Alternate Current — Do we elect leaders or followers?
We have always pondered about which came first, the chicken or the egg and a similar question about our politicians has always been a topic of discussion: Do those we elect to office have an obligation to constantly poll public opinion before each vote in Congress, or did we elect them because we placed our confidence in their judgment?
Not that long ago President Clinton was the subject of a withering attack from the right in which they accused him of governing by constant use of polls instead of having the courage and principles to govern according to what he actually believed in. By choosing to govern according to the polling results, he failed, in their opinion, to be a leader.
G.W. Bush then entered the picture along with Dick Cheney and they famously could care less about polls showing the will of the people. Two quotes stand out vividly as testimony to their disregard for such nonsense. President Bush, elected with 500,000 fewer votes than Gore in the most important poll of all, declared himself to be “The Decider!” When Cheney was being interviewed and was informed that over 70 percent of Americans were against the war in Iraq, his seething answer was short and to the point; “So?” No wonder they were so admired by their supporters for being so strong and courageous in their convictions!
Now here we are just a year later with a new man in the White House. He was elected by the largest percentage since 1984 and with the greatest number of votes in history just 17 months ago. The most conservative candidate in the Democratic primaries, the centerpiece of his campaign was modest health care reform that did not include a provision for either single payer or a strong public option, although he said he would support that if it were possible. In fact, the program that was the foundation of his campaign and that Americans voted for in record numbers was very similar to the bill that was just signed into law.
However, things are different now for those on the right because the shoe is now on the other foot. No longer do they want a strong leader who keeps his word and has the courage of his convictions. The response of the opposition is not just “No” but “Hell no!” as John Boehner screamed repeatedly at the top of his lungs in the well of the House of Representatives; now they demand that their leader follows them. In fact, there are many who now feel comfortable threatening violence to enforce their will on our president. Their actions are both welcomed and sanctioned by those who care more about their careers than our country. Sadly, these are the acts not of the “loyal” opposition at all.
A poll released on March 17 by the Wall St. Journal, owned by Rupert Murdoch and hardly a liberal publication, puts support for the Tea Party movement at 29 percent. Many of you will not believe this as you read it (as always, e-mail me and I will send you a copy). It is easy to stand in a large crowd and believe that everybody agrees with you, but that is simply not the case. Many of those who say they don”t support the new law are opposed not because it goes too far but because it doesn”t go far enough, hardly a Tea Party stance. Many times a leader must make decisions that might not be popular too.
The bottom line is you can”t have it both ways. Just as the Constitution is not a pick-and- choose menu but something that stands intact, alone and above the fray, our leaders are elected because enough voters placed their trust and confidence in their wisdom and judgment. This is no time to attempt to destroy our government because things are not going your way, but a time of crises that demands we pull together as a nation if we are to recover from the devastation that took place prior to Jan. 26, 2009, just as we did in 1942.
Lowell Grant is a weekly columnist for the Record-Bee. E-mail him at c21vintage@aol.com.
