Finding our way back to who we really are

While struggling to find a topic for my inaugural column of 2017, providence smiled upon me, and I was able to overhear a contrast in visions, given by two national leaders, about who we are as a nation. What came to mind was how have we strayed so far from our original intent, are we able to find a path back, and what is the purpose, and efficacy, of elected representation. These are not small questions that can be resolved in a short weekly column, if at all. However, given that it is beginning of Idaho’s legislative session, it is a worthy topic to discuss.

The statements of President Donald Trump, and Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., during the president’s inaugural ceremony, display a stark difference in approach towards what it means to be a representative of a body of people. One vision is that of discord, separation, and ultimately an egalitarian perspective that sanctions someone with authority to select who is worthy of special rights, against those deemed “not worthy” at the moment. The other conception is more closely related to the objective of the representation codified in our Constitution and spoken of in the Declaration of Independence. It is representation that seeks the good of all people equally, regardless of their identifiable traits. It is representation that upholds immutable, first principles, and allows for differences that do not infringe upon others.

The following is from the Stanford Philosophy Encyclo-pedia:

Histor-ically, the theoretical literature on political representation has focused on whether representatives should act as delegates or as trustees. Represen-tatives who are delegates simply follow the expressed preferences of their constituents. James Madison (1787-8) is one of the leading historical figures who articulated a delegate conception of representation.

Trustees are representatives who follow their own understanding of the best action to pursue. Edmund Burke (1790) is famous for arguing that:

“Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests, which interest each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but Parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole … You choose a member, indeed; but when you have chosen him he is not a member of Bristol, but he is a member of Parliament (115).”

The libertarian perspective is that no one is truly represented because it is impossible to accurately uphold the needs and desires of every person at the same time. I disagree with this because that has never been the objective of representational government, but we can use it as an example of why limited government is important. The objective of our government is to protect the rights of the individual, while using the lightest touch possible to provide for needs that are common to all people, as enumerated in our Constitution. The objective is not to expand into protecting special classes as was mentioned above.

I would put forth that proper representation is a combination of delegate and trustee. Our representatives are elected to bring to the legislature the particular viewpoint that we share in this district. It is distinctly different from that of other representatives elected to do the very same thing for their district. At the same time, we are members of a political body, making decisions that will affect the entire constituency of our State, but we are originally, and should remain, concerned with the cares of our district. Above all this is the responsibility to follow the fixed point of reference that are our state and federal constitutions. I look forward to continuing this line of thought in future columns, and am grateful for the opportunity to represent District 1 in our Idaho House of Representatives. It is a responsibility that I take seriously, and strive to do with the best of my ability.

Sage Dixon represents District 1B in the Idaho House of Representatives.