Politicians should vote according to their beliefs, without worrying about whether their constituents agree with those beliefs.

Politicians should vote according to their beliefs, without worrying about whether their constituents agree with those beliefs. 12:45-1:15

In a democratic country, a politician is voted and put in office to be the voice for the people. Politicians have a very important role in fulfilling their responsibilities for the voters who put them in office but must also have balance with their personal beliefs. Often times, the politician is put in uncomfortable and often perplexing situations where they must come up with a position that will please their constituents. However other times personal beliefs interfere with the governance by the politician, but under certain circumstances personal beliefs should be set aside to benefit the constituency.

First consider situations in which, a politician should not vote according to beliefs and in the interests of the people. For example, the current President Barack Obama was elected into office at a very turbulent time when the economic situation was unstable and the country was waging multiple wars overseas. Obama was faced with opposition the day he stepped into office. He was opposed by many on his approach to alleviate the economic crisis, increase jobs and spending, end war on terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan, and health care reform. Obama, issued multiple  bailout plans sequentially to major banks and lending institutions in hopes to ease the severity of the recession. He increased the quota for Medicaid and food stamp assistance to help those in need. He did this to help his fellow citizens to get up on their feet by giving a boost to look for jobs in the meantime. However, despite widespread opposition he  was committed to his own beliefs and did what he thought was necessary to handle the situation. In times of peace, leadership such as Obama’s is necessary because a leader needs to be firm in decision making regardless if it is not in par with voters. If Obama was not firm and had fluctuating values and ideas then he would be considered a capricious and ineffective leader thus receive widespread disapproval. As a result, politicians should vote in accordance to beliefs when the country is in peace because everyone has differing viewpoints and the politician must be firm on one idea and stick with their beliefs.

On the other hand, there are situations when the politician should seriously consider the viewpoints of their constituents and not with their personal beliefs. This needs to be done when the nation is in turmoil. It is the duty of those in higher ranking positions of government to satisfy the demands of the people even it means sacrificing personal beliefs. For example, former President George W. Bush was in office for two terms and very rarely did he comply with the interests of the common citizen. A notable instance is the way Bush handled the repercussions of the post 9-11 era by declaring war on terrorism  on two battle grounds, Iraq and Afghanistan. Many constituents disagreed with President Bush that war was not the answer to fighting terrorism. Many citizens believed it would amplify the damage socially and economically, but despite this Bush was adamant and stuck to his own game plan. He declared war on Iraq and Afghanistan in hopes to find weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons. As years progressed, the war ended but troops were still stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a result, even after so much protests from citizens Bush’s adamancy and compliance to personal belief resulted in widespread disapproval and a severe economic recession.

All in all, it is circumstantial when a politician should stick to their beliefs. It is acceptable for a politician to stick their beliefs when the country is thriving. On the other hand, when a country is in political turmoil, then it is wise for the politician to take action that will satisfy the interests of the of the people.