Congress v. the People

In yesterday's post, I put link to make it easier for anyone who stumbles onto my blog to write a quick letter to their representatives in Congress voicing their opinion. Sometimes it feels like that's about all I can do, so it's a little comforting to write a little email and send it on its way. Rousseau write a lot about 'collective consciousness' (as do many western philosphers) an idea we base our representative democracy on...republic. We elect leaders who in theory vote the conscience of their constituency. I'm not sure if congresspeople have ever really voted based on what their district wants, but they sure don't seem to now. The more I pay attention to Congress i realize that our elected officials take the role of protectors...that meaning, they know what the people think they want, but it's up to the representative to choose what is actually best. Why? Because they are smarter or better educated? I don't know if it really matters. What matters is that our representatives need to represent the consciousness of the people.

Reading an article in the NY Times today, this becomes clear that there's a good chance we may not have full representation of our beliefs from our Congressmen. The article by Jeff Zeleny is about the struggle between Democrats and Republicans on the issue of creating a deadline for funding, essentially for withdrawl, of our troops in Iraq. In the article it discusses two representatives specifically who have changed their vote from supporting withdrawl to now not supporting it. Dan Boren (D-OK) and Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH). Both originally followed their party line but after trips to Iraq to witness, first hand, the absolute mess it is, they changed their mind. So maybe they see something that we don't. Maybe they had some experience that softened them and that sympathy caused them to decide that we need to stay and help these poor people. Does that mean that we're wrong here in the states? Is it wrong that we sit in our comfortable living rooms and have the ability to detach ourselves from the reality of what's going on in Iraq? And if so, is our being wrong an excuse for the representatives of our will to vote different than what we feel?

I'm going to say no, it's not fine for them to choose their own vote just because they've seen something first hand that we haven't had the chance to. Some of us are morally opposed to war and violence under any circumstances...is our voice then obsolete? Some people may not understand the whole concept of how pulling our troops out of Iraq may effect the stability there. Does their opinion not count? I don't know what official polls say about the American public's stance on Iraq, but as Dennis Kucinich is quoted in today's article, "we used the war to help us [Democrats] win control of Congress." This tells me that the American people want our troops home and want to stop spending money on something that we think is futile.

Things are already in utter chaos. There is already immense instability in Iraq. There are already signs of genocidal tendencies on the part of religious sects. Things are falling apart regardless of our presence there. If we are to continue in Iraq, we would need political support from the majority of countries in the region and worldwide. Until we pull our troops out and let things fall apart, we wont be able to achieve the political solution that needs to take place for stability in Iraq because everyone is pissed off at us. If that's what the public thinks, then that's how our Congress needs to vote. It's our consciousness, not there's. And, if they do think that our minds need changing, then come to our towns and our districts and present your case, instead of to an empty chamber on C-Span.