Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC
I do not want my politicians to be overly cautious.
|
Fear of litigation does not impose positive social forces upon politicians. Far more important and effective is peer pressure. Peer pressure in the Senate is more restrictive which is why Senators are traditionally more civil as compared to the House. But this system breaks down, becomes contentious, is undermined, when political agendas will subvert what makes a Congressional body work.
The more extremist that body becomes, then less civil and less productive that body becomes. What happens when a politician is more moderate; works more for America rather than for their party? We all saw Arlene Spectre lead a charge against the president (his own party) to subvert American protections of privacy and civil rights. Why? Arlene Spectre demonstrated why a political body needs more moderates and fewer extremists. When extremists use insults, phony accusations, and a political agenda to subvert that body, the majority - the moderates from both parties - will apply peer pressure to protect that body and its function (to serve the nation). After all, the difference between an extremist and a moderate: an extremist works for a self serving political agenda. A moderate works first and foremost for the nation. Why was Nixon served up for impeachment? Because Congress back then contained many more moderates. Because those moderates from both parties saw a man trying to pervert this nation's government for his own self serving agenda.
Peer pressure makes a political body work productively and makes litigation (most often) unnecessary. Does your politican work for the party or work for America. He cannot do both. When it comes to peer pressure, will he do what is best for the nation or do what is in the interest of his party? A question that better defines an extremists verses a moderate. A question says, in summary, whether peer pressure works within that body so that the body can argue the issues; not conduct personal attacks.