A Troubling Trend

There's a trend in politics these days that I find troubling. Having once been in politics on a state level, I know what it is like to run for office, to get elected, and to serve. I know when I was in the Mississippi Legislature, I cast an average of 3,000 votes per year covering almost any issue you can imagine. Granted, most of the votes were rudimentary on items that passed with 95% yea votes. But there were others that generated great debate and passed or failed by only a few votes.

As a state Representative, I always felt I was there to vote the way the majority of my constituents would vote if they were sitting at my desk in the Capitol. I went to great effort to talk to people about the issues trying to get a feel for their views on important issues. I think in 8 years in the Legislature, I only cast two votes that were opposite of my own personal feelings because my constituents wanted me to vote that way.

There were others in the same office as I who felt they were elected to cast votes as they deemed fit regardless of what the constituents wanted. They reasoned that they were the one who had the most facts on the issue and therefore could make an educated vote. That approach is fine if your constituents realize what you are doing.

A prime example of that occurred in the Mississippi Electoral College when Ronnie Musgrove was elected Governor. There was a tie in the Electoral College vote which threw the final vote into the House of Representatives. Several Representatives voted contrary to the popular vote in their districts to allow Musgrove to be elected. I thought it was wrong then and still do. And please note, it doesn't matter who the candidates are or were, to blatantly vote opposite of your constituents is haughty behavior.

I learned long ago that there are a lot of "single issue" constituents out there. I also learned that the public is not as dumb as some politicians believe. The "single issue" constituents are garnering power by using "pledges" to tie the hands of their Congressional representatives. By "single issue" I am referring to those with a pro-life stance, those who are against any kind of gun control, those who want to amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman, those who do not want any tax increases ever, those who are against the federal highway system, and the list goes on and on and on.

If I were still active in politics, I would personally refuse to sign a pledge that takes away any room for compromise on an issue. Issues become intertwined and thus complex. Often there is not a clear yes or no vote. A politician may only be presented a bill which contains several issues of which one is a popular "single issue". It may be that the other issues will override the "single issue" as regards legislative benefit to the district or the country as a whole. But, because he or she signed a "pledge" they feel inclined to honor the pledge regardless of how many others are adversely affected.

Pledges may sound great to "single issue" constituents. I remember someone telling me they were going to vote against me because I voted to allow horse racing in Tunica County. As a subcommittee chairman, I bottled that issue up for two years and finally allowed it to go to full committee only after lengthy conversations with the FBI on the role of organized crime in horse racing. My response was to tell him I am sorry he feels that way because I cast over 3,000 votes in the legislature that year and he only disagreed with me on one vote. Apparently he agreed with me on the other 2,999 votes I cast.

I think that is effective representation.