The recent health care summit struck me as a vital step toward completing the very necessary overhaul of our nation’s healthcare system. The issue that I found most compelling was whether our elected officials should follow the whimsical mood of the nation, which often has nothing to do with the issue being discussed, and base their decisions on the polls and other similar metrics, or trust in representative democracy and represent the US by doing what they perceive to be the best thing for our nation, despite a looming election in November.
This issue is the subject of an ongoing debate that may never end. Should the US be closer to a pure representative democracy, or should it be closer to a direct democracy, where the real-time sentiment of the citizens drives each and every public policy decision? The US currently finds itself somewhere in between, a dangerous place that makes it difficult for our representatives to govern; they cannot decide whether they should base their decisions on their knowledge of how Congress works and what is feasible for the nation, or the sentiment of the people, which is tied to the state of the economy more than anything else.
Both sides have valid points. True democracy allows all citizens to voice their opinions and to be directly involved in the decision-making process. It functions through processes like referenda and jury duty, whereby the citizens directly make policy. This removes the need for polls, town hall meetings, or even representatives, because rather than having to indirectly voice their opinions through representatives or polls, the citizenry are the lawmakers. Though less direct, a representative democracy is simpler and more efficient. Rather than all citizens collectively deciding every public policy issue that may arise, society elects representatives, in whom it places its trust to decide these issues. We assume that they are the most qualified to make these decisions, based on their own knowledge of our law and institutions, and the recommendations of their staff and specialists in the field. The citizenry voice their opinions by electing representatives who share their view of the direction in which the country should go.
However, representative democracy is the more effective and feasible means of accomplishing the goals of the citizenry. It is the system that we have and most people agree that it is the better system. First, it is impractical to hold a referendum for every bill that is under consideration, or more to the point, to have all citizens involved in the process of developing each and every piece of legislation. Second, not all citizens have the knowledge, expertise or even the time to be involved in all levels of lawmaking. Third, it is inefficient to have so many persons involved in these processes. Creating legislation that will pass is already difficult enough. The Senate is constantly described as being in gridlock, and gridlock would certainly increase with direct democracy. Though these are extreme examples, they illustrate why representative democracy is the more effective and realistic system. Representation was the intention of the founding fathers, and it is the most effective and feasible means of reflecting the will of the people. Their intention was clearly portrayed by their creation of Congress and the Electoral College, showing their hesitation to create a system of direct democracy. Rather than striving to control our representatives like marionettes, we should instead work to restore trust in the system.
In regards to the current healthcare debate, or any issue on the Obama administration’s agenda, we should trust in our representatives to do what is necessary to improve public policy. The country overwhelmingly supported the Democratic Party, giving them large majorities on both chambers of Congress, as well as the White House. This support signaled a mandate to take the country in a different direction, as elections are the primary means of showing the will of the people. We must allow the administration and Congress to do their job and not allow the day to day polls, the upcoming election or the threats of the other party to affect their decisions. Moreover, just because some voters may have changed their minds since voting for those who hold office, our representatives are there for the time being and must do what is necessary to improve public policy. The current debate has shown that the longer an issue is worked on, the more unpopular it can become. The current health care bills that have passed in Congress are the outcome of debate and compromise. They are the outcome of a representative democracy. Not everyone will agree with what passes, nor will anyone be completely satisfied, but that is the nature of democracy, where the majority rules. With this in mind, we must support what has been produced and trust our representatives to do what is in our best interest. If we disagree with the outcome, we can elect someone else to office. That is how the system should work.
In short, we must trust in representative democracy and not expect unanimous agreement on the issues. When sixty percent of the senate votes for something, it translates to sixty percent of the country supporting it. We have elected our members of Congress and our Senators to represent our interests and to make the right decisions, and we must place our trust in them to do what is best and necessary for the nation.
This issue is the subject of an ongoing debate that may never end. Should the US be closer to a pure representative democracy, or should it be closer to a direct democracy, where the real-time sentiment of the citizens drives each and every public policy decision? The US currently finds itself somewhere in between, a dangerous place that makes it difficult for our representatives to govern; they cannot decide whether they should base their decisions on their knowledge of how Congress works and what is feasible for the nation, or the sentiment of the people, which is tied to the state of the economy more than anything else.
Both sides have valid points. True democracy allows all citizens to voice their opinions and to be directly involved in the decision-making process. It functions through processes like referenda and jury duty, whereby the citizens directly make policy. This removes the need for polls, town hall meetings, or even representatives, because rather than having to indirectly voice their opinions through representatives or polls, the citizenry are the lawmakers. Though less direct, a representative democracy is simpler and more efficient. Rather than all citizens collectively deciding every public policy issue that may arise, society elects representatives, in whom it places its trust to decide these issues. We assume that they are the most qualified to make these decisions, based on their own knowledge of our law and institutions, and the recommendations of their staff and specialists in the field. The citizenry voice their opinions by electing representatives who share their view of the direction in which the country should go.
However, representative democracy is the more effective and feasible means of accomplishing the goals of the citizenry. It is the system that we have and most people agree that it is the better system. First, it is impractical to hold a referendum for every bill that is under consideration, or more to the point, to have all citizens involved in the process of developing each and every piece of legislation. Second, not all citizens have the knowledge, expertise or even the time to be involved in all levels of lawmaking. Third, it is inefficient to have so many persons involved in these processes. Creating legislation that will pass is already difficult enough. The Senate is constantly described as being in gridlock, and gridlock would certainly increase with direct democracy. Though these are extreme examples, they illustrate why representative democracy is the more effective and realistic system. Representation was the intention of the founding fathers, and it is the most effective and feasible means of reflecting the will of the people. Their intention was clearly portrayed by their creation of Congress and the Electoral College, showing their hesitation to create a system of direct democracy. Rather than striving to control our representatives like marionettes, we should instead work to restore trust in the system.
In regards to the current healthcare debate, or any issue on the Obama administration’s agenda, we should trust in our representatives to do what is necessary to improve public policy. The country overwhelmingly supported the Democratic Party, giving them large majorities on both chambers of Congress, as well as the White House. This support signaled a mandate to take the country in a different direction, as elections are the primary means of showing the will of the people. We must allow the administration and Congress to do their job and not allow the day to day polls, the upcoming election or the threats of the other party to affect their decisions. Moreover, just because some voters may have changed their minds since voting for those who hold office, our representatives are there for the time being and must do what is necessary to improve public policy. The current debate has shown that the longer an issue is worked on, the more unpopular it can become. The current health care bills that have passed in Congress are the outcome of debate and compromise. They are the outcome of a representative democracy. Not everyone will agree with what passes, nor will anyone be completely satisfied, but that is the nature of democracy, where the majority rules. With this in mind, we must support what has been produced and trust our representatives to do what is in our best interest. If we disagree with the outcome, we can elect someone else to office. That is how the system should work.
In short, we must trust in representative democracy and not expect unanimous agreement on the issues. When sixty percent of the senate votes for something, it translates to sixty percent of the country supporting it. We have elected our members of Congress and our Senators to represent our interests and to make the right decisions, and we must place our trust in them to do what is best and necessary for the nation.
No comments:
Post a Comment