You mean the Hillary Clinton who said that it was okay to have different public versus private opinions on things, as an elected official, who got PAID to give speeches to wall Street, who used her influence to get the apparatchiks of the party to tip the scales in 2016 to ensure that SHE would be the nominee instead of an anti neo liberal who could have put up an amazing contrast to djt instead of her neoliberal centrism? The one who insisted that SHE needed to be president, and who very much helped us to get into the situation we find ourselves in today?
Oh, cool. I am very much interested in what she has to say, because of course she holds the interests of the country above her own
who said that it was okay to have different public versus private opinions on things, as an elected official
I mean, I actually agree with this in theory. An elected official may not personally agree with something, even if they’re willing to vote it in. That’s just the nature of politics, because a representative should actually represent the people who voted them in, even if they don’t agree with every single fine detail. Sure, it’s worth examining whether their private opinions are affecting their public voting record. But at least in theory, there’s nothing wrong with voting differently than what your personal opinion would dictate.
For instance, what if a closeted racist gets voted in, but votes for DEI initiatives because it’s what their voter base would want? Sure, that’s a rare example, but it would be possible and should even be encouraged in that instance. In practice, it’s more likely that the closeted racist would get elected and then try to enact racist policies that align with their racist views. But at least on paper, the idea of “representatives shouldn’t have to agree with every single thing they vote for” is sound.
You mean the Hillary Clinton who said that it was okay to have different public versus private opinions on things, as an elected official, who got PAID to give speeches to wall Street, who used her influence to get the apparatchiks of the party to tip the scales in 2016 to ensure that SHE would be the nominee instead of an anti neo liberal who could have put up an amazing contrast to djt instead of her neoliberal centrism? The one who insisted that SHE needed to be president, and who very much helped us to get into the situation we find ourselves in today? Oh, cool. I am very much interested in what she has to say, because of course she holds the interests of the country above her own
I mean, I actually agree with this in theory. An elected official may not personally agree with something, even if they’re willing to vote it in. That’s just the nature of politics, because a representative should actually represent the people who voted them in, even if they don’t agree with every single fine detail. Sure, it’s worth examining whether their private opinions are affecting their public voting record. But at least in theory, there’s nothing wrong with voting differently than what your personal opinion would dictate.
For instance, what if a closeted racist gets voted in, but votes for DEI initiatives because it’s what their voter base would want? Sure, that’s a rare example, but it would be possible and should even be encouraged in that instance. In practice, it’s more likely that the closeted racist would get elected and then try to enact racist policies that align with their racist views. But at least on paper, the idea of “representatives shouldn’t have to agree with every single thing they vote for” is sound.