A quick civics lesson

A couple of weeks ago, a Minnesota politician got himself into a bit of a pickle when he not only made an outrageous, moronic, and ludicrous remark, but also revealed how little he understands about the way a representative republic is supposed to work. Keith Nelson is a St. Louis County Board member, and during a board meeting, uttered the following gem: "If the people in my district had voted for slavery, and if the vast majority had, and I was representing them, the answer is 'yes,' I would have voted for it."

The board was debating a county-wide smoking ban, which, according to which poll numbers you read, has between 45 and 70 percent support from St. Louis County residents. Later, of course, Nelson offered the proverbial 'if I offended anyone, I'm sorry' type of non-apology. Rev. Denita Williams, pastor of St. Mark's African Methodist Episcopal Church in Duluth, summed it up pretty well when she said, "He doesn't seem to understand, and for him to hold a public office and not understand that is offensive," Williams said. She said Nelson must offer a public, unqualified apology, "and he also needs to take a diversity class [emphasis mine]."

So what exactly doesn't Nelson understand? That his job as an elected official is not to sample the public opinion prior to voting on any given issue, it's to use his morals, leadership, and judgment to decide what his vote should be. Voting based on public opinion is better described as populism, and despite Lou Dobbs' rantings to the contrary, our Constitution (as well as any Constitution at any level of goverment in the Union) does not proscribe a populist form of government, it's a (say it with me) representative republic. (For a great, albeit dry, book on populism versus democracy versus representative republics, read "Democracy and Populism" by John Lukacs).

I first thought critically about the possibility of a pure democracy when I was in college (early 90's), and started using the Internet. At the time, I thought it was a fantastic application for it. Think about it - the whole nation (or state, or county, or whatever level you want to apply it to) can vote on any issue put before them, and majority rule will win out. Not only would it put power into the hands of the people, but if people felt they had a stake in decisions, participation would go up. Right?

Wrong. Well, not exactly wrong - those two things would arguably occur. Where the idea is wrong is in the wisdom of the notion. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those people who see "Jay-walking" on the Leno show and think to myself "There should be an IQ minimum before someone can vote." Any dum-dum who's smart enough to avoid being in prison for committing a felony, fill out a voter registration card, make it to the polling place, and can read/fill out a ballot should retain the right to vote.

But public opinion is fickle. There's a reason that strong leaders rise to the head of companies, governments, and pretty much any other organization you can think of. Commitment to principle is (largely) viewed as necessary for leadership roles. Our Constitution even underscores this idea. George Washington famously likened the Senate to a "cooling saucer" which tones down the more fervent House's legislation. Six year terms, the representation of an entire state, and Senate rules on filibusters and super-majorities all contribute to this effect.

I think this is one of the primary reasons that President Bush is so deeply hated. Clinton was the pre-eminent master of "ruling by the polls", and (especially on the Iraq war) Bush holds fast to his decisions. While there's obviously a fine line between sticking to principle and being hopelessly stubborn (Harriet Miers, Alberto Gonzalez, Michael Brown), a leader who changes course in order to appease the populace is no leader at all.

John McCain, who irks me more than just about any other Republican, understands the danger of populism well. Ironically, the same day the Star Tribune ran the Nelson story, Opinion Journal ran this column praising McCain on this topic. Check out this exchange between Scott Pelley, of "60 Minutes", and McCain:

Pelley: "at what point do you stop doing what you think is right and you start doing what the majority of the American people want?"

McCain: "I disagree with what the majority of the American people want. I still believe the majority of the American people, when asked, say if you can show them a path to success . . . then they'll support it." Later Mr. Pelley observed that Mr. McCain was betting his entire campaign on the success of the current "surge" strategy in Baghdad. The Senator replied that he'd "rather lose a campaign than lose a war."

As much as it pains me to praise John "Gang of 14 1" McCain for anything other than his military service, he's spot on regarding this topic. Part of being entrusted with public office is being laden with making tough, unpopular decisions. Keith Nelson obviously has never learned this lesson.