Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
So how does a politician apply that rule when it comes to an issue that's a values judgement, like abortion, or the best amount to redistribute from the rich to the poor, or gun rights, or freedom of speech vs hate speech?
A politician's constituents are less likely to be as unified on these issues as they would be on abundant and affordable housing and energy.
Can you define hate speech?
Gun rights in what context?
Freedom of speech in what context? I believe the current standard is Brandenburg v. Ohio.
Abortion; the best likely scenario is to do nothing and make no specific advocacy.
Can you define rich and poor? Getting into the weeds on issues like this is likely best.
Across a nation? Sure. But I'm certain you can find some smaller constituencies where the voters are quite unified in what they want their representative to do.
I can't, and the voters might not be able to either, but that won't necessarily stop them from demanding something be done. I have a similar response to the rest of your questions: I am not trying to argue for specific policies, I am asking what a politician has the obligation to do when their voters start angrily making demands that something should be done, but what they say they want is not what they really want long term.
No there's no obligation to advocate for the irrational, incoherent, irresponsible or impossible demands of their constituents.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link