Republican Wants to Bring Back America's Favorite Past: Slavery!

[evildevil]

Republican Will Reluctantly Vote to Bring Back Slavery If that is What the Public Wants.

Nev. Assemblyman Jim Wheeler responds to firestorm over slavery commentA Nevada assemblyman has faced tough scrutiny after he said in a YouTube video posted this week that he would vote in favor of slavery if it was in line with his constituents’ wishes

Comments

[maikamariel]

"...he used an extreme example only to show how much he supports those who elected him"

"If my constituents wanted to do something as outlandish as bring back an abhorrent system, then I simply couldn’t represent them anymore."

1. SO WHICH IS IT?
2. out of all the outlandish examples you've used [e.g. going against his crazy-ass party and supporting universal healthcare/women's rights/human decency, etc], you chose THAT??

[gambitia]

This was my reaction too.

I can respect a Congressman who will go against his own beliefs or self-interest in order to fairly represent his constituents...in some cases. Slavery: not one of those cases!

Even if 90% of your constituents want to bring slavery back, the correct answer is "No, sorry, we tried that and it was an atrocity. We shan't be doing it again. I think we need to have a loooooooong talk about history and human rights." Not "Welp, constituents made me do it!"

[skellington1]

I think it's usually an interesting question up for debate -- do you serve your constituents best by doing what the majority of them want, or do you serve them best for following your ethics/conclusions/integrity? I tend to lean towards the latter -- after all, if the constituents really don't like your way, they can elect someone else, and it is representative, not strict, democracy -- we're voting in a person, not a mouthpiece.

But even if you philosophically prefer the former option -- that it's your duty to directly represent the majority opinion of your constituency -- there should surely be some lines you as a person won't cross! Slavery is one of those big, bold moral lines. If your constituency really wants that, WHY ARE YOU REPRESENTING THEM?

[muted_hitokiri]

TBH I'm of the opinion that nobody does anyone any good by going against their personal beliefs/integrity. If it really comes to that, you need to back away or find a way around it (like the Catholic Belgian king who couldn't reconcile his personal beliefs to signing in a law permitting abortion, but recognised that it was overwhelmingly what the people wanted/needed, so he abdicated for a day while it was passed).

[amyura]

Well, that and a king isn't an elected official.

[moonshaz]

If your constituency really wants that, WHY ARE YOU REPRESENTING THEM?

And for that matter, why do you even WANT to represent them? Because, seriously.

[rosaxx50]

MTE.

[tcpip]

What you said.

Quite a problem in majoritarian versions of democracy. Either one represents the majority view, as offensive as it may be, or one draws a line as says "Actually, there are some things which are beyond the vagaries of majority opinion. They're called rights."

[hey_spectrum]

He thinks he's slick but its obvious he is pro-slavery and just wants to use his constituents as an excuse. Republicans take no accountability for their unpopular opinions, which is really ironic because mantra about pulling yourself up by the bootstraps is all about accountability and taking responsibility for yourself.