Republican leaders, or philosopher kings? In response to noted philosopher
Clancy 'Lord of Pierce and Other Vermin' Smith's
broaching of the question: did Chris 'the Corpulent' Christie do his job in abrogating the Democratic mandate according to the higher principle of protecting the traditional nature of marriage:
Clancy,
I have no easy answer to the question of democratic politicians' dual
mandate (the good or the will of the people). I would say, in part, that
a good politician does his job by providing leadership which shows the
people how they can act, or not act, to better their own society, and
that this brings the two mandates closer together, reducing, if not eliminating, the discord.
Re:
Christie, I think there is another point to be made: there is an
assumption among politicos is that the dominant force in his decision to
veto gay marriage was the desire to please national GOP primary voters
and institutions for the 2016 presidential election. This attention to a
narrow sliver of the populace seems a distortion of the democratic
process, and it also assumes a crass attention to a mandate from a
minority (i.e. not a mandate), rather than a principled stand.
Admittedly, we have no direct evidence that this is the case; it's just
an assumption. But it does complicate the situation your question
addresses, methinks. Politics is a messy way of making sausages, whether made of human or tastier meats.
No comments:
Post a Comment