Merli Column: Some in office are thoughtful

One of the most enduring of all verbal sports is trying to interpret exactly what the Founding Fathers meant (or didn’t mean) when it came to setting down their usually eloquent ground rules for a new
nation.

Convinced that several of them possessed a weird sense of humor of one kind or another, I suspect they chose to very loosely interpret a lot of potentially sticky issues on purpose — perhaps assuming
since they were willing to get a new nation up and running, it was up to us future generations to sort out everything else that arises.

Still, it’s not as though in all their collective wisdom the Founding Fathers didn’t also shirk a great many momentous issues, perhaps merely for the sake of keeping the peace at home (here in Virginia
and elsewhere across the pond from Britain), and because they were confronted with more than their share of threatening events themselves — namely the aptly named Revolutionary War.

Other searing societal issues (i.e., slavery, segregation, women’s rights) were all left to the rest of us — largely because most of the Founding Fathers owned slaves, practiced segregation (apparently
without the burden of social guilt), and had little problem keeping women “in their place” by giving them virtually no rights at all. But on several philosophical issues, some major questions remain largely
unanswered, I think for the wiser.

I’m trying to picture what Jefferson, Washington and Franklin (among others of their ilk) might think if they were to somehow return here in the summer of 2009 to witness some of those town hall
meetings on health care.

I’m thinking that watching longtime federal lawmakers such as Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich. — who has been re-elected to his office for more than 50 years — getting unexpectedly shoved into the hot seat
(despite some unforgivably loutish behavior, some bordering on hysterical, of a few “participants”) probably would have struck the Founding Fathers with a wide range of emotions both good and bad. The
enduring “town hall” concept they’d love, of course; the execution of that concept they may find a bit worrisome.

Yet specific issues aside, one question that has lingered since 1776 (at least in our case) is this: Exactly how should an elected official truly represent his or her constituents? Do they routinely attempt
to represent the “majority” of their constituents — or rather, do they decide what they themselves deem to be in the best interests of their electorate, regardless of what the majority thinks? (Most
politicians these days work both sides of the street on this, depending on what approach works best for their needs at any given time.)

It’s hardly a hypothetical question because both answers are readily used (often by the same observers) to make a point. In letters to the editor (both on this page largely reflecting Prince William
attitudes, and elsewhere) it’s not unusual for a resident to take a Gerry Connolly, Corey Stewart, Jim Webb or Barack Obama to task for “not reflecting the will” of his respective constituents. (This
argument popped up many times during the ongoing health care debate after some lawmakers said they were more determined than ever to “dig in their heels” on health care reform, despite the vocal
opposition.)

Yet regardless of the issue, is it not both dangerous and off-point to suggest that somehow elected officials are primarily in office to do the bidding of their constituent majority? One shudders to think what
would not have happened if elected officials (both here in the Commonwealth and elsewhere) hadn’t used the good common sense that God gave them to effectively deal with civil rights, the protection of
minorities, tax issues, basic freedoms, and other often-controversial activities.

Elected officials shouldn’t be expected to use fluctuating opinion polls and other devices that may purport to indicate “majority opinion” — no matter what the source — as a sacred and sole factor for their
actions. That’s both lazy and indicates a kind of cowardice. Reflecting everyone’s views all the time is a human impossibility, so we had better just trust whomever we elect — to whatever office — to do
what’s in our general best interest. And thanks again to the Founding Fathers, if that doesn’t work out, there’s always another election not too far off.

John Merli lives in Prince William County and has worked in print and electronic media for more than 40 years. He has been a News & Messenger columnist since 1985. He can be reached at:
j.merli@Comcast.net.