Rational Ignorance

The President, in my opinion, is the most important role in the US government. Towards the beginning of the presidency,  the role of the president was more easily defined by the Constitution. But as the political process started to complicate itself (for better or for worse), it became unclear as to who the president should actually represent. Should he represent only his political party? Only the people who voted for him? The electoral college?

Well, in my opinion, the president should represent all the people in America on both domestic and international affairs. When the president travels to another country to sign an international treaty, he should be representing the interests of all the people in America. When he proposes a bill to Congress on a fiscal issue, he should be trying to better the country as a whole. He can't just represent the interest of a certain group (i.e. his own political party), because he needs to have the country prosper as a whole. If he were to act only in the interests of one party, then only about half the country would feel the benefits of his actions at any given time. 

Furthermore, he should be a politico representative by sometimes acting as a trustee and sometimes acting as a delegate. Like in Canes-Wrone and Shotts article, based on the issue at hand, he should be either a trustee or a delegate. In economics, most people are classified as "rationally ignorant" through the political process. This doesn't sound too nice, but it has practical implications in this situation. First, people are ignorant and don't take time to inform themselves about the political situation because it is too costly to them. They have other things to worry about and other things to devote their time to. It would be too costly to them and waste too much of their time to actually learn and inform themselves about ALL political issues. They only need to inform themselves about situations that affect them and when the benefits of being informed outweigh the costs.  So, in a rational sense they are ignorant, because they have better uses of their time. This idea translates perfectly into Canes-Wrone and Shotts article. 

The people are going to be informed about issues that affect them directly. So, policies that they are familiar with that directly affect their everyday lives should be left up to the people to decide. In this situation, the president will use his flexibility as a politico to act as a delegate of the people. The people will be able to make the decision on the policy, perhaps because they are more familiar with the issue. They might be more familiar, because the President is usually distanced from the life of everyday Americans by being in office. Therefore, he should let the people make the decision, because they are more informed and understand the situation better and what needs fixing. On the other hand, the American public will not now as much (if anything at all) about other issues. For example, fiscal and monetary policy or international affairs are much more distanced from the American public. The average American won't be able to understand the implications of foreign policy, because this requires expert analysis (and we don't have the time and resources to inform ourselves about these issues and acquire the expertise needed). So, the president should use his flexibility as a politico to act as a trustee in this situation. He has the knowledge and expertise needed (or i would hope so) in these fields to make the best decision and most informed decision.

In the context of my analysis, the term represent is going to be difficult to define, but i will do my best to help you understand what I consider represent to imply. In this context, represent is going to mean acting in the best interests of ALL Americans. So, based on the situation or policy at hand, he is going to have to always act in the best interests of Americans. If acting in the best interests requires him to understand and seek what the people want done, then he should go out and find what the people want. If acting in the best interests requires him to use his knowledge and expertise and consult other experts, then he should do so. So, to me, represent means utilizing the people who know the situation the best and most directly to make the best possible decision for his constituents. 

With my analysis, the president has the ability to change from being a trustee or delegate based on the situation. So this gives him the flexibility he needs in office to accurately represent the people. The only problem I see arising from this kind of representation is the president's understanding of when to act as a trustee and when to act as a delegate. Some presidents might classify different policies as needing a different type of representation. Or for that matter, some presidents might be more experienced in one area or more familiar with one situation that they think they should act as a trustee as compared to delegate. For example, if a president grew up on a farm and claimed he knew what was in the best interests of farmers because he grew up on a farm, this may be an inaccurate representation. If he acts as a trustee in that situation, he might not accurately represent what the farmers want (even though he thinks he is). The problem is that it is too difficult to define when a policy should be implemented through a trustee representative or through a delegate representative. We just need to leave it up to the American people to step and make sure their voice is heard when it needs to be heard. If a policy affects a certain group, it is going to be up to the people to voice their opinion and make sure they influence the legislation's formation.