The Conscience of a Senator

Image credit.

I like the below thoughts of Nebraska State Senator Laura Ebke, whose words I reproduce without having had any contact with her about the issue or my intention to publish the excerpt. The Senator responds to a person who asks her to vote according to the will of the people rather than follow her conscience.

As for the death penalty, I appreciate the sense that elected officials are not supposed to follow their own conscience, but rather the will of the people. Unfortunately, that sentiment fails to take into consideration two things:1. the difficulty of determining WHAT the will of citizens is, and ; 2. the fact that the American system of government is based on elected representatives not necessarily being direct delegates of their constituents, with specific assignments of votes for every issue, but rather being a "trustee", if you will--elected to make the best choice they can, with the information they have available.

In the case of District 32, I received a total of 112 calls and emails from unique citizens IN THE DISTRICT, on the death penalty. 56 of those contacts were FOR repeal, 56 were AGAINST repeal. How should one interpret the "will of the people" then?

It's not possible to do a scientifically dependable poll on every issue out there. Legislators try to get a sense of what their constituents want, but ultimately, have to cast the best vote they can--which yes, includes considering their own conscience sometimes. I was honest about my concern with the death penalty and my willingness to see it overturned in a survey that I was asked during the elected. Other than that survey, I had no one ask me about the issue.

Finally, I wonder if people really mean it when they say that they don't want senators to follow their own consciences and only "listen to the people." If a poll showed that a majority of the people in Nebraska wanted legalized abortion, for any reason whatsoever, up to the 30th week of pregnancy, should we listen to our conscience, or to the majority? If legislation was introduced which required the euthanasia of those diagnosed with Alzheimer's, and a majority of those who contacted us was for it, because it would save money on health care expenses, and protect family assets, should we vote in favor of that, or follow our conscience? Would voters prefer that their representatives had no personal convictions or conscience? I suspect not.

The source.

See also Voices Like That of Senator Ebke,and Living Law -DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals).

Comments

[Ed Stevens]

Straw men arguments?? Really?? And silly straw men to boot.

What are the odds "that a majority of the people in Nebraska wanted legalized abortion, for any reason whatsoever, up to the 30th week of pregnancy" or that they would support legislation "which required the euthanasia of those diagnosed with Alzheimer's"? Somewhere between vanishingly small and non-existent ... C'mon, Laura - you're better than that. If you have a position, then present/support it honestly (which you were doing - right up to the goofy abortion & euthanasia statements) - not by resorting to tawdry logical gyrations.

I don't have much concern either way in the death penalty brouhaha, but I sure expect better than cheap pol-speak from the folks who represent the citizenry.

[Georg Thomas]

Dear Ed, aren't you a bit uncharitable?

To me, Laura isn't over-egging the pudding.

My ears don't hear "cheap pol-speak."

She is making a point of principle, which weighs more heavily in my judgement than your stricture which addresses a lower level of concern: presentation and style.

But that's just a view in a spectrum of views some of which may be closer to your objection.

Be this as it may, I'm glad you're showing up again here at RSE, where your input used to strike me as an enrichment that I've missed in the past months.

[Ed Stevens]

Georg:

No intent to be mean to Laura ... as I hope you know, I am a fan. Perhaps my sin is one of expecting too much. I have the sense that Laura spent much of her first session getting the lay of the land, and that is commendable, as long as it does not presage a debilitating timidity.

I have a great respect for principle (a quality in which the senator abounds), and maybe that is why I was disappointed when she resorted to what I saw as an old debating ruse of setting up faux situations and then knocking them down in an attempt to bolster one's point of view. I believe that Laura genuinely disapproves of the DP, both for reasons of conscience as well as trying to fairly represent her constituency. All I'm saying is I wish she would have simply let it go at that.

Also, let me state that I have never left RSE - I read virtually every post, but I don't comment much. My writing has taken a back seat to several other activities over the past several months - such is the nature of ... ahem ... geezerdom - but please know that I am here, reading and enjoying.

[Georg Thomas]

Ed: I am overjoyed to learn that you keep following RSE.

You are absolutely right to set a high standard for a person of Laura's integrity and capabilities.

If I happen to attach more value to other aspects than you do, concerning any particular issue on which Laura is making a pronouncement, that does not at all mean that what you express interest in in your commentary is not equally admissible to the debate or is not of a nature that makes us think and possibly draw a lesson from.

I have always found it worth my while to pause to ponder when I come across your writing, either here or in A View from the Middle Border.

Quite naturally, you, I, and other folks will challenge Laura from different perspectives and with different priorities; indeed, it makes me admire and support Laura to think that she keeps exposing herself to such challenges, especially since they are certainly not always made in a suitably qualified, friendly, and constructive spirit as your and my comments, I think, are.

Good to know, you're around, Ed. I wish you fun and success with your ongoing projects and happy gestation with the dormant ones.