Reply #41: I'm always intrigued by the claim that Congress doesn't represent the will of the majority

[onenote]

I have no doubt that COngress as a whole, and most members of Congress individually, don't represent the "will" of a majority of DU. But here's the rub. I think (indeed, I know) that I am more liberal than most, but not all, of the people with whom I work and associate socially. It is not a surprise to me that the percentage of people who describe themselves as "liberal" consistently is smaller than the percentage that desribes themselves as "conservative" and the percentage that describe themselves as "moderate" is greater than either of the other groups. Now, I think the moderate group tends to agree with my views more often than it would agree with the conservatives, but that there are clearly instances where my views are more liberal. And there are clearly people who are even more liberal/progressive/radical than me.

So when it comes down to it, I accept the notion that my vision and wishes aren't going to be reflected by my elected officials a lot of the time. For example, I proudly supported Jim Webb for Senate in my home state of Virginia. Am I more liberal than Jim Webb? Undoubtedly. Am I more liberal than most voters in the state of Virginia? Also undoubtedly. But holding my breath until I turn blue isn't going to change that nor is refusing to vote for the candidate whose views are closer to mine even if that candidates views diverge from mine on a number of issues.

During the Vietnam War, the right talked constantly about a "silent majority" that supported the war in the face of large scale public opposition. I find it ironic that some on the left insist on claiming that there is really a "silent majority" that agrees with them. The majority that matters is the one that stands up and is heard. If there is a big silent majority of progressive voices out there, I have to wonder why Dennis Kucinich is as far down in the polls as he is.