by Avatar » Wed Aug 22, 2007 5:23 pm
I think Americans don't understand what we want from our politicians. If you want someone with Integrity, who won't back down, who insists on doing what he thinks is right, then keep supporting Bush. You can't argue that he hasn't persevered through a lot of criticism and challenge to continue his passion, the one issue he's most concerned with, the war.
American politics is based on compromise. It's very difficult to enact change that's supported by less than 90% of the populace. Those remaining 10% will fight much harder to make themselves heard if they feel like they're in the minority. Beyond that, any law that infringes on individual rights or state rights is likely to be challenged in court, and possibly overturned.
Let's use an analogy. Pretend we have a group of coworkers in a small town who are going to eat lunch together. 1 person won't eat chinese food, another won't go to taco bell. 1 person is perfectly happy to eat mexican food every day of the week. Another 2 people will eat at any restaurant, but won't eat at one restaurant more than once a week. Once you add a few "personal beliefs" to their eating habits, it should be apparent what I'm trying to illustrate. If noone compromises, these people are never going to agree to eat lunch together.
If these are politicians, in addition to lunch we might agree that they have other issues that they're trying to decide on. As an individual, someone named Tom might think that climate change, issue #3, is more important to him than our lunch plans. He may even agree to eat at taco bell, which he hates, in order to get someone else to vote with him on the climate change bill.
OMG OMG OMG!!
He's said several times during the elections that he doesn't like taco bell, now he's going to taco bell with this other politician! He's sold out his principles! The press would show him all day, walking into the taco bell. His opponents on the climate change issue would denounce his lack of integrity.
Using the same example, let's say that issue #5 concerns violent video games. Tom, our politician from above, plays FPS violent games online, but he understands that ... most laws attempting to limit violent video games are overturned in court as unconstitutional (see Slashdot or the New York Times today). If Tom is really smart, he might support the video game violence law even though he doesn't agree with it. He might be able to convince Sally to vote with him on the climate change bill, in return for supporting this video game violence law. His bill is one step closer to passing and contributing to the public good. The video game violence law that he doesn't agree with (but voted for) still probably won't pass even with his vote, and even if it does pass will probably be overturned by the courts. Of course all of the internet teenagers denounce Tom for supporting the video game violence law.