The U.S. Senate is comprised of 51 Republicans, 47 Democrats, and two independents, in practice, a two-party system. These people represent constituencies from all 50 states, complicated by the fact that 14 states have elected their two senators from different parties, and further complicated by the slim margin of victory that many senators eked out.
It is not likely that any one senator represents the viewpoints of all the people of the home state. When a senator claims that “the people of my state elected me to (do this thing or that thing),” he or she is stretching the truth. Even all those who claim one political party do not agree on all the issues. One could argue that every senator should be answering to a unique set of voter-directives, representing a collective spectrum of opinions and stances on a variety of issues. Those directives are not always clear-cut, certainly.
We understand this dilemma, and we do put a lot of pressure on senators. But our hope is that they will use their best judgment in arriving at intelligent solutions to complex problems.
So why is it that when these people are asked important questions, such as on nightly newscasts or weekly round-table discussions, they invariably retreat from any sort of conscience-driven, reason-based response, and instead give us the predictable, polarized party line? How did we end up with two answers, when we should have one hundred?
Theodore Martine
Port Ludlow
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.