It
happens every four years, like clockwork. It is arguably the most
predictable thing that will ever come out of the mouths of newly
elected, or freshly re-elected politicians of both parties regardless of
whether their victory was a margin so slim that less than a dozen
voters made the difference, or if it was a stunning landslide. Even the
second term of Bill Clinton heard echoes of it, and he won by a mere
plurality.
The dictionary definition of the word mandate is "a command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue given by the electorate to its representative".
All politicians claim that the voters have given them a mandate to govern. But do they really?
If a clear majority of citizens understood clearly what Barack Obama planned to do in his second term, and supported that plan, and then voted for Obama, he might reasonably claim to have a mandate from the electorate. They would have given him that "command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue" that he claims to possess.
However two things argue persuasively that Obama was denied the possibility of having a mandate that he so desperately wants in order to justify his every action for the next four years. And he was denied that mandate by his own actions.
The first thing is that he never provided the electorate with a detailed plan for his second term. The voters could therefore not possibly "command [him]...to act in a particular way on a public issue". No public issues were defined so clearly in terms of intent, cost and expected outcome that the electorate could possibly make a rational choice to instruct the new president to carry that "public issue" to conclusion.
The dictionary definition of the word mandate is "a command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue given by the electorate to its representative".
All politicians claim that the voters have given them a mandate to govern. But do they really?
If a clear majority of citizens understood clearly what Barack Obama planned to do in his second term, and supported that plan, and then voted for Obama, he might reasonably claim to have a mandate from the electorate. They would have given him that "command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue" that he claims to possess.
However two things argue persuasively that Obama was denied the possibility of having a mandate that he so desperately wants in order to justify his every action for the next four years. And he was denied that mandate by his own actions.
The first thing is that he never provided the electorate with a detailed plan for his second term. The voters could therefore not possibly "command [him]...to act in a particular way on a public issue". No public issues were defined so clearly in terms of intent, cost and expected outcome that the electorate could possibly make a rational choice to instruct the new president to carry that "public issue" to conclusion.
No comments:
Post a Comment