In large part I agree with George Kennedy’s thoughts about politicians (both here and in Washington) apparently pursuing their own agendas, even when those agendas seem to be diametrically opposed by the will of the constituents they are supposedly representing.
He mentions this specifically in regard to the "puppy mill" law, and politicians trying to substantially change it after the people voted for it, thus disregarding the "will of the people."
There are times, though, when the will of the people needs some examination and oversight. Take, for example, California and its current economic nightmare. While part of the state government's predicament was caused by things such as the various "bubbles" bursting and illegal immigration, a huge portion was caused by unfunded mandates, voted into existence by the "will of the people." California's legislative process allows the people to vote themselves entitlements, and also allows those same voters to vote against the things that are to fund those entitlements — things like property or sales tax initiatives, for instance.
For many years, it doubtless seemed like the best of both worlds — vote entitlements for yourself, but stop any extra fees or taxes on you that would have paid for those. It's free! Right?
California is now facing the music for this kind of unfettered "will of the people."
I'm for smaller government (at a state and a federal level) and for keeping government's nose out of people's affairs as much as possible, but some oversight is obviously necessary to avoid the California nightmare.
Politicians shouldn't feel an automatic right to disregard the will of the people, but neither should the will of the people always be indulged with no review or oversight.
Scott Gray was born in California, but he definitely considers himself a Missourian. He lives in Columbia.