When people vote for president, they vote for a bundle of positions on thousands of issues. Every person who has voted for a president has voted against their own policy positions, often hundreds or thousands of their own policy positions. Some issues are never discussed in any debate or media at all and presidents have as far as the public is concerned roughly zero position on them (for example, NN).
It is of course ridiculous to suggest that people voted for Trump hoping he would destroy a free and open Internet; we have clear and incontrovertible evidence that the vast, vast majority of citizens (90%? 80%? I think it depends on which poll you take) hates what he is doing. The president has a good-faith responsibility to represent the citizens and when they come down on an issue like this which was non existent or tangential to his campaign so fervently it's most certainly a betrayal of that consent.
When he tries to build a wall? Sure, he definitely has consent there. On NN? Not a chance. He does have power though.
>When people vote for president, they vote for a bundle of positions on thousands of issues. Some issues are never discussed in any debate or media at all and presidents have as far as the public is concerned roughly zero position on them (for example, NN).
I don’t disagree with you on this at all, but again I think it boils down to ‘elections have consequences’. I don’t think that just because an issue was judged not as critical by voters (and therefore given relatively short shrift) means the interpretation is any less valid. That’s the function of the powerful executive branch made around the time of the new deal-ww2 era reforms, to manage complex federal issues. Just because I disagree with the decision and think most other Americans do as well doesn’t mean I think the president shouldn’t have the ability to make politically unpopular decisions.
Elections do have consequences, sure, but they are far from the end-all and be-all in determining what happens in government. Elected officials should be continuously responsive to their citizen's best interests, not only every 2-6 years at election time. And, likewise, we as citizens have the responsibility to deliver our input continuously, not just to pull the lever at the ballot box every 2-6 years. In addition to voting, I go to protests, I attend local government city council meetings, I contact my representatives on occasion when they're dealing with issues that I care strongly about, and I also file comments with the FCC every time net neutrality comes up.
Saying "elections have consequences" is not an excuse to ignore all non-ballot citizen input.
Politicians who govern by poll typically find they have accomplished nothing and yet managed to piss people off anyway.. there’s a line between ignoring voters and instituting needed reforms, and its easier for Pai to argue the latter when this is the policy platform republicans campaigned on. It’s tough for me to believe a party shouldn’t carry out the legislative agenda it campaigned on whenever the opposing party didn’t like it.
I think if people voted consistently in the midterms that would solve many problems, but alas that is relatively rare, much less the level of involvement you describe.
Sure, I agree. But I don't think it's fair to say he has the consent of the governed; rather that our system does not support that notion in any meaningful way. He is using his power against the will of the people explicitly.
The entire job of contemporary elected officials is to use their power against the interests of the people, in order to enact their sponsors' agendas. The booster speeches kowtowing to non-profitable public interests are nothing but wool being pulled over our eyes.
It is of course ridiculous to suggest that people voted for Trump hoping he would destroy a free and open Internet; we have clear and incontrovertible evidence that the vast, vast majority of citizens (90%? 80%? I think it depends on which poll you take) hates what he is doing. The president has a good-faith responsibility to represent the citizens and when they come down on an issue like this which was non existent or tangential to his campaign so fervently it's most certainly a betrayal of that consent.
When he tries to build a wall? Sure, he definitely has consent there. On NN? Not a chance. He does have power though.