This is something that has been bugging me for awhile, but I haven't really thought about how to express it until now. Before I start, please understand that I'm not trying to undermine support for ending the Iraq War, or any other popular initiatives. I very strongly believe we should leave Iraq, and also lean politically very liberal, so my intent with this diary is to analyze how "popular opinion" is used to support decisions and viewpoints, and whether this is right. If you're interested, follow me after the fold.
It seems that quite often on this site and others, people will say something more or less like this:
"All the Democrats should support legislation X because 70% of people agree with X when polled by the media."
So the question is, just because something is popular or has a majority of support in polls, does this mean that it's the "right" thing to do? Or, even if it's the "wrong" thing to do, does the fact that a majority of people support it still mean that it should be implemented?
Another way to look at this: Should House Reps and Senators vote what they believe, or vote what the opinion polls say?
If they're just supposed to follow opinion polls, then why even have a representative government to begin with? Everything should just be put to a direct vote to the public then, right?
I'm not saying opinions don't matter... clearly, they do and they determine how we'll vote and act. But "a majority of people support this" is not really an argument in itself. Our system is setup so that we vote only occasionally for people that can think and vote on stuff frequently. If we don't like the way they're thinking and voting, we're supposed to vote them out the next time around (and yes, this unfortunately doesn't happen as frequently as it, perhaps, should happen).
This isn't the only issue though, of course... Sometimes, popular opinion is "wrong", or another way to put it, requires education of the public to make "right". There are several instances throughout history where a majority of people agree on something, but that most of us would consider "wrong" now. To name a few, the Earth is Flat, Slavery, Civil Rights, interracial marriage, George W Bush at 90% approval post 9/11, re-electing George W Bush in 2004, originally invading Iraq (I think at 60-70%, but don't have the numbers in front of me), Gay Marriage... I'm sure countless others.
Personally, I'd rather have a representative that thoughtfully considers things (including what their constituents are saying) and votes what they personally believe. This doesn't excuse Bush or Lieberman types, who say one thing, do/vote another, and are consistently and demonstrably wrong. Our democracy is supposed to put a check on this and throw these bums out, but unfortunately doesn't always work.
However, we applaud Senators like Russ Feingold when he stands up for what he believes in, no matter what popular opinion says, so at the same time we shouldn't be promoting lockstep Democratic support solely because a majority of people agree on something. After all, we criticized the Republican Majority for just being a Bush "Rubber Stamp", and the Democrats shouldn't just be a "Rubber Stamp" either, even if it's for the "popular" things.