The representatives taking a stance on something is no different then the party taking a stance on something.
No it isn't. It is called a vote of conscience. There are times when a party will not ask its members to hold a particular line, and each representative may choose their personal view. It is RARE between the Democrats and Republicans with their polar approach to nearly every topic. But it is certainly an option, especially so if you go in with a very focused agenda.
I really hope it can be called a vote of sense....
You simply don't necessarily have to be always on one side of the issue or another. That's over-simplistic in an overcomplicated world. This is the idea behind the fix case law provides to rigid statutory law. The legislature simply can not anticipate all applications and problems of the law, and this is what courts and lawyers iron out later through case law and trying cases. It is a reasonable approach, because otherwise, already incredibly lengthy laws would be immeasurably longer than they already are.... Even then, the provisions would by definition conflict at some point if you get into enough detail.
My stances on many things simply don't fit into well defined roles, especially not those of current American Politics. I like to think that unlike American Politics, I at least kind of make sense. I do generally believe in freedom of choice unless you're harming other people. My definition of "harming other people," might be considered overly broad by other people's standards. Sensibly, it operates on a continuum from more generally agreeable to less depending on the person I'm speaking to. Example:
More agreeable to the average listener:
|
1.) Profits are fine. However, profit should take a backseat to blatant environmental concerns like dumping known toxic carcinogens into waterways. It causes direct, traceable and legally actionable harm: cancer.
2.) Corporations controlling their own interests is fine. However, they should have a duty to report their goings on in light of historical and current economic crashes caused by imperfect information (Neoclassical Free Market Economics assumes perfect information anyhow). This includes forcing them to hire accountants
3.) Personal choice is fine and people should generally have control over their own reproductive rights. However, if you are octomom and have 8 kids you can't freaking afford, then not ok. Even if you are rich and have 18 kids, it's still not ok. Either way you're hogging resources and causing scarcity
|
Less Agreeable to the average listener
See how none of these propositions fit on a bumper sticker or in slogan form like all the political BS you hear today? That's because life doesn't fit on a bumper sticker or in a slogans, so solutions to its problems can't either. Life is complicated and is full of exceptions, so the solutions must also be complicated and meet those exceptions.
Saying you like "Economic Freedom," or "Income equality," means so very little in reality, yet people think it means so much. Worse it does mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. They seem to think they are all in agreement, but in reality not at all.
This is what happened to Obama's "Hope and Change." Everyone internalized the message and gave it their own subjective meaning. All of those internal subjective meanings were different between different people and some necessarily conflicted. Thus, inevitably due to those conflicts, people were NEVER going to be happy with this idea.
This is why in a rational world, people necessarily "flip flop" but seeing as we don't appear to live in that world....
Author
Topic: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread (Read 871115 times)