Quote Originally Posted by Tachikaze
It depends on whether you see your politicians as leaders or representatives.
....
What little I know of Blair, he seems bright. But his choice to support the Bush Regime was due to moral or ethical problems. In that case, I wish he had been a representative.
Well, I might share your regret at this particular instance but more generally wars are probably the kinds of decision where politicians should be "leaders" (i.e. do what they think right) rather than "representatives".

If we were talking about what to kinds of public services to provide etc. then I can see a case for giving the people what they want (don't give them opera if they want football stadiums etc). But when talking about moral and especially life and death issues, I would rather they went with their conscience.

Gladstone was one UK politician who famously tried to keep out of foreign wars despite a jingoistic popular mood. The despicable rulers are those who start wars to try to bolster their domestic support (e.g. the Argentine junta in 1982).

Another example of an issue best left to conscience is capital punishment. For some time, Britain's avoided legislating it because MPs have voted by conscience regardless of popular opinion. The idea that US governors decide whether to reprieve people on death row with one eye on re-election is rather repellant, IMO.