So how should our representatives vote on the Hospital issue? | Eastern North Carolina Now

     Publisher's Note: We do very much appreciate this fine article on the BRHS debacle from our friends at the Beaufort Observer. It is the opinion of this publisher that their continued, complete reporting and analysis of this controversial issue is unparalleled in scope.

    Imagine this situation: You are elected to represent your county in the legislature. Most of the people who live in your county are dependent on agriculture; specifically corn is the major crop. One day you are presented with a bill in the legislature that would impose a tax on imported corn. If you vote for the tax the price of corn will be higher and your constituents will be happy, making you a local hero. If you vote against the tax and it is defeated the price of corn will come down, making it better for those people who consume corn but do not grow it. So you are caught in a dilemma: Do what those who elected you want you to do or do what is best for the "greater good."

    Stan Deatherage, and to a lesser extent, Hood Richardson, have come under strong attacks by some of the supporters of University Health Systems taking over the Beaufort Hospital. The frequent contention, even of the Elite Local Media, is that "the public's wishes should be honored" and they assume the "public" is in accord with them on the Hospital issue.

    We don't believe that to be true. We believe most of the people in Beaufort County either don't care whose name is on the sign out front, or the deed to the property, as long as whoever is running the hospital provides quality health care without it costing the taxpayers more money (read: no bailouts). We find it very rare that anyone with whom we have talked has taken the time to read the various proposals, and most people with whom we have talked cannot accurately answer the question: "how did the Hospital get into such bad financial condition?" And we have yet to find a single person (other than a couple on the Hospital board) who can even come close to an accurate answer to what may be the most fundamental question involved in this issue: "who will own (and under what circumstances) the C.O.N.?" The point? It is a very complex issue that requires a very esoteric knowledge of complex legal details.

    Our point in all that? Simply to suggest as a basic premise for what follows that how the public really feels about the Hospital situation is not a simple monolithic body of thought. But also, to suggest that the best decision will be made by the people with the best information and knowledge.

    So when people say that Stan, or any elected official, should vote the way their constituents want them to vote, there are at least two obvious questions. The first is "which constituents?" Is it a special interest group (doctors, hospital employees etc.) or is it a more general group, such as "taxpayers"? That leads to the second and much more profound question: "what is best for the County?"

    When Stan is excoriated for saying that "these people (who were harassing him, according to the way he described it) didn't or don't vote for me so they're not going to get much consideration from me" or something to that effect, what is he really saying? We would suggest that it is this: "I'm not going to be bullied" by any particular special interest group. And in a representative democracy, a.k.a a "republic," that is exactly the way it is supposed to be.

    Many people mistakenly believe ours is a democracy. Not so. In a democracy it is "the people" who vote to decide issues. In a republic the people elect representatives to make most of the decisions for them. In a Constitutional Republic the representatives, whether appointed or elected, are bound by both the inalienable rights possessed by their constituents and the constraints of the constitution.

    Some who have lived in New England are familiar with the Town Meetings there where the voters of the town (much more closely aligned with Southern townships) come together to actually vote on major issues, ranging from whether to allow a Wal-Mart to come to town, to adopting the annual budget or tax levy. But most units of government in America are based on the republican concept of government of electing or even appointing representatives to make the decisions. Article IV, Section 4, Clause 1 of the U. S. Constitution guarantees to every state "a Republican Form of Government."

    So how should the members of the Hospital board and the County Commissioners vote on the Hospital issue? One side says "vote the way we (those most active and vocal) want you to vote" while the other says "vote the way your judgment tells you is best for the county."

    We subscribe to the latter idea. And history is on our side.

    Indeed, the issue is as old a representative government. In ancient Rome and in modern Communist China, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran (and indeed today in almost all Muslim "republics" based on Sharia Law) the representatives are expected to vote the way the ruler expects them to vote. History shows that eventually those governments devolve into tyranny.

    Even our premier exemplar believed representatives should vote the way their constituents want them to vote. But John Locke never solved the problem of "how do you know what your constituents want or even who they are?" Unless, of course, everyone agrees with everyone else and even then there is the problem of the "silent majority."

    The problem with Locke's idea can be readily seen in history. Had the question of slavery been decided by a "vote of the qualified electors" or how they wished their representatives to vote there were places that this evil would never have been abolished. And Alice Mills-Sadler is absolutely correct, even if some of the UHS supporters castigated her for pointing it out, we would no doubt still have segregated schools even today had student assignment been left to the "people's will." And, for what it's worth, there would still be two school systems in Beaufort County. And if you want to see what they (or at least one of them) would look like just click here.

    Locke's contemporary, Edmund Burke faced exactly the same dilemma that Stan faces. In a 1774 speech to those who elected him Burke said:

    ... it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest     correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to     have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his     duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to     prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened     conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not     derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for     the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his     judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

    And while we don't know if this will be any comfort to Stan, Burke was soundly defeated at the next election. But he died knowing he did what he thought was best for Britain.

    Stan has said repeatedly that he will vote for whatever he believes is in the best interest of Beaufort County on the Hospital issue. We hope he, and all the others, will always vote that way, even when we disagree with him and them.

    The difference between a representative who votes according to how he senses his/her constituents want him/her to vote and a representative who votes what their best judgment tells them is in the best interest of those they represent is the difference between a politician and a statesman. And we would submit we desperately need more statesmen and fewer politicians.
Go Back


Leave a Guest Comment

Your Name or Alias
Your Email Address ( your email address will not be published)
Enter Your Comment ( no code or urls allowed, text only please )




Death Panels are Here Beaufort Observer, Editorials We wish to commend the WDN on the milestone they have finally achieved

HbAD0

 
Back to Top