Finding Ulysses

In much of the political talk I hear and read lately, I find myself wondering the extent of people’s civics knowledge.  Do people really understand the form of government under which we operate?

 

Democracy is “government by the people.”  There is a form of democracy, called “direct democracy” in which people directly make the political decisions affecting them.  In some New England towns, this happened (and maybe still does) in “town meetings”, gatherings of the citizenry in which people voted directly on issues.  But most of us here in the USA are governed under a system of representative democracy.  What this means is that instead of directly making decisions, we elect people to make those decisions for us.  Here’s a definition of representative democracy from Wikipedia:  “Representative democracy comprises a form of democracy and theory of civics wherein voters choose (in free, secret, multi-party elections) representatives to act in their interests, but not as their proxies—i.e., not necessarily as directed but with enough authority to exercise initiative in the face of changing circumstances. Modern liberal democracies are important examples of representative democracy. In the United States this term is often synonymous with “republic.” ”

 

I find that even our elected officials can be confused about their role in this regard.  Are they puppets of the electorate, or do they act from a core set of personal values?  I left before the dust settled the other night at the candidates’ forum, so I might have missed it, but I didn’t hear anything along those lines from the three village trustee candidates.  I know for a fact that David Filiberto, in an effort to make up his mind, proposed holding a referendum on a controversial issue recently, in spite of the fact that a referendum was expressly prohibited by State Law.  I quote here from the NYS Dept. of State Local Government Handbook: “The use of the referendum – direct vote of the people on issues – has been carefully limited in New York State in accordance with the basic principles of a representative form of government.  On the principle that voters elect government officials to make decisions on their behalf, government officials are not given broad authority to delegate decisionmaking powers back to the electorate.  Case law stipulates that a local government must find specific authority, either in the constitution or state law, to conduct an official referendum on any subject, and in the absence of such authority it may not conduct a referendum.  A local government may not spend public monies to conduct a so-called “advisory referendum,” that is, one conducted to gather public opinion on a particular matter, unless state law specifically authorizes it.”  Referenda may be conducted on such issues as changing terms of public office or number of public officers, implementing new local laws, issuing bonds to finance public projects, and dissolution of the village entity (now there’s a topic that could create a bit of buzz here!). 

 

The fact of the matter is that we should elect people who stand for something, not people who say, I stand for whatever the public stands for.  Because public officials get all sorts of opinions from their constituents, for and against issues, those whose opinions drift whichever way the wind blows risk being unable to stand for anything at all.  If you stand everywhere, you stand nowhere.

 

The other thing that we risk by having public officials who stand for everything/nothing, is that we open up the possibility of mob rule.  The mob is the group that comes to meetings, stamps their feet loudest, cries the hardest, whines the most persistently before the officials cave.  The mob gets what it wants, and then the idea of government by the people becomes government by the mob.  Passion triumphs over reason.

 

So what do you do when a matter comes up for consideration on which you have a strong opinion?  Let your public officials know.  Present facts before opinion, back up your statements with your research.  Some public officials may not have all the facts. Perhaps those facts are incorrect or incomplete; and in that case a correction is in order.  Still unsatisfied?  Then you vote them out of office.  This is why it’s so important to know who you’re voting for this coming Tuesday.  ‘Cause you’re stuck with your mistake, if in fact it is one, for the next five years.

 

One of the things I really admired about former New York governor Mario Cuomo was his staunch opposition to the death penalty, even in the face of polls saying that a majority of New Yorkers supported it.  Year after year he vetoed death penalty legislation, yet somehow, for a while at least, he managed to get re-elected.  There was a politician who wasn’t afraid to stand for something.

 

What do our local candidates stand for?  I have to say, I didn’t get a clear idea the other night.  Certainly Rordan Hart, the “butler” (his rather odd image of public service, not mine) was the blurriest on this point.  Yes, he certainly stated and re-stated his claim to impeccable ethics and integrity (nothing really to prove that, except his own statement) but beyond that…..?