General Political Question (with an attempt to be flame free)
 

Let's say that you are the elected representative for a group of citizens. Let's also say that there is an issue--the importation of widgets--that the vast majority of your electorate is against. Let's also say that you have studied the issue and are convinced that the importation of widgets is actually good for your people in the long run--but the reasons behind your conclusions are complex and do not lend themselves to sound bites. In other words, you believe that if the people knew more, they would change their position.

Should you just give the people what they want, even though you think that it might be bad for them? Or should you do what you think is right for the people, and try to educate them to your point of view?

Politician = Works to get re-elected, plays party politics, tells you what to fear and who to blame for it.

Statesman = Works for the greater good of the people, even if they don't always realize it. Works to allow people to come together and resolve differences.

There are very few statemen and a lot of politicians.

Any normal Politician would see which side would line thier pockets more and vote accordingly. :mad:

I'm assuming by the way you've set up your scenario that time is of the essence (i.e., a vote on the widget issue is pending). I would make every effort to educate the people I am representing, convince them of what I see as the correct stance, and get some immediate feedback (town meetings or whatever) to see if their pulse on widgets has changed. But if it is clear it hasn't...I vote to represent them.

My stance in support of widgets would vary depending on how much financial support the widget makers were putting in my pockets, and I would vote accordingly.

If I can go on nothing else except what you've supplied here ... then I vote in favor of the widgets.

BUT ... that's subject to change depending on a few factors, mostly long-range cost/benefit analysis stuff. Among them: How good is "good", big enough to sacrifice any good I can do in the future by remaining in office? -- I get the impression this might be one of those issues-that-lose-an-election sort of votes. If so, then the issue of whether my impending loss is to someone within my party or from the other party. Depending on the answer, we go back to cost-benefit analysis again, is this worth sacrificing a seat (and a vote on national issues) over?

Jon has a pretty good point here about cost/benefit. Suppose you are an "honest statesman"--you have to determine just how important widgets are to your whole agenda for improving society. If widgets are not that important, then your support of the widgets is actually detrimental to your overall ability to contribute to the greater good of society.

Just attach the widget thing as a rider to the 'We Support the Troops' bill. Nobody would vote against that bill.

Nice. :)