From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: What does Perot/Stockdale stand for?
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 14:34:40 GMT

In article <Bw44Fq.IKv@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <Bw3FoC.67t@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com> dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
>>Perot, while striving to avoid attacks on individual's character, 
>>has emphasized the notion that people who hold office in this 
>>country should consider themselves SERVANTS of the people -- 
>>I consider possession or lack thereof of this attitude to be 
>>the most important "character" issue when measuring candidates.
>
>  But what does it MEAN?   In the current issue of Business Week

It means, quite simply, that you consider the desires of the
people who elected you when making decisions, not how you may
personally gain from it.  Reaching decisions based on how much
money it will make you when you leave government is NOT public 
service; yet this is an all-too-typical trait of those who 
"represent" us.

>  they published a nationwide poll showing rejection for 3 of 4 
>  major Perot deficit-cutting proposals.   If the poll is accurate
>  should a good servant like Perot then just accept the bidding of
>  his masters and forget about these ideas?  

*IF* the poll is accurate, and represents the will of his
constituents, yes he should.  Of course, there would be those 
who would attack him for altering his position, accuse him of 
waffling, of being a quitter, etc.

The above response is predicated on the premise that he wins
the Presidency.  The popular vote will be enough of a measure
of opinion on his plans/personality until then.

There will also likely be objections that this represents
"mob rule".  Is it better to be ruled by a mob, or by a 
single parasite looking out only for himself?

>  Indeed, to be a good servant you have to know what your master
>  demands.  How does Perot suggest doing this, especially with
>  different polls producing different results or changing over
>  time?   Also how is being a servant consistent with having 
>  opinions of one's own?    Whom do you obey, your own conscience
>  or the dictates of your master?

As far as shifting public opinion, the best solution seems to me
to be implementing plans of sufficient duration.  Were some form
of government intervention proposed (say, a tax cut to boost
consumer spending), the proposal would contain a time limit (e.g.
two years) after which the effects would be reviewed.  

When one is placed in the public trust, his opinion should be
irrelevent to the ultimate decision (a tall order here).  If
he has moral or other conscientious (sp?) objections -- as a 
public figure there is every opportunity to make them known -- 
and if the constituents can be persuaded, well and good.  If 
not, then the obligation is to follow the will of the 
constituents.  Should this become too much of a moral problem, 
no one is forced to serve again.

The above assumes that one cares enough about the people to 
actually talk to them, rather than having a staff to sift out any 
one/group who did not contribute >$xxxx to the re-election 
campaign.  "Talking to the people" is a bit more difficult
at the Presidential level since the constituency is so large, 
but Senators and particularly Representatives should consider 
it a sacred obligation.

>  The whole concept of being a "public servant" is fraught with
>  contradictions like these.

I'm not sure I'd call them contradictions.  Dilemmas perhaps? 

I never claimed it would be easy; that is why possession of a 
"servant of the people" ATTITUDE (the word I used in my 
original statement) is so important.  

Perhaps most difficult of all, Peter, is actually determining 
who really does and does not have this attitude.  (Suggestions 
welcome, netters-at-large).

For right now, I'll just have to trust those who most 
consistently speak of being a public servant; and in the 
future work to reelect those who honor that trust, 
and to frustrate those who betray it.

Dave