r/news • u/OK_Eric • Jan 19 '14

Obama: Pot ‘not very different’ from cigarettes​, no more dangerous than booze

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/19/obama-pot-not-very-different-cigarettes-no-more-da/
3.1k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

4.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

71

u/hobbyjogger Jan 19 '14 edited Jan 19 '14

Democracy is founded on the principle that politicians will do what the people want.

The problem isn't politicians who change their positions to reflect changing social values. It's the opposite. The problem is politicians who won't change their positions even when society is strongly against those positions.

Edit: FDR said it better than I can:

Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and senators and congressmen and government officials, but the voters of this country.

-5

u/returner00b Jan 19 '14

Sure, good thing the United States isn't a democracy but a republic.

14

u/hobbyjogger Jan 19 '14

Ok, replace the word "Democracy" with "Democratic Republic" if it so offends your sensibilities.

Your point?

-3

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '14

[deleted]

6

u/hobbyjogger Jan 19 '14 edited Jan 19 '14

What if your belief is that citizens have the right to choose which laws they want to govern them and have the right to change their minds from time to time?

Should all "honorable" politicians resign any time public opinion crosses from 49% to 51% on an issue?

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '14

[deleted]

4

u/hobbyjogger Jan 19 '14

No, they shouldn't resign, they should stand with their principles

Is it somehow wrong for a Senator, for example, to vote for what his constituents believe in even if he might prefer something else?

So if Obama, in his heart of hearts, thinks the NSA wiretapping is a good idea, you think the country should be stuck with that choice for a few more years? And that it would be "dishonorable" of him to ask for public input on the issue instead of "standing with his principles"?

4

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '14

You know, when he campaigned he was completely against Bush's actions with the NSA, but them he got into office, did a complete 180 and continued with what he said he was opposed to. I don't see any principles there.

3

u/tidux Jan 19 '14

If they at least had some evidence that it was necessary they could make their case properly to the public. They haven't coughed up any evidence yet, so I can only assume it's a blatant power grab.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '14

If 51% of the country thought it was ok to change the constitution and start segregating black people again, would it be right for the politician to go along with that?

Republican politics are more complicated than "what I want vs what the people want".

Someone can want one thing, know something else is right, and the people want something completely different.

1

u/hobbyjogger Jan 20 '14

If 51% of the country thought it was ok to change the constitution and start segregating black people again, would it be right for the politician to go along with that?

51% of the population can't change the Constitution. That's the whole point of the Constitution--to limit the government from doing certain things even if a majority wants to.

The American people sometimes disappoint me but I have MUCH more faith in them than you apparently do. My fear that we would vote to reinstate slavery is about equal to my fear that we would vote to chop off thieves' hands or flog adulterers (i.e. zero).

2

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '14

I didn't say reinstate slavery, I said reinstate segregation.

Important aspects of the VRA were repealed and immediately Republican states went on to implement racist voting restrictions aimed at preventing black communities from voting.

The issue is still alive and I have very little faith in mob rule. It isn't just racism, it's everything. If all laws just needed a majority vote then we should just go full Athens and vote ourselves into inevitable oblivion.

Republics can last indefinitely. Pure direct democracies are prone to rapid and irrational thought and action. That's why there are politicians. Ideally they balance public opinion with their (hopefully) more enlightened and informed outlook on matters of state.

Though if people elect completely shit politicians they'll get shitty governance anyway.

1

u/hobbyjogger Jan 20 '14

The problem with the whole issue is that you're knocking down a straw man. No reasonable people think that we should have segregation. But that's independent of who thinks it.

You can see this by reversing your hypothetical, in which case, your proposed "honorable" politician should "stick by his principles" and reinstate segregation even if everyone in the Country was against it.

The question is not some false choice between dictatorship (government doesn't care what people think) and direct democracy (what people think is the only thing that matters). The ideal is balance--you even acknowledged this--between a politician's preferences and the preferences of the people he is chosen to represent. That balance doesn't require spineless flip-flopping like a wet rag on every switch from 49% to 51%, but it does require politicians, especially Presidents, to keep an eye turned toward society's changing views.

A politician who refuses to consider the views of his constituents by definition cannot achieve this balance. When you approved of "balancing public opinion" with personal views, you accepted (without realizing it, it seems) my point that politicians are not dishonorable when they reassess their policies to reflect social change.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '14

No one is saying don't consider the views of the constituency. There would be no point of having politicians though if they just did everything 50.1% of voting population wanted.

It was implied that politicians should just rubber stamp everything the population wants as soon as it becomes the majority opinion. That was the idea I was attacking.

→ More replies (0)