Quote:
Originally Posted by Raime
Sometimes politicians have to make decisions that will piss off the populace for the greater good. If there are term limits then that can negate that. I won't argue with you about lobbying tho, as there are a lot of companies I dislike who have their money deep in the pockets of politicians.
|
One might think that if a congressional representative finally got the opportunity to wield power, and they were a benevolent actor with meaningful goals, they'd do everything in their power to achieve what they thought was right, even if they didn't think it would be popular and might cost them reelection. I suppose I'm not aware of the data on that or relevant examples. But I think I see what you're saying - without the incentive of future reelections, the theory goes that congressmen/congresswomen would be more likely to make decisions that won't be popular but are necessary. Our presidents are bound (after FDR) to no more than 8 years. How many presidents, in their second terms, have made decisions that you'd classify as 'for the greater good', since they don't have to fear losing reelection?
Even if you or I could name some, this is obviously not a completely valid comparison, as a President's actions reflect much more upon their political party as a whole than a random congressional representative's actions would.