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
Union member - …
- 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.
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
Heck, let’s make it all candidates; I’d like to know if the Democratic candidates are going to ignore some of those people on that list because what are they going to do, vote Republican?
I find this interesting because of talks I’ve had with friends..
GOP friend – “Compromise is a bad thing, because what if you’re “compromising” with someone who says murder is okay?”
Dem friend – “Dems compromise too much, giving away what people need to what the GOP wants.”
Two very different, but revealing stances from casual voters, and yes, literal quotes. It plays into everything – what interests the groups will represent (we know several that the GOP are *against*, and many the Dems are *for*, but who are the Dems against? Before you say “rich people”, please remember that the vast majority of Dems in government are worth millions), what kind of rights they believe in, everything.
Compromise is reality. No one holds the perfect view of everything, or what is best for the people they represent. No politician should be so entrenched in politics that they say flat out “If you are after XYZ, vote for the other candidate”. They should look to ways that they can represent you, and fight for you, even if you don’t quite line up with how they feel personally.
Personal feelings aren’t governing! Please, any candidates, understand that you aren’t me, no matter how closely you think like I do.
Don’t forget to add women to that list.