3 ms·

Justin Amash is the only principled person in Congress. The only Republican in the House to vote for both articles of impeachment against Donald Trump. Of cour

by avalys 6y ago

Justin Amash is the only principled person in Congress. The only Republican in the House to vote for both articles of impeachment against Donald Trump. Of course - this is his last term, he did not run for reelection. I hope he does something meaningful next.

kifhuwzrsa 6y ago
Funny, because I would list that as one of the few unprincipled decisions he has made.
ekianjo 6y ago
He's not a Republican anymore since 2019 - he ran as Independent and then for the Libertarian party.
mhh__ 6y ago
What HN downvotes never ceases to amuse me.
- xpe 6y ago
  Hello, we'd appreciate if you took a look at the HN Guidelines if you have not recently. There is a link in the footer to https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
mmcconnell1618 6y ago
It's amazing how reasonable some of these politicians get as soon as they no longer need to run for another term in office. I've often believed it was because they needed to keep a part of their constituents happy to get votes for another terms but I actually think fundraising and the lobbyists that control money are the root cause. HBO has a fairly recent documentary that explores this: https://www.hbo.com/documentaries/the-swamp https://www.hbo.com/documentaries/the-swamp
- eredengrin 6y ago
  Except Amash has been principled throughout his entire term, not just this last cycle after deciding not to run again. Of course, it's hard to look at every vote/comment he has made over the years since that's too much, but just as one example, he has been consistently very vocal with his criticism of house leaders from both parties that don't allow for the proper legislative process.
  - Dirlewanger 6y ago
    If he's so principled, why didn't he propose this bill during a time where he could actually see it walked through the different committees and maybe have a chance at getting to the Senate?
    - eredengrin 6y ago
      I don't know, there's a lot of possibilities. I doubt it's just because he's been sitting around doing nothing this whole time (but if you think so feel free to say why you think that). It seems more likely to me he was busy with other stuff, eg like his bill earlier this year to end qualified immunity. At the end of the day it's all about prioritizing, and those decisions can become pretty complex I imagine. You could always try asking him yourself, he seems pretty responsive to people on twitter, and here [1] he answered a somewhat related question. [1] https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1339970633422221312 https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1339970633422221312
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  "fundraising and the lobbyists that control money are the root cause" It's not just that. After they've left political office, politicians who've advanced the interests of some companies while they were in office often get extremely well paying jobs at those very companies. High level corporate executives will also regularly go in to politics (Trump being Exhibit A, but there are plenty of others at lower levels). This revolving door of corporation to political office and back is an open secret in government. Yet the impression among the general population is that corporations and the government are clearly separate entities. They're not.
xpe 6y ago
> Justin Amash is the only principled person in Congress. I get the sentiment, believe me. But "being principled" is a matter of degree and perspective. Clearly, there is a gap between what a particular individual wants of their elected representatives ("reps") versus what they get. Why? Sure, there are charitable explanations. First, reps have to balance competing interests. Second, some reps may make 'principled' compromises in order to prioritize certain values over others. There are less charitable explanations, too. First, many reps seek power as an ends unto itself, but doing so pulls them into a system where 'principled' decisions (e.g. ones directly for the benefit of voters) become harder. Second, some reps have questionable ethics and are willing to take money at the expense of their proper responsibilities. And so on. All of interpretations are true, to some degree. If people in a (more or less) democratic system want to change it from within, it is not effective to simply hope for reps to behave more ethically. We have to: (1) adjust the rules; (2) change our expectations; and (3) get involved: run for office, volunteer for campaigns, give money and resources, and vote. (Tell me if I've left anything out!)

by avalys 6y ago

kifhuwzrsa 6y ago

Funny, because I would list that as one of the few unprincipled decisions he has made.

ekianjo 6y ago

He's not a Republican anymore since 2019 - he ran as Independent and then for the Libertarian party.

mhh__ 6y ago

What HN downvotes never ceases to amuse me.

xpe 6y ago
Hello, we'd appreciate if you took a look at the HN Guidelines if you have not recently. There is a link in the footer to https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

mmcconnell1618 6y ago

It's amazing how reasonable some of these politicians get as soon as they no longer need to run for another term in office. I've often believed it was because they needed to keep a part of their constituents happy to get votes for another terms but I actually think fundraising and the lobbyists that control money are the root cause. HBO has a fairly recent documentary that explores this: https://www.hbo.com/documentaries/the-swamp https://www.hbo.com/documentaries/the-swamp

eredengrin 6y ago
Except Amash has been principled throughout his entire term, not just this last cycle after deciding not to run again. Of course, it's hard to look at every vote/comment he has made over the years since that's too much, but just as one example, he has been consistently very vocal with his criticism of house leaders from both parties that don't allow for the proper legislative process.
- Dirlewanger 6y ago
  If he's so principled, why didn't he propose this bill during a time where he could actually see it walked through the different committees and maybe have a chance at getting to the Senate?
  - eredengrin 6y ago
    I don't know, there's a lot of possibilities. I doubt it's just because he's been sitting around doing nothing this whole time (but if you think so feel free to say why you think that). It seems more likely to me he was busy with other stuff, eg like his bill earlier this year to end qualified immunity. At the end of the day it's all about prioritizing, and those decisions can become pretty complex I imagine. You could always try asking him yourself, he seems pretty responsive to people on twitter, and here [1] he answered a somewhat related question. [1] https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1339970633422221312 https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1339970633422221312
pmoriarty 6y ago
"fundraising and the lobbyists that control money are the root cause" It's not just that. After they've left political office, politicians who've advanced the interests of some companies while they were in office often get extremely well paying jobs at those very companies. High level corporate executives will also regularly go in to politics (Trump being Exhibit A, but there are plenty of others at lower levels). This revolving door of corporation to political office and back is an open secret in government. Yet the impression among the general population is that corporations and the government are clearly separate entities. They're not.

xpe 6y ago

> Justin Amash is the only principled person in Congress. I get the sentiment, believe me. But "being principled" is a matter of degree and perspective. Clearly, there is a gap between what a particular individual wants of their elected representatives ("reps") versus what they get. Why? Sure, there are charitable explanations. First, reps have to balance competing interests. Second, some reps may make 'principled' compromises in order to prioritize certain values over others. There are less charitable explanations, too. First, many reps seek power as an ends unto itself, but doing so pulls them into a system where 'principled' decisions (e.g. ones directly for the benefit of voters) become harder. Second, some reps have questionable ethics and are willing to take money at the expense of their proper responsibilities. And so on. All of interpretations are true, to some degree. If people in a (more or less) democratic system want to change it from within, it is not effective to simply hope for reps to behave more ethically. We have to: (1) adjust the rules; (2) change our expectations; and (3) get involved: run for office, volunteer for campaigns, give money and resources, and vote. (Tell me if I've left anything out!)