Picking up on a comment from another thread, I'm interested in views about who a State Representative should represent. Is there even a right answer?
Should a State Rep represent:
Their own views?
The views of the people who voted for them? (sometimes <30% of voting age adults)
The views of sub sections of their party?
The views of their party?
The views of all constituents?
Do some state reps believe that these all give the same answers when deciding how to vote and what to prioritize?
If a State Rep espouses views that many people think are morally or ethically wrong, but they get re-elected, is that a win for freedom of speech and democracy?
(7) comments
Good questions on Who Should a State Rep represent? Rather than either/or choices, I tend to think in terms of a hierarchy of obligations. The highest obligation, it seems to me, is to the reps oath of office. In NH, that is "that I will bear faith and true allegiance to the United States of America and the state of New Hampshire and will support the constitution thereof." Importantly that oath suggests a longer view than any current segment or even all current constituents as it encompasses the prosperity of future generations. Among the obligations to current constituents, there is a just balance to be maintained. I think about this in terms of loyalty to the state, to the constitution, and to current and future generations, not loyalty to one's political future and self-interest.
Mike Bordes touches on what I think may be the most important challenge we face in trying to find common ground in these polarized times: How to respect and understand someone else's view that we may personally believe is "wrong" but others, sometimes the majority, believe just as strongly is "right." I hope we will try to identify the issues that divide us, and to listen to understand why someone believes something we are sure is "wrong" is "right". I'm afraid we will find that some of our differences are irreconcilable, but I feel we still must struggle to understand each other.
One of the things that I struggle with personally, is that I don't believe that all views should be equally respected. I do respect people's rights to hold any views that they wish, but that shouldn't make them immune to responsibility for their words and criticism.
Medical colleges don't spend equal time on proven medicine, homeopathy, healing crystals, and psychic diagnosis. People are free to believe in the power of non-traditional medicine, but that doesn't mean that it should be given an equal footing. If a doctor at LRGH offered a voodoo ceremony in place of much needed surgery, I think they would be ridiculed, and fired.
Should we teach flat earth theory in our science classes because some people believe it? Should we not teach evolution because some people don't believe it?
My examples so far have been hyperbolic, but I put them out there to show that I believe that there is a 'line' - where that line is, is up for debate. As a community, society, and country I think there should be some norms and expectations to keep things functioning.
I recently had a LTE published and a response from a Laconia House Rep. My letter focused on an article he wrote online in which he describes his political view is that there are "two sides that are incompatible with each other", one side "for our Republic" and the other "wants to destroy it".
Is it wrong to call out this rhetoric which I think is potentially dangerous? The type of rhetoric that we recently saw resulted in insurrection against our Capitol?
On the other hand, and to offer up a positive common ground perspective, I recently had a very productive conversation with a Republican friend about HB20. He hadn't read the bill itself, but he offered up his opinions on deficiencies within our Gilford School System and what he hoped may change with additional competition.
I agreed with every single point he made, and would love to see them be set as goals/targets for the school system.
We didn't get on to the details of the bill, potential for abuse, and fiscal impact to the schools, but I'm sure if we had he would have been just as receptive to my concerns there too.
Overall he believes in the necessity of a strong public school system, as do I. While we would both welcome legislation/policies which would encourage the schools to "be better", neither of us wants to see them undermined to the benefit of private institutions.
Do you think your friend might be interested in participating with you in our next Zoom panel? We are looking for volunteer "pairs" to engage in a two-part program. The first would be a moderated active listening session (just the two of you and a moderator). If successful, the second would be participation in our next Zoom panel with three or four other teams. We have not yet chosen a topic or topics for the Zoom panel, but perhaps they could arise from the listening sessions.
Good Morning,
I will try to answer your questions to the best of my ability.
Should a State Rep represent:
Their own views? I don't necessarily think so but Representatives do run on certain key platforms. I believe they need to stick to the platform and keys they ran on.
The views of the people who voted for them? (sometimes <30% of voting age adults) People who vote typically should be aware of the platform and policies the Representative supports and I would assume they align with the voter who they had the privilege of earning the vote.
The views of sub sections of their party? I believe in people over party so no accurate answer to this
The views of their party? Same answer as above
The views of all constituents? Absolutely should listen to constituents as that is who we are elected to represent
Do some state reps believe that these all give the same answers when deciding how to vote and what to prioritize? confused by this can you please clarify?
If a State Rep espouses views that many people think are morally or ethically wrong, but they get re-elected, is that a win for freedom of speech and democracy? If a Rep gets re-elected even with views that some might consider morally or ethically wrong it would be obvious that the majority do not feel they were morally or ethically wrong right? I wouldn't vote for someone with no morals and would assume other's wouldn't as well.
Hi Mike, I'm curious as to your thoughts about balancing the variety of interests and obligations that come with public service. In terms of my own service on the Laconia School Board, it's difficult to balance the stewardship of a public institution with the demands of my constituents. Ultimately, being in a position of public service can be an honor but also a burden. Thanks, Aaron
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.