they find it morally offensive (or something). From this point I think it's acceptable for a leader to sometimes go against the will of the people when it's for the purpose of maintaining this standard.
The conservative view point is different. Here the philosophy is that when society dictates the good way of life, it forms the values which hold that society together. When the values are challenged by dissenting individuals it risks sedition of the authority, and thereby society's stability. The society has to be able to maintain the importance of its values in law because that is what defines it as a society. Therefore, a leader can't go against the will of the people in a democracy because their will is the basis of his or her authority - it will lead to rebellion. Ultimately the goal of conservatism is to protect and preserve the society-as-its values from internal and external threats.
Good point. Nevertheless in most cases the odds of politicians pursuing their own agendas will often end in disaster, mostly because no one's perfect and anyone's personnal view of a perfect world is unlikely to be shared by the majority.
No, man. You don't get to make this kind of statement after acknowledging Blinking Spirit is correct.
Many times politicians pursue their own agenda because they know more about the situation than the general populace by virtue of their position as head of state. Barack Obama surely knows more about the situation on the ground in Afghanistan than anyone but the most knowledgeable Middle East expert. It is simply not up to the American people except in extraordinary circumstances to dictate American policy. That job is best left to the federal government.
He has a good point that leaders going on their own works sometimes. But it is still most often disastrous.
You have to actively reconsider your own opinions as you post.
Your evidence is exceedingly flimsy; as Blinking Spirit casually demonstrated, you've cherry-picked leaders that have ignored the public's wishes to their detriment and ignored the leaders that have done so to the opposite effect. I would venture a guess that you have no clear idea of why you believe what you believe, and that you're simply holding on to it because of emotional attachment.
Anyway, I'll give you another reason why our public leaders should be allowed a fair amount of leeway in pursuing their own agenda. Here's the first: the Manhattan Project. Here's the second: NASA. Both were ideas that started out as mere blips on the radar in the public sphere, but through work by certain minority groups and the federal government, these ideas were allowed to bear fruit, changing the face the of the world for the most part in a good way, extending the boundaries of our imagination and putting an end to a devastating war.
There is much the public is either ignorant of or is outright misinformed about.
Anyway, I'll give you another reason why our public leaders should be allowed a fair amount of leeway in pursuing their own agenda. Here's the first: the Manhattan Project. Here's the second: NASA. Both were ideas that started out as mere blips on the radar in the public sphere, but through work by certain minority groups and the federal government, these ideas were allowed to bear fruit, changing the face the of the world for the most part in a good way, extending the boundaries of our imagination and putting an end to a devastating war.
There is much the public is either ignorant of or is outright misinformed about.
One of those things is the Manhattan Project and its role in ending the war between the US and Japan, by the way.
He has a good point that leaders going on their own works sometimes. But it is still most often disastrous.
Do you have any proof to back up that statement?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
You have to actively reconsider your own opinions as you post.
Your evidence is exceedingly flimsy; as Blinking Spirit casually demonstrated, you've cherry-picked leaders that have ignored the public's wishes to their detriment and ignored the leaders that have done so to the opposite effect. I would venture a guess that you have no clear idea of why you believe what you believe, and that you're simply holding on to it because of emotional attachment.
Anyway, I'll give you another reason why our public leaders should be allowed a fair amount of leeway in pursuing their own agenda. Here's the first: the Manhattan Project. Here's the second: NASA. Both were ideas that started out as mere blips on the radar in the public sphere, but through work by certain minority groups and the federal government, these ideas were allowed to bear fruit, changing the face the of the world for the most part in a good way, extending the boundaries of our imagination and putting an end to a devastating war.
There is much the public is either ignorant of or is outright misinformed about.
I previously acknowledged that Blinking Spirit had a point that going against the crowd can be positive as well. However history shows that it doesn't happen as often as we'd like. For every heroic rebel, you have many figures of power who became corrupted or ignorant to the pleas of the people.
All to say it would be wrong to give too much power, even to a properly elected person. There needs to be a balance to keep the powerful in check.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It is always easy to be tolerant and understanding...Until someone presents an opinion completely opposite to your own.
How about the countless times the majority of the public wanted something that would have been bad for the country and was shot down (rightly) by politicians? People are generally stupid and don't know what's best for them.
I previously acknowledged that Blinking Spirit had a point that going against the crowd can be positive as well. However history shows that it doesn't happen as often as we'd like. For every heroic rebel, you have many figures of power who became corrupted or ignorant to the pleas of the people.
You confuse two issues here: all corrupt leaders are not ignorant to the pleas of the people. Alll leaders ignorant to the pleas of the people are not corrupt.
Heroic rebels are often ignorant to the pleas of the people. Corrupt leaders are often the first to launch huge land redistribution plans.
All to say it would be wrong to give too much power, even to a properly elected person. There needs to be a balance to keep the powerful in check.
Again, you confuse two issues:
To be given too much power is not the same as ignoring the majority's wishes.
To have a proper system of checks and balances is not to deny the government's ability to override the people's mandate on a particular issue.
The majority of people have not seriously considered their position on the majority of issues that make their way through the federal government on a daily basis. They have their own problems to attend to, their own issues of policy to decide. What do they do to make their lives easier?
They elect officials to decide the matters of national policy for them, of course!
The general election that takes place every four years--this is the important part. The gallup polls, the national opinion trackers... these are just window dressing.
This issue has bothered me for a long, long time. The current healthcare debate in the US just lighted the spark once again.
In our 'democratic' countries, we, the people of the country, choose our leaders. Those leaders run the nation for the people who have elected them. However, and here is my question: should they run the country as the people want them to, or should they do what is best for the people (and their country), even though it goes against their wishes?
Honestly, democracy is a little flawed, I was never really a fan of it. The purpose of electing a representative is because the cost of have everyone decide on every matter is impossible and would be more harmful on society than benefit it, which is why we choose someone to represent us.
But who really gets elected? A lot of political election is based on connections and money. Lets face it, the more connection and money you have, more you're able to advertise yourself and increase your chances of being known and elected. But regardless of whoever wins, the ruling is still going to the rich and powerful. The rich and powerful is always going to rule.
If you look at how weath and power is distributed, the majority of people are not rich nor powerful. Infact, they only make up of about 10% of the population. I don't remember exact numbers. Also keep in mind, who are the voters? The majority of the population are the poor and middle class and these are the ones that at least likely to vote or participate in political events since it is too costly to break out of their daily routine of making their living, they simply don't have the time for it.
How about the countless times the majority of the public wanted something that would have been bad for the country and was shot down (rightly) by politicians? People are generally stupid and don't know what's best for them.
Then why should they be allowed to pick their politicians?
Either they're too dumb to make their own decisions, in which case they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Or they're not, in which case why bother having politicians?
Many times politicians pursue their own agenda because they know more about the situation than the general populace by virtue of their position as head of state. Barack Obama surely knows more about the situation on the ground in Afghanistan than anyone but the most knowledgeable Middle East expert. It is simply not up to the American people except in extraordinary circumstances to dictate American policy. That job is best left to the federal government.
But does Obama know more about the state of American health care than the general public? Does he know each and every one of our insurance policies and financial statuses? Here, the people have a right to interfere because, clearly, we are more aware of our own position than anyone else.
And I would like to make the bold challenge of disagreeing with the assertion that president Lincoln's individual actions were ultimately to the best interests of the nation. Debates regarding ethics and morality are rather fruitless and shift from time to time. In a thousand years, people could very well wish Lincoln was never born. Slavery was acceptable during his time and there is nothing more inherently "wrong" or "right" about slavery then than there is now.
As for Roosevelt, the Manhattan project was secret and did not receive hoards of opposition. There is a difference between being opposed and the public having no opinion. Roosevelt did not act against the will of the public.
Acting against the will of the public will always have repercussions, whether it be protesters being hosed or the leader having a bullet in his skull.
But does Obama know more about the state of American health care than the general public? Does he know each and every one of our insurance policies and financial statuses? Here, the people have a right to interfere because, clearly, we are more aware of our own position than anyone else
In this case, Obama is making a decision about the framework of American health care, not about your health care or my health care or any individual health care plan. Though he may not know my insurance premium, he knows a lot more than me about the range of premiums for each of our demographic groups, the consequences of changing those premiums for Americans and for insurance companies, and so on and so forth.
I am not saying that just because Obama knows more than the average American, he knows what is best for America. Far from it. There are many health care experts that are probably better informed than he on the issue on both sides of the political spectrum. This is merely a reason why an unpopular action at first may prove prescient, not the reason.
And I would like to make the bold challenge of disagreeing with the assertion that president Lincoln's individual actions were ultimately to the best interests of the nation. Debates regarding ethics and morality are rather fruitless and shift from time to time. In a thousand years, people could very well wish Lincoln was never born. Slavery was acceptable during his time and there is nothing more inherently "wrong" or "right" about slavery then than there is now.
Now let's not get ahead of ourselves. Surely, you could make the statement that, "1000 years from now, Lincoln may be viewed quite differently in the annals of history." But here, in the present, in 2009, in the wake of the first African-American president's ascendancy, let's not be so bold as to condone slavery because of the possible ethical views of our fourth and fifth generations.
In other words, regardless what future generations may think, you must make a stand for yourself no matter where you are and what time period you live in. Let me ask you, sentiment: are you for or against slavery? Let that be your guide for your opinions of Lincoln (and not spineless speculation.)
As for Roosevelt, the Manhattan project was secret and did not receive hoards of opposition. There is a difference between being opposed and the public having no opinion. Roosevelt did not act against the will of the public.
For the government to keep secrets from the public is a form of fraud and embezzlement in the minds of my opponents, no? For how can the public sign off on something they don't know about? How can the public approve something which they have not seen?
How can the government follow the will of the majority if the people are confounded by an opaque government? I say that the difference between opposition and no opinion is trivial, at best.
Acting against the will of the public will always have repercussions, whether it be protesters being hosed or the leader having a bullet in his skull.
And a clear conscience, I hope.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In our 'democratic' countries, we, the people of the country, choose our leaders. Those leaders run the nation for the people who have elected them. However, and here is my question: should they run the country as the people want them to, or should they do what is best for the people (and their country), even though it goes against their wishes?
Well, that's pretty well situational, isn't it?
It should bear recognition that there has been a difference in terms, with democracy overtime going from a negative word to a positive word, and in this happening we have the interesting tendency in recent times to see ourselves as a kind of continuity stretching from the traditions of Athens onward. This isn't genuine at all. The government of the United States was crafted as much on the principle of keeping power away from the control of the people as it was giving them power.
The latter.
Now, are you trying to argue that Obama is better off trying to get his healthcare plan passed versus backing down with his ridiculous Obamacare, because that I will argue against you on.
Now, if the concept of a "nation" were abolished & we lived in small, voluntary communities in which collective decisions were more or less unanimous, violating nothing, this conflict wouldn't emerge at all, I think.
Oh, I'm not here to discuss the history of democracy.
I have no idea about what Obamacare exactly is about. It sparked an interesting thought though: in a democracy, the majority decides what happens. However, if the majority is wrong and their leaders know that, should they act otherwise, that is what I'd like to discuss.
Here are some elected officials who chose to ignore their people's wishes, believing what they did was for the best for everyone
Julius Caesar
Benito Mussolini
Vladimir Putin (sort of)
George Bush Jr
Bottom line? When a democratic leader no longer listens to the people, he becomes a dictator, plain and simple.
No single being can lead a country, wich is why any leader needs groups of people to balance his power, be it a council, a senate, and chamber of ministers, etc... Yet at the same time matters of state sometimes ned swift action, and thus cannot wait to see everyone's opinion, wich is when we need a single leader to make a choice. It's not a perfect system, far from it. But it's better than the current alternatives.
Cherry picking at its worst*. Let me provide a few more names:
Abraham Lincoln
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Roosevelt geared up the country for a war he knew was coming, building up ties with the Allies and laying the groundwork for mobilization, even though the country was largely isolationist (and anti-Semitic). And you think GWB was divisive? Lincoln's election started the Civil War. But both men were eventually vindicated by history for their decisions.
*And for what it's worth, I'd dispute both Caesar and Putin. Caesar was the Barack Obama of his day, promising a hero-worshiping public that he'd sweep away the corrupt old system and bring change. Putin remains generally popular among the Russian electorate; the last election may have been rigged, but watchdog groups all conceded that it didn't really need to be.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
To say nothing of the many uncontrovercially positive decisions by the Warren court which were, at the time of their issuance, widely unpopular.
I also counter your point: democracy's greatest problem isn't when the leaders no longer listen to the people, but when they become demagogues propping themselves up with the mob behind them. It's why Sparta always argued democracy to be linked to tyranny.
And to say that George Bush Jr. was either a dictator or didn't listen to the people is ignoring history. The Iraq War was very much favored at the onset by both parties.
Also, if we're going to go with people who were willing to make a decision that against the will of their party, a large portion of the populace, and even their own constitutional limitations of power, what about Thomas Jefferson? The Louisiana Purchase goes down in history as one of the ballsiest decisions ever made in my opinion.
I'd have to argue that many leaders rationalize this predicament by saying that whatever they do is the best for the people and is what the people really want since they would not have been elected otherwise. Also, going off of the will of the "majority" of people is a hard thing to even do even if a leader so desired to. It is often difficult to ascertain what the majority wants from moment to moment. One second the majority appears to be in favor of a bill, etc, the next not so much. Obamacare is an example that falls under this category. At first not too many people were extremely opinionated or seemed at least neutral on it but as time went by more and more people became vocal about their disagreements with his plan. At this moment I think it is unknown whether or not a majority of people support obamacare.
These cases where its difficult to tell what the majority opinion is or what is best for the people are the only ones that truly matter. In cases where it is known that 90% of people support a particular or when a leader absolutley knows without a doubt what is best for his/her country are clear cut and the choice is obvious. Leaders have to tread carefully in these delicate matters. Listen to the majority too much and a leader will come off as erratic and unpredictable but listen too little and the people will uprise possibly leading to the ousting of the leader or other consequences.
When it boils down though the true answer is compromise between all parties involved. Unfortunately, certain democratic countries which shall remain unnamed don't understand or have lost the ability of compromise.
I wouldn't be so sure as to Caesar's wishes, there is no real proof as to what he was thinking. As for Putin, sort of doesn't even begin to cover it...
Only so much as light is linked to dark.
I think that this is really going to turn into a debate over the differences between a dictator and a democratically elected leader. As for the issue at hand, I believe a leader should do what they believe is best, as they have electoral mandate to do so.
As for the difference between a dictator and a democratically elected leader; the dictator operates outside the bounds of the constitution (or equivalent).
Good point. Nevertheless in most cases the odds of politicians pursuing their own agendas will often end in disaster, mostly because no one's perfect and anyone's personnal view of a perfect world is unlikely to be shared by the majority.
As Blinking Spirit pointed out, going against the will of the people is sometimes received well in history. And sometimes it's received poorly. What makes it one thing, or the other, probably has to do with the nature of the rule. Progressive rulers are remembered well; oppressive rulers aren't.
Societies have a tendency to be conservative about political changes. Governments that further societal progress can be unpopular at the time but vindicated by the later generations once the paradigm shifts.
Tyrannical governments don't just go against the will of the public, they establish an authority that oppresses the will of the public. When the mainstream of society is able to notice their liberties being taken away or prevented from being established, the government will become unpopular. When it's just minorities, it's less likely to be noticed or in fact promoted by the the mainstream (hence "tyranny of the majority"). A senator who votes against the will of his constituents isn't necessarily a tyrant, more like someone who might not get re-elected. The democratic system is designed for the public to be able to get rid of uncooperative leaders as easily as possible. Tyrants are corrupted by power and will attempt to extend their power both in its duration of office and in the level of authority that the office possesses.
However, those same societies can show great fervor in choosing charismatic leaders and continue to support them for much of their reign, only for it to later be viewed more negatively. That's usually an instance of those tyrannies of the majority where the number of minorities persecuted doesn't reach a critical mass of greater public awareness contemporaneously.
Finally, sometimes the will of the public ends up being somewhat timeless in terms of the later historical perspective towards a cooperating leader. This is the most ideal form of rule, but rarely happens due to some combination of a stupid public or a corrupt leader.
Ideologically speaking I think there are some issues with the idea of a leader deciding what's "good" for the people independently of their wishes. You have to distinguish what's good for the individual vs. what's good for the group.
Personally I would say the most reasonable thing to do is take the libertarian perspective, allotting the individual as much liberties as is possible without substantially impacting the group in a negative way. I say substantially because the group can in fact infringe upon the individual when attempting to enforce ideological values over issues that actually have no impact on them. So the individual can't go out and shoot a member of the public, and the public can't say what's good for the individual to do involving only him and all consenting parties just because they find it morally offensive (or something). From this point I think it's acceptable for a leader to sometimes go against the will of the people when it's for the purpose of maintaining this standard.
The conservative view point is different. Here the philosophy is that when society dictates the good way of life, it forms the values which hold that society together. When the values are challenged by dissenting individuals it risks sedition of the authority, and thereby society's stability. The society has to be able to maintain the importance of its values in law because that is what defines it as a society. Therefore, a leader can't go against the will of the people in a democracy because their will is the basis of his or her authority - it will lead to rebellion. Ultimately the goal of conservatism is to protect and preserve the society-as-its values from internal and external threats.
No, man. You don't get to make this kind of statement after acknowledging Blinking Spirit is correct.
Many times politicians pursue their own agenda because they know more about the situation than the general populace by virtue of their position as head of state. Barack Obama surely knows more about the situation on the ground in Afghanistan than anyone but the most knowledgeable Middle East expert. It is simply not up to the American people except in extraordinary circumstances to dictate American policy. That job is best left to the federal government.
He has a good point that leaders going on their own works sometimes. But it is still most often disastrous.
You have to actively reconsider your own opinions as you post.
Your evidence is exceedingly flimsy; as Blinking Spirit casually demonstrated, you've cherry-picked leaders that have ignored the public's wishes to their detriment and ignored the leaders that have done so to the opposite effect. I would venture a guess that you have no clear idea of why you believe what you believe, and that you're simply holding on to it because of emotional attachment.
Anyway, I'll give you another reason why our public leaders should be allowed a fair amount of leeway in pursuing their own agenda. Here's the first: the Manhattan Project. Here's the second: NASA. Both were ideas that started out as mere blips on the radar in the public sphere, but through work by certain minority groups and the federal government, these ideas were allowed to bear fruit, changing the face the of the world for the most part in a good way, extending the boundaries of our imagination and putting an end to a devastating war.
There is much the public is either ignorant of or is outright misinformed about.
One of those things is the Manhattan Project and its role in ending the war between the US and Japan, by the way.
Do you have any proof to back up that statement?
I previously acknowledged that Blinking Spirit had a point that going against the crowd can be positive as well. However history shows that it doesn't happen as often as we'd like. For every heroic rebel, you have many figures of power who became corrupted or ignorant to the pleas of the people.
All to say it would be wrong to give too much power, even to a properly elected person. There needs to be a balance to keep the powerful in check.
You confuse two issues here: all corrupt leaders are not ignorant to the pleas of the people. Alll leaders ignorant to the pleas of the people are not corrupt.
Heroic rebels are often ignorant to the pleas of the people. Corrupt leaders are often the first to launch huge land redistribution plans.
Again, you confuse two issues:
To be given too much power is not the same as ignoring the majority's wishes.
To have a proper system of checks and balances is not to deny the government's ability to override the people's mandate on a particular issue.
The majority of people have not seriously considered their position on the majority of issues that make their way through the federal government on a daily basis. They have their own problems to attend to, their own issues of policy to decide. What do they do to make their lives easier?
They elect officials to decide the matters of national policy for them, of course!
The general election that takes place every four years--this is the important part. The gallup polls, the national opinion trackers... these are just window dressing.
Honestly, democracy is a little flawed, I was never really a fan of it. The purpose of electing a representative is because the cost of have everyone decide on every matter is impossible and would be more harmful on society than benefit it, which is why we choose someone to represent us.
But who really gets elected? A lot of political election is based on connections and money. Lets face it, the more connection and money you have, more you're able to advertise yourself and increase your chances of being known and elected. But regardless of whoever wins, the ruling is still going to the rich and powerful. The rich and powerful is always going to rule.
If you look at how weath and power is distributed, the majority of people are not rich nor powerful. Infact, they only make up of about 10% of the population. I don't remember exact numbers. Also keep in mind, who are the voters? The majority of the population are the poor and middle class and these are the ones that at least likely to vote or participate in political events since it is too costly to break out of their daily routine of making their living, they simply don't have the time for it.
Then why should they be allowed to pick their politicians?
Either they're too dumb to make their own decisions, in which case they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Or they're not, in which case why bother having politicians?
But does Obama know more about the state of American health care than the general public? Does he know each and every one of our insurance policies and financial statuses? Here, the people have a right to interfere because, clearly, we are more aware of our own position than anyone else.
And I would like to make the bold challenge of disagreeing with the assertion that president Lincoln's individual actions were ultimately to the best interests of the nation. Debates regarding ethics and morality are rather fruitless and shift from time to time. In a thousand years, people could very well wish Lincoln was never born. Slavery was acceptable during his time and there is nothing more inherently "wrong" or "right" about slavery then than there is now.
As for Roosevelt, the Manhattan project was secret and did not receive hoards of opposition. There is a difference between being opposed and the public having no opinion. Roosevelt did not act against the will of the public.
Acting against the will of the public will always have repercussions, whether it be protesters being hosed or the leader having a bullet in his skull.
In this case, Obama is making a decision about the framework of American health care, not about your health care or my health care or any individual health care plan. Though he may not know my insurance premium, he knows a lot more than me about the range of premiums for each of our demographic groups, the consequences of changing those premiums for Americans and for insurance companies, and so on and so forth.
I am not saying that just because Obama knows more than the average American, he knows what is best for America. Far from it. There are many health care experts that are probably better informed than he on the issue on both sides of the political spectrum. This is merely a reason why an unpopular action at first may prove prescient, not the reason.
Now let's not get ahead of ourselves. Surely, you could make the statement that, "1000 years from now, Lincoln may be viewed quite differently in the annals of history." But here, in the present, in 2009, in the wake of the first African-American president's ascendancy, let's not be so bold as to condone slavery because of the possible ethical views of our fourth and fifth generations.
In other words, regardless what future generations may think, you must make a stand for yourself no matter where you are and what time period you live in. Let me ask you, sentiment: are you for or against slavery? Let that be your guide for your opinions of Lincoln (and not spineless speculation.)
For the government to keep secrets from the public is a form of fraud and embezzlement in the minds of my opponents, no? For how can the public sign off on something they don't know about? How can the public approve something which they have not seen?
How can the government follow the will of the majority if the people are confounded by an opaque government? I say that the difference between opposition and no opinion is trivial, at best.
And a clear conscience, I hope.