In a previous post I discussed the lack of thinking about issues surrounding politics in my generation. Well, I was driving around town yesterday and noticed some road work taking place. Apparently as part of some continuing state construction (we have multiple major projects ongoing) a need was seen to dress up all the intersections in the downtown area. Road crews are using a criss-cross mesh that they are pressing into existing asphalt pavement, sort of like pressing a cookie cutter mold into rolled out batter, to make a brick pattern across both lanes from curb to curb. This pattern is then painted red and white to look like a brick crossing. This project had me thinking, since the issue of the flag removal based on the seperation clause was fresh on my mind, about a statement made on the evening news. During a second broadcast (because now the same group has filed suit demanding the removal of a statue constructed showing a soldier kneeling by a cross which is obviously a grave marker similar to the thousands the exist currently at Arlington National Cemetary) a editorial spot indicated that more and more flags and the like are taken into consideration due to public outcry.
So, here are the questions that ran through my head. Is it the job of elected political leaders to address and act on every instance of public outcry? Is it the case that we live in a democracy, where elected officials must do as the majority of people (or at least when a decent sized group makes a lot of noise) dictate?
These are questions that really need some serious consideration. I'm looking forward to some good comments to dialouge on this more; but in short my answers to those questions are simply, no and no.
It bears noting that there was no public outcry for the fake brick crossings in the downtown area, and yet the project moved forward. There was also no public vote to find out what the majority of citizens thought of the expenditure of their tax dollars to fund the project. Let me be quick to say that I have no idea how much the project costs and am not making any judgment on whether it was "the right thing to do" or not. I'd just like to have a real productive discussion on how our system of government is set up, what the expectations of our elected officials should be, and on what basis they should make all policy decisions.
Any takers?
Hey Jeremy,
ReplyDeleteI don't believe you are one of the conservative folk who have asked me not to comment any more (they are legion) and so, since you're asking...
Is it the job of elected political leaders to address and act on every instance of public outcry?
No. Listen to? Yes. Give due consideration to? Yes. Act upon each and every outcry? No.
Is it the case that we live in a democracy, where elected officials must do as the majority of people (or at least when a decent sized group makes a lot of noise) dictate?
No, as you know, we live in a representational republic, not a democracy.
Now, having said that, in a representational republic, there is the risk that those with the most money will be able to have disproportionate representation. This, too, should not be, and yet we'd be blind to not acknowledge that this happens. Auto company bailouts? Bank bailouts? Corporate welfare? Roadways and infrastructure built for those with the wherewithal to buy cars?
This is a risk in our sort of gov't and one worth watching out for.
In those cases where "the cries of the poor go unheeded" (to go all biblical-sounding), ONE route we have to address these problems is the power of people. It has been said that there are two ways to affect public policy: Money and numbers. And, since the poor don't have the money to influence public policy, they can rely upon numbers.
Stand up and make your voice be heard. It has been the approach used with great success by the Civil Rights movement and good for us for making use of that approach! Otherwise, who knows where we'd be today?
Them's some of my thoughts on the topic.