Why "holding their feet to the fire" is such a stupid concept.

[cornermouse]

It assumes that the politician/politicians in question are either

(a) too stupid to know what the people need or recognize the right thing to do
(b) too morally deficient to choose to do the right thing on their own.

Take your pick. Either way, it results in failure 99% of the time.

[PassingFair]

1. So....we should just sit there and do nothing?

No way...I'm for a little foot burning!

[stray cat]

4. Hopefully something alot more productive than posting on DU

that accomplishes little politically and costs nothing of sacrifice

[Autumn]

2. My opinion is that trusting any

politician to do the right thing is a stupid concept. I almost always agree with your posts, but on this one I have to disagree.

[panader0]

3. What if they have asbestos shoes?

[damntexdem]

5. Well, a high proportion of politicians DO fit your two assumptions.

So I don't get your point unless you're also suggesting that they are too insensitive to recognize that their feet are being held to the fire or stupid to realize that they should do something about it.

[cornermouse]

13. I think "holding their feet to the fire"

is a waste of time. We need new tactics. What that would be, I don't know. But treating politicians like they need guidance comes uncomfortably close to treating adults like you think they're children and is more likely to annoy than succeed

[lapfog_1]

6. Of course, two points

the more people that "hold their feet to the fire", the more fire there is, and the more willing the politician is to do what they morally know to be right, despite their next campaign financial situation.

And the percent is more like 90 - 10, not 99.

And it's that 10 percent that we fight for.

But, if we do nothing, than that 99 percent is more accurate.

[gratuitous]

7. Unless it works, of course

Because sometimes there is pressure from more than one side, and often the safest, most politic course is to sit tight and do nothing. But a program of calls, appearances, letters, and other contacts can persuade a politician that the safest course is to do something rather than nothing. Also, the appearance of public pressure can make a politician's taking action (say, working to shut down a plant that's poisoning the local drinking water while it employs 50 people) be a more palatable thing to the opponents (the business owner, who's also a political player, and his employees) of the action: "I had no choice. I had to do something in the face of public opinion."

Politicians don't work in a vacuum. Practically every choice, decision, policy proposal or change makes winners and losers, and if the losers aren't accustomed to losing, they can make a pretty big stink about it.

[spoony]

8. Versus failure 100% of the time

when you do nothing. "Take your pick."

[Orsino]

10. +1

Making a fuss is the only way we get anything more than nothing done.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Politicians react to votes. They are interested in getting or retaining power.

The only way to get them to "do what's right" is threaten to or not vote for them.

That's why I, for one, vote for/against issues not for politicians.

[cornermouse]

11. I do too.

But. You know that little form where they ask if you live in their district?...

[alarimer]

12. If we don't, politicians will only listen to their big corporate donors.

Money talks.

Politicians ARE morally deficient, almost by definition. They are sleazy scumbags who make promises that they never intend to keep. They do the politically expedient thing to do and almost never the right thing.

Unless, of course, we make it clear they will lose unless they do what their constituents want.

[cornermouse]

14. But that, in turn, limits the power we have to

affect them because unless you live in their district, they're just going to throw your email/letter/phone call away.