Why do we call them representatives if they don't represent us?

[Bjorn Against]

We are told that they represent us.

Yes the politicians, one of the most reviled groups of people in America and yet despite the revulsion that most Americans feel towards them we still tell ourselves that they represent us.

But they do not represent us.

It doesn't matter whether they have an R or a D behind their names, if they don't stand up for us they don't represent us. They do not represent us when they vote for endless war. They do not represent us when they vote for corporate greed over human need. They do not represent us when they vote for warrantless wiretapping. No matter what they may claim they only represent you if you allow them to represent you.

Every branch of our government has failed us. It is time that we recognize something.

The White House has no authority over us. The Congress has no authority over us. The corporations have no authority over us. Instead we have authority over THEM.

They tell us that this is a government which is run by "we the people". Well we the people want the crooked-ass politicians to be fired. We want elections which are not run by money but by competence, we want laws that are meant to protect the ordinary citizen not just the ultra-wealthy, we want an end to war, we want universal health care, we want renewable energy, we want global warming to be dealt with, we want bridges that don't collapse, we want to protect our cities from natural disasters instead of watching them drown, we want a media that is open to variety instead of being controlled by a few big corporations, we want many things and we need to demand that we get those things.

It is time to stop pretending that our government represents us and recognize that it is actually us who represents them. They hold their power because of us, it is our government they don't own it any more than we do.

Yes the scum truly does ride to the top in American politics, but we don't have to let it continue to be that way. There is a reason the first amendment was placed into the Constitution and it is our duty as American citizens to exercise our first amendment rights and speak out. Yes, voting is important but it is a relatively minor part of bringing about change. At election time we are usually told to pick between two people, and lets face it far more often than not both of those people are pretty crappy choices. One may be worse than the other, but how often do you look at a politician and say that is truly the best we can do? Democracy has to be about more than merely choosing a crappy politician over an even more crappy politician. It has to be about stepping out and speaking up on the issues that are important to you, it is about constantly standing up and reminding our government that they do not have authority over us, we have authority over them.

This is our America, and we will choose our representatives they won't choose us.

[muntrv]

1. Tyrants.

[UTUSN]

2. K&R #1 for excellent point!!1 n/t

[Fredda Weinberg]

3. There are 2 schools of thought. The other is that we elect their

judgment. So please, Congress' authority stems from a social compact: read John Locke and we'll have a nice talk.

[Bjorn Against]

6. But we are not truly electing their judgment in modern day America.

Let's face it, most Americans can not stand politicians. I mean honestly how many people do you know that would put politicians high up on their list of people who show good integrity and judgment?

I read a bit of Locke in college, but it is really irrelevant here. This is about recognizing that the people who are in office are usually not the people who truly represent America.

[Fredda Weinberg]

8. The polls say you're wrong in this respect: American hate politicians but

love their own. It's not a paradox ... we can continue this discussion if you wish.

[Bjorn Against]

12. So are you suggesting that Americans love Bush?

He is supposed to represent us as Americans isn't he? I don't think most people love him though. And honestly most Americans know very little about their local representatives so it is difficult to say they "love" them.

[Fredda Weinberg]

14. Americans doubted his ability even as they voted for him

We can re-play Ohio '04 or Florida in 2k but I'd rather deal with current reality. This thread discusses political theory and I happen to have dual BAs - one in Poli Sci.

[Bjorn Against]

16. I agree Bush stole those "elections"...

And if anything that only helps build my case. I never claimed the guy got the majority of the votes. In fact there are many other politicians that did not get the majority of votes either, and yet they still claim to represent us. And let's not forget that a huge percentage of Americans don't even vote, if everyone loved their politicians I think voter turnout would be much higher than it is.

And if you want to talk about degrees, I have a degree in Sociology and I took a number of course in political science on my way to getting that degree. I am not ignorant on these issues, even if you do disagree with me.

[Fredda Weinberg]

20. But we disagree amiably and that makes all the difference

We can argue over representative democracy and the obligations of the citizen. Problem is, when you look too hard, it all dissolves and we back to the law of the jungle. I assert we can do better than that, despite our history and pre-disposition toward aggression. It may be unnatural, but we can be civil.

So, politics being the polite brawl it's always been - how do we win gracefully and govern effectively? After all, if we decry the current regime's lack of authority ... what will *they* do when our party takes office?

This is DU, after all.

So, since I too satisfied the requirements for a soc degree, let's get past phenomenology and organize ourselves according to rational principles. Then we can expect to attract others, despite their prejudices toward our ideology.

[RobertDevereaux]

4. Reprehensatives!

That's what they ought to be called!

[whistle]

5. Good point, make a note...scratch the term U.S. Representative and rename to

...U.S. Misrepresentative

[cali]

7. My reps represent me.

The elections in my state aren't run by money, and are fair. Hell, we even have IRV in our largest city. In fact, a lot of things in your list of wants are happening in my state.

That's the trouble with a broad brush.

[Bjorn Against]

10. I bet you don't think everyone who claims to represent you truly represents you...

A few of the politicians who say they represent you may truly represent you, and if you have good people in certain positions great, don't go after them.

But I would certainly hope that not everyone that claims to represent you truly does represent you, because George Bush claims to represent the American people and you an American. Does George Bush represent you?

While you may like certain politicians, please realize that not everyone who claims to represent you truly does.

And by the way, I am aiming at a certain audience here. I am not trying to speak for every person in every situation.

[cali]

13. ALL of my reps in Congress represent me.

My congressman, Peter Welch represents me. And so do Bernie and Pat.
On the local level too, I'm well represented in the Statehouse. The only person who doesn't represent me is the Governor of my state.

And your OP did indeed use a broad brush.

[Bjorn Against]

15. If I lived in Vermont I would feel a bit more represented, but...

I would still find times when I was not represented at all. Even though Vermont does elect much better politicians than most other states, I am sure you probably still found some times you disagreed with them and in those situations they may not have represented you. You may be able to look past that because you agree with them more often than not and that is fine, go after Bush and your Governor instead but still realize that most politicians are not going to represent us perfectly all of the time.

But if you want to think I used a broad brush fine, all politicians need to be challenged sometimes and I have no problem going after all of them.

[cali]

18. I have to say, I think I'd be both childish and selfish to expect

my reps to agree with me all of the time. I don't and they don't, but I still feel represented by them. I even felt that way with Jim Jeffords. And that's why I will be working for the dem or progressive party nom next year. But again, I don't expect to be represented pefectly all the time. I'm sure not going to cut the nose from my face and "go after" people like Pat and Bernie and Peter. Their values are in synch with mine.

And I don't know what you do if you live someplace like NE, where the dems are representing a lot of conservatives.

[Bjorn Against]

19. Where did I say you had to agree with them all the time to support them?

Did you even read my whole post? I clearly said it is fine if you leave your Congressman and Senators alone and choose to focus on those who do much worse like Bush and your Governor.

Sure it may be childish to expect your politicians to agree with you 100% of the time, but my point is that when they disagree with us we need to express our disagreement and not just complacently ignore it. Now with someone like Bernie Sanders I would express my disagreement much more politely than I would to someone like George Bush, I can support someone I disagree with but that does not mean that I should feel obligated to silence my disagreement.

[ManiacJoe]

9. It is all in the job description.

They are chosen to vote in your place, not vote as you would vote.

However, the people get to discard the office holders if the holder votes the "wrong way" too often. You just need to convince enough voters.

[porphyrian]

11. It's their title, not so much what they actually do.

Unless you're very rich, anyway.

[EFerrari]

17. We're just trying to be nice?

lol

[Snarkturian Clone]

21. Reminds me of the House of Representin' in Idiocracy: