@Paul I agree that over time the definition has come to mean as you describe it rather than an actual proxy for their constitients. When the nation was young and being a representative or senator was a part time job rather than a way to keep one’s snout in the public trough, they were able to actually prsent the views of their constituents rather than the views of those to whom they are most beholden financially.

@Jaime Agreed, but the devil is one’s definition of the “right” thing. Hindsight is 20/20. I doubt issues like universal health care will be as easy to assess as “right” or “wrong” 40 years from now as is segregation, women’s franchise, etc.

The members of either party who vote aginst their party often lose the financial backing of the politcal machine that got them elected in the first place.

Okay, I find the treatment of women and girls as chattel appalling. NO doubt. However, we have only to look in our own ghettos to see that children who grow up with one or no parents turn into the next generation of violent combatants. Even the Taliban have kids. Since adulthood comes so early in some parts of the world, does anyone even know what “normal” life is over there, as several generations have come and gone in this current cycle. My Punjabi friends are not so optimistic about a “definitive” solution.

Sharon, I HEAR you. Hey, tell me that doesn’t even happen within the U.S.! I live in a small state. People have come for 2 centuries now, from other states and profit from our resources and this capital leaves with them. They don’t take the time to understand how we socialize, do business or just cope, but they are full of opinions about why our standard of living is lower than theirs. Few want to hear our homegrown ideas. It takes YEARS for us to truly trust someone from outside, because ultimately, everyone has had a hidden agenda. Even the well meanings one – if they fail, they can always just go home, but we are still here and we have to cope with the hand we were dealt. IF people don’t even understand that much, speaking the same language and having the same basic macro-history, what chance is there that they will understand that they must really climb out of their “western” mindset and think through the situation from the perspective of the inhabitants.

Let’s step back and ask ourselves how successful we have been in dealing with the drug trade from Central America through Mexico?? That’s on our own back door and we don’t have a successful solution. So we are fighting the war on several different fronts in Afghanistan. Without a solution to the opium trade, I cannot see a way to make progress. How likely is that??

I flew back from a European country last year and sat next to a high ranking officer from a non-U.S. unit serving in Afghanistan. I realize that he only told me what he could, but I don’t see how anyone can make a decision, given all the variables.

I want young girls to feel safe enough to go to school and have a life, but if their brother or cousin is out there with the extremists, and he gets killed, we have lost that girl and her family who will hate us even if they knew he was doing wrong. I am extremely conflicted about this issue and think the ultimate solution offered will please no faction here, which might be the sign it is the best we can come up with.

I want to hope that the reason this is taking so long is that Obama is going to play hard ball with Karzai with regard to the corruption. Most fruit has some bad spots, but when the apple is mostly rotten, there comes a point where you can’t salvage anything and have to throw it away.

Shouldn’t we all be “independent”? The fact that a party would try to move it’s ideology right or left to suit it’s goals in the next election makes me sick. It’s just a ploy by the party to regain power and then reward the folks who keep the cash flowing into the party (both sides are guilty). The people who’s names appear on our ballots each fall aren’t there because they are our best and brightest, they are there because they play the game and tow the “party” line. We could let the parties manipulate thier message from election to election and trick us into voting for the “party”. -OR- We could think for ourselves and vote for the people we believe will do the best job without regard for the party that is pulling thier strings. Whether you live in a bunker in the woods and wear a foil hat, or wear hemp shoes and ride a bike made out of recycled tofu containers, which party fits? That’s how people in the middle feel as well. So I say let them slide around and pander all they want, as Americans we should continnue to (or start) thinking for ourselves and leave the parties to fools who can’t. If you’re not independent then you must be dependent(?). Now that’s not very American.

Liberals tend to be more frightened of the world around them than conservatives and libertarians, and more willing to embrace the “Deus ex machina.”

@INTJ
I can’t believe I am defending them, but liberals seem to be more “global”. The risk takers I know sure aren’t the conservatives, who want things like they used to be. Maybe liberals travel more, or participate in more far reaching activities than conservatives, and think about those contacts wrt keeping healthy. Who knows? As for being frightened, you have only to watch Fox to see the foil hat brigade tremble at every little thing.

@Mr. Sanders
As a moderate, I rarely vote a straight ticket. However “independent” means different things in different parts of the country, and here, it would be just as much a “party” as the other parties.

It is very odd to frame opting for flu vaccination as motivated by “fear.” This is especially the case when one of the dominant memes for avoiding the vaccine is, actually, fear that vaccines have pernicious side-effects. It seems possible that people who are ideologically liberal are more likely to opt for vaccination, but that decision could be related to attitudes toward science and medicine, differing levels of access, education, wealth, or a number of other confounding factors.

Jeannette Rankin is a wonderful example of someone who voted her conscience. She cast the unpopular vote against war only four days into her term.

One factor that doesn’t seem to be in play in this discussion is the powerful financial incentives involved when lobbies provide the funds “needed” for campaigns. Politics is a growing sector of the economy–but it sadly seems to be one of those sectors that is not especially “productive.” Imagine how different the political landscape would be if political advertising were banned. It’s not as if substantive policy is conveyed in those 30 second mud-slinging spots.