The biggest lie told by politicians…

August 8th, 2006

…is when they say, best cialis cialis “I represent ALL the people in my city (county, district, state, country).”

No they don’t.

They might represent the 35% of the people who actually voted for them, but they more likely represent the indian casinos, unions, businesses or rich folks who gave them the money they needed to run.

Entry Filed under: Observations,Politics

7 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Dean Mundy  |  August 9th, 2006 at 1:04 am


  • 2. Jenna  |  August 9th, 2006 at 7:48 am

    Well that’s a little cynical, don’t you think?

    Sure, there are some politicians who do almost solely represent special interests. (Why are the initials J.D. coming to mind?)

    But there are quite a few elected officials that still believe in actually representing their constituents.

    For example, one Senator in the WI Legislature will do what his district would prefer, over the objections of the majority.

    There are several who do the same.

    Once again, I agree there are some–but please don’t paint all of them with such a broad brush.

  • 3. Administrator  |  August 9th, 2006 at 8:22 am

    But Jenna, on the day that legislator voted the way his “district” would prefer, did that vote truly represent the interests and desires of ALL the constituents in that district?

    Of course, it didn’t.

    The reason we HAVE elections is so that one set of constituents get their way over another set. Saying you represent “all” the people in your district is technically true, but certainly false from the perspective of the people in your district that disagreed with your vote.

  • 4. Administrator  |  August 9th, 2006 at 8:26 am

    One further note: when my side wins I don’t WANT my guy to represent the pro-choice, gun-controlling, WEAC-loving people in my district. I want him to represent ME and MY interests.

    That’s a good thing, but it still makes even my representative a liar when he implies he represents the interests of everyone in his district.

  • 5. Jenna  |  August 9th, 2006 at 4:35 pm

    I’ll give you that–the elected official should represent the majority interest within his district. Certainly that’s not everyone.

    However, that doesn’t mean “indian casinos, unions, businesses or rich folks who gave them the money they needed to run.”

    I think that was more my point–not every legislator is bought n’ sold.

  • 6. tee bee  |  August 10th, 2006 at 10:26 pm

    No, they’re not all bought and sold – there are the Kennedys and the Heinz-Kerrys, too.

    At first blush, it’s a cynical view.

    However, it’s also one deeply embedded in the system. To get party support, candidates have to demonstrate cash flow. To beat an opponent, candidates have to gain exposure. To show they’ve benefited their communities and have “done their job,” candidates have to make deals happen for significant local employers, and they have to make sure pork projects happen. To get reelected, they have to demonstrate how they worked with the right people and backed the right legislation – pro-war, anti-war, etc.

  • 7. tee bee  |  August 10th, 2006 at 10:30 pm

    To address Elliot’s post, we operate under a paradox.

    Elected officials run on a platform, which is why we support them and they win elections. This is the storied “mandate.” The problem is that they become representatives of the whole constituency, for better or worse. It can help moderate a candidate’s more extreme ideas, and it can contribute to watering down the rep’s ability to act on their campaign promises.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.