Presidential duties

A New York Times/CBS poll shows that Americans are increasingly disagreeing with Bush's policy decisions, especially around Social Security.

It seems evident that Bush, in his second term, is following a path that he believes will secure his "legacy", one of Social Security reform.

The question is, should he continue down that path to the extent of his power even if the majority (and we're talking 70%-ish) of Americans don't agree?

I think that depends in part on how you view the role of an elected official. Do we elect them on the basis that we trust them to operate in our best interests? Or do we elect them to do what we specifically want him to do? Obviously there are pressures from all directions - the "average" American, special interest groups, members of the political establishment, and, hopefully, conscience.

So what should Bush do? Should he do what he feels is right in his "gut", as he did in his previous term? Arguably, that is what the American public who made up the 51% majority that narrowly won him a 2nd term likes about him and so he should use that "mandate" to do what his "gut" tells him to do. Or, should he do what Americans are now asking of him?

I've actually always fancied myself to be the former type of elected official, if I were ever to become one. I would never want to be a elected official that bends and sways to whatever whims the public currently presents - I would be someone that operates in the long term good of my constituency, even if they don't know what's good for them. Idealistic, I suppose.