Being wrong for the right reasons...

That's a tough one. I generally agree that elected officials should represent their constituents -- and that Barry is wrong for some right reasons. I need to think on this.

I guess it's official then, that Mr. Barry's constituency does not include openly gay or closeted gay members of the black community.

I don't know ehBeth.

It is hard to look past Barry's sketchy past to even find think about him making any kind of decision for people but I didn't vote him into office.

I suppose there is a valid argument that the people who did elect him knew that he was a supporter of gay rights when they voted for him and, as such, they shouldn't be surprised if he voted contrary to what they wanted.

When it's a decision I disagree with it is a lot harder for me to think that he should "represent" instead of "lead", but then I think of Kitzhaber and I'm back to square one.

what?

Sorry. That was confusing.

Barry has long been a supporter of gay rights.

The people who voted for him surely knew this -- and they still voted for him.

These voters probably would not have been too surprised if he had voted to recognize out of state, same sex marriages, even if they didn't want him to vote that way.

When you elect someone who is a vocal supporter of certain issues it would seem you'd expect them to vote their concious, even if you told them not to.

I think voting a morally reprehensible position that you know is wrong because your constituents want it is doubly wrong. It's one thing to vote for a moral wrong out of ignorance, another to do it in spite of knowing better. Think of the South in the 20's and 30's. If a politician knew Jim Crow was wrong, but voted for it because the population wanted to suppress the black vote, you would respect that person? Would the statement that blacks are a minority mitigate it? Doesn't governement have to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority? I think the Mayor blew it.

Yeah, yeah, I know. I agree..... somewhat.

So what about Kitzhaber and the Physician Assisted Suicide thing?

Is it only reprehensible when they vote other than you would?

I think it does make a difference if you agree with the outcome, because you think it's right.

Maybe Kitzhaber really did think it was right, but to protect himself from (his church? his friends? who knows) he invoked the "constituency" thing.

I'm most in favor of politicians doing what is right and damn the consequences. I understand when they can't -- getting themselves kicked out of office limits their ability to accomplish things. But in this situation, I think Barry did the wrong thing -- full stop. As for his reasons, I get them to an extent but I don't think they were right, either. If a politician presents him or herself in a certain way, and gets elected, I think they should continue along that path. Barry has been a supporter of gay rights for a long time, and got elected anyway.

Exactly - he got elected anyway. That's the only loophole I see that he could have used. But that is really what it is -- a loophole.

And Kitzhaber really did oppose PAS.

I don't know what to think..... I'm really mixed up about this..... I wish I could be "he was wrong. Full stop."

I do think the people I vote for have a duty to represent me.

But do you think that every person who voted for the person you voted for agrees with you in every particular on every issue?

That's where it gets tricky.

The people you voted for have a duty to represent you and everyone else who voted for them -- and since there's no way all of you agree on everything, judgment (and consistency) come into play.

No, I don't expect that.

By "me" I mean the majority of voters in the area. If we make it clear we feel a certain way our elected officials have a duty to represent us, even if they disagree with us.

Barry probably knew his vote wasn't going to matter anyway. I think it's interesting how easy it is to lable his actions "wrong". I did it too until I really thought about it. Now I'm not so sure.

If Kitzhaber really did oppose PAS, then he was wrong to vote the way he did. If I voted for him, I might reconsider that vote, but I might not depending on other issues. When you elect someone, he must represent all his constituents and he's not going to agree with all of them on all topics. Also, the purpose of a representative government is to allow the elected member to do the research and obtain the nuanced understanding of an issue that the populus may not have the time or resources to achieve. If he comes to a conclusion that an opinion poll doesn't support, he should go with his conclusion. I don't support government by opinion poll.

Hmm.

I have a fair amount of tolerance for ambiguity -- I think good people can do wrong things, and that doesn't make me think they're bad people or generally wrong. They can be good people who are usually right who were wrong in one instance.

But even after thinking about it quite a bit, I think Barry is wrong here.

So you think Kitzhaber would have been right to ignore the majority of Oregon voters and veto the law based on this own moral principals?

I agree. I also strongly disagree with the remark in the quoted piece about an elected representative "leading." Damned few offices in this country implicitly require leadership which would contradict the wishes of the electorate, and i for one would only consider that the Presidency had such a roll, and then only in limited circumstances.

There is also something to be said for the power of making people face up to their decisions. If acknowledging same-sex marriage is antithetical to the beliefs of Mr. Barry's constituents, he should respond to that--and if it causes problems for them, perhaps they'll change their minds. If it doesn't create any problems for them, Mr. Berry will still have done what he was elected to do.

Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. was appointed one of the four police commissioners of New York in the 1880s. There were two from each party. He was probably the most active of the four, and quickly drew public attention. At that time, New York had a "Sunday blue law," which meant you couldn't serve beer or other strong drinks on a Sunday. Taverns put out a few sandwiches, called it a meal, and poured the beers as fast as they could, claiming they were only serving a beverage with a meal. Roosevelt made the cops go in and shut these people down, and the city howled. The city also changed its ordinance. Roosevelt's comment was that the quickest way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it.

I don't think this is one of those situations. I don't think failure to recognize same sex marriages will work any hardship on the citizens of the District of Columbia. And i think Mr. Berry was obliged to respect their wishes. His "leadership" on such an issue would only alienate those who elected him.

Thanks, Set. I was beginning to think I'd cracked up.

I definitely disagree with his reason.

I don't believe politicians should base their voting habits on what the crowd wants them to do. I believe they were elected to vote their own beliefs. If the voting public doesn't like the result, they can try to vote them out next time round.

Not too long ago I emailed my member of Parliament to let her know that if she, and her party, behaved in a certain way, I would not be voting for her in the future and in fact would be campaigning against her/them. I expected her to vote/behave as she thought was right - and I'll take my future action based on that decision.

So in the case of Kitzhaber and Physician Assisted Suicide you think Kitzhaber's personal opinion should have over ridden the opinion of an overwhelming majority of Oregon voters?

I think it is his duty as an elected official to research the issue and then vote accordingly. Moreover, I think it is his duty to say "I voted this way and this is why." Claiming to set aside what he thinks of as the correct position due to peer pressure is a double fail for me.