Before spouting off how much I agree with the views set forth in “Utilitarianism skews economic thought” (Wednesday, Jan. 23), I hope you’ll indulge me a little trip back in time to middle school social studies.
What method of government does America use? In essence we are a democracy, but more specifically we are a democratic republic. So what do these two words mean?
First, “democracy”: in Kennedy’s words, “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Democracy indicates that the voice of every citizen has equal weight in the influence of policy decisions.
Secondly, “republic”: a system in which the population elects representatives to act as their voice and influence in running the government. It is most often with this concept that we find the greatest conundrum.
Which concern, after all, deserves more consideration: acting in accordance with the peoples’ wishes, or acting in accordance with what is best for the people? The two do not always coincide (Anyone ever heard of King Midas?), and any population represented by one person is bound to have factions within, and sub-factions in the factions, and so on.
In short, there is no way a single person can accurately present a unified voice with clear needs and desires when called to assembly, even when that person is acting with purely ethical motives and intentions (a concept that seems beyond the reach of our current Congress).
So yes, Ms. Kuykendall, there is absolutely no way that economists and politicians can agree on or even predict the social utility and cost of any policy decision. The scale of opinion is just too broad.
But say the people of America were to rely less on the national government, or even on the state government. Suppose we turned to the basic of basics, the county and municipal governments; what then?
Suddenly representation and democracy become much more plausible and practicable. When millions and billions turn into mere hundreds and thousands, the sense of being able to act becomes much stronger; government becomes more manageable.
Sure, there will still be division; any place where large groups of people live, there’s bound to be differences of opinion. But negotiating terms and reaching compromise on difficult, tricky or contentious issues becomes an attainable goal rather than an unending cycle of filibusters, vetoes and backstabbing.
So as the primaries for the presidential and congressional elections roll around, go ahead and put as much careful thought into your choices as possible. America needs a good president voted in by people who know he or she can get the job done.
But don’t forget that these people can never be familiar with your personal and local circumstances, no matter how many polls and surveys they ask you to answer. Your situation can be more easily communicable with the mayor next door, the councilor in your backyard or the county court judge down the street.
— Margaret Cross is a sophomore in English and German. She can be reached at mcross9@volmail.utk.edu.