Over the last few years we’ve seen increasing evidence that the philosophy of Republican elected officials and candidates is to a) garner support from specific groups and then, b) withhold representation of any other groups once elected and even c) go out of their way to harm groups that opposed them during the election.
A couple years back there was an incident of an elected (state level) official contacted by some sort of citizens group for a meeting (a normal thing to happen) and he/she let slip that this group would never have an audience because of opposition during the election.
The other day a gay man asked New Gingrich about his position on engaging gay people once in office, and Gingrich’s reply was to tell the man to vote for Obama.
I asked him if he’s elected, how does he plan to engage gay Americans. How are we to support him? And he told me to support Obama,” said Arnold. […]
“When you ask somebody a question and you expect them to support all Americans and have everyone’s general interest,”Arnold said. “It’s a little bit frustrating and disheartening when you’re told to support the other side. That he doesn’t need your support.”
quoted from the Des Moines Register, here.
So, here’s what I think. Republican candidates, while running for office, should be presented with lists … during the debates would be a good time … of different factions of Americans, and then they must declare if they will represent these people or not once elected.
Will you or will you not be an effective, thoughful, and fair representative for …
- Gay people
- Transgender people
- People who support single payer health care
- And so on and so forth
Then these results can be vetted by the press (they are so good at that, after all) and adjusted to reflect realty, and the results hung by the voting booth so people are clear on what they are doing when they pull the lever.