What if both Clinton and Bush failed us? Aren't we to blame? Both Clinton and Bush would have gone after Osama if the political will of the people had demanded such. We all sat back and watch him bomb at least one American target a year for ten years without DEMANDING something be done about it. We as a people, right / left / & center did not raise up after the overseas attacks or even the 1st World Trade Center bombing and DEMAND something be done. Few of us would have agreed to the airport security that we have now prior to 11 Sep 01 (I don't like to call it 9-11 because of course that is part of Osama's joke: "here's your tragedy, call 911." If you don't realize he thinks that way, do some real homework.) We seemed to not care until it happened here and it happened big.
It is not enough to trust our government to watch out for us. Yes, that's what we pay them for, but like all of lhumans they prioritize and they prioritize according to the DEMANDS of the electorate. Peace.
2006-09-28 07:22:57 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
no one i know thinks Bush or Congress does the "will of the people", you have your facts wrong. No one in Congress does the will of the people. Are you aware that 65 percent of Americans do not support the war in Iraq. That is the will of the people. Congress does the will fo the Corporations that give them cash. That is fact.
2006-09-28 13:08:04 · answer #1 · answered by jl_jack09 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The first part of your question "the political will of the electorate" is confusing and complex in of itself. This is where a part of the problem may be coming from...let me explain: As a matter of democratic principle, I think the President of the United States ought to be whoever wins a plurality of the popular vote. In this day and age, I believe the usefulness of the Electoral College is worn out and is completely outdated. It started off making sense, but just doesn't work in 2006. Quite frankly, I want my vote to count and I want all citizens vote to count. In the Bush/Gore campaign, we saw once again, that popular vote (OUR REAL VOTES) do not always equal who our chosen President is. After 1976, the mere (and unrealized) possibility that Gerald Ford might have won re-election based solely on an Electoral College majority spooked the country into a serious national discussion about getting rid of the Electoral College. To no avail.
I do agree with your secondary points...as electors of electees, we should always maintain our sense of responsbility to monitor and communicate effectively with government.
2006-09-28 15:04:47 · answer #2 · answered by lovemcss 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
To tell the truth, Clinton failed us. Bush is doing the best job that he can.
When people don't vote they make the choice to let others decide.We are all at fault if we either do not vote or do not vote for the best person for the job.
Clinton did not go after Bin Laden. He said nobody knew what a danger he would be but he was warned by Oliver North of this danger and was told by several of his danger and he let him ride away and hide. Thus the attack on 9/11.
We either fight the enemy on their soil or we fight it on ours. Which do you wish it to be?
2006-09-28 07:33:31 · answer #3 · answered by rltouhe 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I don't think the President actually represents the political will of the electorate. However, if you mean that the people of this country are idiots and deserve the idiots they elect, I am not in total disagreement with that sentiment.
2006-09-28 07:26:53 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋