That’s St. Louis County Commissioner Keith Nelson saying that he would support slavery if a majority of his constituents did. The context is a conversation about supporting or opposing the smoking ban and Keith Nelson was saying that he opposes it because a majority of his constituents oppose it.Come explore the philosophical pinnings of this with me below the fold.
I have to say that if I were representing a group of people I would draw the line somewhere and slavery seems like a pretty good place to draw the line. Moreover, I would assume that a majority of people (Keith Nelson’s constituents included) would not want to be represented by someone that doesn’t have the moral fortitude to take a stand on such a reprehensible issue. That being said, I understand what Nelson is going for philosophically.
I think there’s a delicate balance to be struck between pure Representation and personal leadership. Wellstone was more the latter; that is, he presented what he stood for, stuck to it, and you knew what you were voting for. Of course an elected official should try to reflect the goals of their constituents, but that doesn’t mean being a slave to their whims. Elected officials are elected not only to represent, but also to stay apprised and educated on issues that their constituents simply don’t have time to look into. The PATRIOT Act is a good example. Congressmen and women should have read that, researched it, and voted accordingly because no one else has the time to read that damn thing (it’s thick).
Moreover, in today’s mass media age I would also assert that it is important for the elected officials to try to stay above the ebb and flow of fickle public opinion, as much as possible. The check on all of this is, of course, elections. An elected official should stick to their guns, do what they think is right, and tell people honestly what they stand for and how that will play out. If, when it comes to election time, the people feel as though they have moved away from the person they originally elected, so be it, someone new will get the job.
The most dangerous type of politician is one that is willing to do whatever is popular at the time to keep his or her job (ahem, ahem Norm Coleman) without maintaining any philosophical or moral consistency. Although the public is unlikely to change their opinion so much that they demand a return to slavery, it’s not so far fetched to imagine a situation where we go into a war that is initially immensely popular and the elected official neglects his oversight role because of it, leading to major problems down the line…
Phew, I got carried away again. What do people think though? Is Keith Nelson’s mode of representation a reasonable one or are there moments when elected representatives should stop being pure mirrors of their constituents?
Commissioner Keith Nelson “clarification” that he would resign before he stood up for his principles is just as morally bankrupt as his first statement that he would support slavery if his constituents did.
There may be reason he chose Slavery rather than some more acceptable evil ( like signing a pact with the devil ) as his example.
Human Slavery and Genocide can’t be compared to lesser evils, but the analogy of slavery and addiction has some value.
The bar owners are willing to accept any amount of human misery if it increases their profits. The profits that they imagine they will lose come from people who are slaves of addiction.
He is responding to question that started out inappropriately asking if he would support slavey if the majority of his constituents did. Comm. Nelson took the bait. He responded with the intent of what he was talking about - representing what his constituents believed.
If he was elected on the platform that he would represent his constituent views - then not supporting the smoking ban is appropriate. He far better than most commentators know his constituents. Using slavery as a comparison was the original questioners mistake - perpetuated by Comm. Nelson.
And Bob - Have you ever gone into bar and not expected it to filled with smoke? Come on grown adults are responsible for themselves - not the government.
How stupid is that - slavery? So he has no moral compunctions about anything.
If majority rule is all it takes - and all he is, is the aggregate opinion - irrespective of any other vetting, then he doesn’t need to be there at all - we could all vote on all the resolutions ourselves.
Doesn’t matter if the general public doesn’t read the bills - we are DEEEE-ciders. Don’t need no stinking reading & analysis.
Come-on people, everyone quick to pull the statement out of context just to further their own need for dirty laundry. The man was stating (maybe in a not to politically savvy terms) that he voted his constituents will. He is right, we vote our officials to represent *US* not to do whatever they feel is right for us. I think slavery is bad, and I KNOW if I had constituents that I may have said:
“Fortunately we live in a society that views slavery as evil and violation of Human Rights. I am relieved that I would never be asked by my constituents to support such a heinous subject. I am elected to work *FOR* my constituents, not to impose our will upon theirs.”
The Man didn’t want to support the smoking ban because his constiuents did not support it. That is what he is supposed to do. He was attacked by Bill Kron telling him that he should vote the boards will instead of his constituents will.
Some lawmakers you have there in Duluth. They don’t do what the people elected them to do, they do what want.
I think Edmund Burke pretty well settled this issue over 200 years ago when he said in his speech to the Electors of Bristol: “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” If representatives are to be just mirrors of their constituents we could all simply go on our computers every day and vote on every issue. The job of a representative is to read the bills, listen to the arguments and make a considered judgment. If the constituents don’t like it, they can change their representative in the next election. That is what representative government is all about. The council member in Duluth just doesn’t get it.
This guy is a clown. I was at a meeting regarding the future of lake Vermillion. He showed up and was talking about money and not the future of the lake.
Basically he will vote how the money tells him to vote. And if the people with the money tell him to vote yes to slavery, he will do it with enthusiasm.
He should resign and crawl back in the hole that spawned him.
allanhspear, I’m SO glad you found that Burke quote. I was trying to locate it (and I have to admit, forgot it was Burke), so I’m really happy you pulled it out.
Allan is right, Biker Bry is wrong. Although it is an interesting philosophical debate, “pure” representation mas been out of vogue since Burke.
allanhspear - “If the constituents don’t like it, they can change their representative in the next election. That is what representative government is all about. The council member in Duluth just doesn’t get it.”
But why should they have to wait? If he really knows his constituents, then he should vote the way they feel. I would bet this subject comes up in the last year a few times. Smoking has been in the public eye for the last few years with multiple attempts to infringe upon peoples rights. I have a feeling he’s heard plenty from his constituents on the matter and voted the way he believes his fellow citizens feel.
Edmund Burke was an ass who thought he knew better than anyone else and you sound like you do too.
Jonathan, I don’t think I know better than anyone else. But when I was elected to the Minnesota legislature - and I was elected eight times - my constituents basically knew what they were getting. They chose me because they agreed with my political philosophy and my approach to issues. And every four years (sometimes two) I had to go back and be reevaluated by them. But they cannot anticipate every issue that comes before the legislature. That is where judgment comes in. It would have been a mistake for me to have based my votes on how many phone calls or e-mails I got - that would simply be responsding to the squeekiest wheels. Instead I exercised my best judgment within the context of the political framework that my constituents and I shared. That is what Burke was talking about - and he was not an ass.
Jonathan — What you are talking about is one step removed from government by referendum Elected officials are elected because, generally, they represent what their constituency believes, not because they will take polls before they commit to anything.
BTW, I find it a little disturbing that people are so willing to stand up for their “right” to smoke in public, while paying no mind to far more egregious violations committed by various governments, but that’s another thread.
The commissioner Nelson was challenging comm. Kron and O’neil decision to vote for an all out ban on Smoking in the County. In 2004, the city of Duluth, Kron & O’Neils districts voted by referendum to exempt bars and private clubs (VFW); however, they wanted an all out ban defying their constituents. According to the Law and the County Attorney, they could have been sued for malfeasance if it passed.
Kron is the one who made the comparison of Slavery vs. Smoking. And the anti smoking advocate Mckone might have posted it on YouTube but he did call the press and leak the story. See the Duluth News Tribune. Setup anyone….?
As for Lake Vermillion, the last plan would make almost all the lots unbuildable and they would require a variance for any improvements or buildings. This would stop any new revenue for the County and also stop any remodeling. It would take significant dollars for enforcement which is non-existent now and also the costs for variance hearings. Vermillion is the second largest community in the County and will set the stage for the rest of the Lakes, we have time to do it right….
Commissioner Keith Nelson “clarification” that he would resign before he stood up for his principles is just as morally bankrupt as his first statement that he would support slavery if his constituents did.
There may be reason he chose Slavery rather than some more acceptable evil ( like signing a pact with the devil ) as his example.
Human Slavery and Genocide can’t be compared to lesser evils, but the analogy of slavery and addiction has some value.
The bar owners are willing to accept any amount of human misery if it increases their profits. The profits that they imagine they will lose come from people who are slaves of addiction.
If the shoe fits …
He is responding to question that started out inappropriately asking if he would support slavey if the majority of his constituents did. Comm. Nelson took the bait. He responded with the intent of what he was talking about - representing what his constituents believed.
If he was elected on the platform that he would represent his constituent views - then not supporting the smoking ban is appropriate. He far better than most commentators know his constituents. Using slavery as a comparison was the original questioners mistake - perpetuated by Comm. Nelson.
And Bob - Have you ever gone into bar and not expected it to filled with smoke? Come on grown adults are responsible for themselves - not the government.
Making a laughingstock.
How stupid is that - slavery? So he has no moral compunctions about anything.
If majority rule is all it takes - and all he is, is the aggregate opinion - irrespective of any other vetting, then he doesn’t need to be there at all - we could all vote on all the resolutions ourselves.
Doesn’t matter if the general public doesn’t read the bills - we are DEEEE-ciders. Don’t need no stinking reading & analysis.
Come-on people, everyone quick to pull the statement out of context just to further their own need for dirty laundry. The man was stating (maybe in a not to politically savvy terms) that he voted his constituents will. He is right, we vote our officials to represent *US* not to do whatever they feel is right for us. I think slavery is bad, and I KNOW if I had constituents that I may have said:
“Fortunately we live in a society that views slavery as evil and violation of Human Rights. I am relieved that I would never be asked by my constituents to support such a heinous subject. I am elected to work *FOR* my constituents, not to impose our will upon theirs.”
The Man didn’t want to support the smoking ban because his constiuents did not support it. That is what he is supposed to do. He was attacked by Bill Kron telling him that he should vote the boards will instead of his constituents will.
Some lawmakers you have there in Duluth. They don’t do what the people elected them to do, they do what want.
http://wcco.com/topstories/local_story_101175047.html
Read and learn, don’t believe the spin.
I think Edmund Burke pretty well settled this issue over 200 years ago when he said in his speech to the Electors of Bristol: “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” If representatives are to be just mirrors of their constituents we could all simply go on our computers every day and vote on every issue. The job of a representative is to read the bills, listen to the arguments and make a considered judgment. If the constituents don’t like it, they can change their representative in the next election. That is what representative government is all about. The council member in Duluth just doesn’t get it.
This guy is a clown. I was at a meeting regarding the future of lake Vermillion. He showed up and was talking about money and not the future of the lake.
Basically he will vote how the money tells him to vote. And if the people with the money tell him to vote yes to slavery, he will do it with enthusiasm.
He should resign and crawl back in the hole that spawned him.
allanhspear, I’m SO glad you found that Burke quote. I was trying to locate it (and I have to admit, forgot it was Burke), so I’m really happy you pulled it out.
Allan is right, Biker Bry is wrong. Although it is an interesting philosophical debate, “pure” representation mas been out of vogue since Burke.
allanhspear - “If the constituents don’t like it, they can change their representative in the next election. That is what representative government is all about. The council member in Duluth just doesn’t get it.”
But why should they have to wait? If he really knows his constituents, then he should vote the way they feel. I would bet this subject comes up in the last year a few times. Smoking has been in the public eye for the last few years with multiple attempts to infringe upon peoples rights. I have a feeling he’s heard plenty from his constituents on the matter and voted the way he believes his fellow citizens feel.
Edmund Burke was an ass who thought he knew better than anyone else and you sound like you do too.
Jonathan, I don’t think I know better than anyone else. But when I was elected to the Minnesota legislature - and I was elected eight times - my constituents basically knew what they were getting. They chose me because they agreed with my political philosophy and my approach to issues. And every four years (sometimes two) I had to go back and be reevaluated by them. But they cannot anticipate every issue that comes before the legislature. That is where judgment comes in. It would have been a mistake for me to have based my votes on how many phone calls or e-mails I got - that would simply be responsding to the squeekiest wheels. Instead I exercised my best judgment within the context of the political framework that my constituents and I shared. That is what Burke was talking about - and he was not an ass.
Jonathan — What you are talking about is one step removed from government by referendum Elected officials are elected because, generally, they represent what their constituency believes, not because they will take polls before they commit to anything.
BTW, I find it a little disturbing that people are so willing to stand up for their “right” to smoke in public, while paying no mind to far more egregious violations committed by various governments, but that’s another thread.
The commissioner Nelson was challenging comm. Kron and O’neil decision to vote for an all out ban on Smoking in the County. In 2004, the city of Duluth, Kron & O’Neils districts voted by referendum to exempt bars and private clubs (VFW); however, they wanted an all out ban defying their constituents. According to the Law and the County Attorney, they could have been sued for malfeasance if it passed.
Kron is the one who made the comparison of Slavery vs. Smoking. And the anti smoking advocate Mckone might have posted it on YouTube but he did call the press and leak the story. See the Duluth News Tribune. Setup anyone….?
As for Lake Vermillion, the last plan would make almost all the lots unbuildable and they would require a variance for any improvements or buildings. This would stop any new revenue for the County and also stop any remodeling. It would take significant dollars for enforcement which is non-existent now and also the costs for variance hearings. Vermillion is the second largest community in the County and will set the stage for the rest of the Lakes, we have time to do it right….