Politiians Should Be Neutral

Welcome to debate.org. The topic is a good one, The issue of the merits of pure democracy versus those of a constitutional republic has endured for centuries.There are two main reasons why politicians should not have only opinions given to them by voters. The first is that fundamental rights must take precedence over voter opinion, In the United States fundamental rights include the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, The second reason is that politicians have an obligation to study issues carefully and to provide insights and leadership. Voters often enough have conflicting opinions that can only be resolved by elected representatives. For example, voters uniformly favor expanding government benefits and almost never rollbacks. However, voters also want low taxes and balanced budgets. Workable solutions require compromises are a level of detail that precludes popular democracy.1. Elected representatives should honor the ConstitutionSomeone defined democracy as "the right of the 51% to pee on the cornflakes of the 49%." he answer to the tyranny of the majority is the establishment of rights that over rule popular opinion. Jefferson asserted the superiority of rights over democracy:"Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." http://www.searchquotes.com...Other founders echoed the sentiment:James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10:In a pure democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual."At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, "... that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."Chief Justice John Marshall observed, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."http://www.americantraditions.org...One of the specific dangers was summarized by an uncertain author. The quotation was embraced by the Founders:A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: "From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage." [ibid]This explains why the Constitution is written so as to frustrate democracy by incorporating (1) the separation of powers among three branches of government, (2) a Bill of Rights, (3) enumeration of government powers, (4) an electoral college, and (5) a Senate not apportioned by population.The resolution claims that elected representatives should oppose the Constitutional safeguards against the tyranny of the majority by always favoring their constituents opinions, no matter what the Constitution requires. 2. Voters are often inconsistent and unreasonableI mentioned that voters consistently favor maintaining or increasing government benefits, while at he same time favoring lower taxes for the large majority. The public wants Congress to keep its hands off entitlements such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, a Bloomberg National Poll shows. They oppose cuts in most other major domestic programs and defense. They want to maintain subsidies for farmers and tax breaks like the mortgage-interest deduction. And they’re against an increase in the gasoline tax.... While they say they strongly support balancing the budget over the next 20 years, when offered a list of more than a dozen possible spending cuts or tax increases, majorities opposed every one of them except imposing a bigger burden on the rich.http://www.chron.com...However, increasing taxes on the rich, actually the the top two tax brackets, would raise only about $115 billion of the roughly $1600 billion needed yearly to support all the current entitlements. http://money.cnn.com...The only item in the Federal budget that a majority of voters want to cut is foreign aid. http://www.economist.com... Foreign aid is less than 1% of the Federal budget.An elected representative following the opinions of his constituents would bring upon financial disaster in short order.Edmund Burke, a British supporter of the American Revolution, spoke about representative government in 1774:Certainly, Gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a Representative, to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion high respect; their business unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and, above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But, his unbiased opinion, his mature judgement, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you; to any man, or to any sett of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the Law and the Constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your Representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion. http://www.tarn.org...3. Political Flip-flopsPro asks why politicians change their opinions. First of all, the voters change their opinions as well. Sentiment goes back and forth on such controversial issues as abortion and gay rights. So have politicians obeying the latest polls would not necessarily produce more stability.Sometime politicians change their opinions to curry favor with current voter sentiment -- which the resolution advocates. Some politicians seem to even change positions depending upon what audience they are addressing, and that's scurrilous. However, changing facts also affect the opinions of politicians and that's appropriate. For example, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid proclaimed at one point that the war in Iraq was lost. Someone who believed it was lost would logically favor withdrawal to cut losses. Now, however, few believe the war in Iraq is lost, so the interests of the United States are allied with continued support. I think it is fair to say that President Obama changed his stance on Iraq and Afghanistan based upon access to intelligence data. http://indistinctunion.wordpress.com...Having politicians ignore the facts presented in Congressional hearings and instead rely upon opinion polls would not lead to better decisions.-----------------------------The popular will is often enough fickle and weighted to oppress minorities for the sake of the majority. Poliicians to listen to their constituents and do their best to reflect their just interests, but elected representitives should not merely reflect popular sentiment.The resolution is negated.