Do Politicians Have A Right To Be Wrong When They Vote on Legislation?Submitted by chris cudnoski on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 23:31
Yes, another 'Rand' thread. Looking back, I'm amazed at how much attention one single vote, on an amendment, to one of thirty or so 1400-page bills he probably sees each week, can draw. We were ready to rip each others heads off!
GMO is an important issue, HUGELY important to anyone who can think. You BET a vote on GMO labeling is going to anger at least 50% of the people no matter which way you go.
So, what a position to be put in, with a cleverly worded amendment that would require you to violate the constitution in order to do the 'right' thing, require GMO labeling on that most important of things, our food.
Voting with the constitution, like his father voting against cattle-ranching subsidies (in south Texas), against federal flood insurance (in a coastal district) would at first appear a heartless, cold act. Many would accuse him of not caring about people.
Citing the Constitution as the reason for a vote soon appears as an easy-out excuse to carry out some pro-corporation, anti-human agenda.
Hopefully in time people realize that the constitutional vote is also the humane vote. By 'freeing' the consumer from the ravages of covert GMO ingredients the federal government is able to more fully enslave the farmer, the distributor, and ultimately again the consumer, as the little guys 'go under' and the corporations gain more power.
But then again, I may be wrong, I frequently am. Rand may have been wrong. Ron Paul may have been wrong and I'm certain there are multitudes of flood victims who believe he was and always will. They have a right to be wrong too.
But does a public servant have a right to be wrong?
Isn't it their job to research this stuff and vote right every time?
Do we judge a man's very character by one vote, any more than we would judge him on learning he had stolen candy from a store as a child?