Politiians Should Be Neutral

The resolution is unworkableUnder the resolution, elections would be pointless. Candidates could only affirm that the would never affirm any pre-conceived moral values and would never use any knowledge gained from Congressional hearings or any research by staff. Congress people are called to vote on specific pieces of legislation. Just before the recess last week, Democrats submitted free trade treaties for Congressional approval. The treaties received Presidential endorsement, and Republicans generally favor free trade, but the some say the amendments are unacceptable. So how should a neutral Congress person vote? It's safe to say that not a hundredth of a percent of any Congressional district has an opinion on the matter. Few will ever have an opinion beyond what pundits or politicians say. So the it seems the proper vote is "present." A yea or a nay would not be neutral.How about counting phone calls or e-mails from constituents? Only a very few voters make their opinion known, and those are almost always the products of campaigns by special interest groups. About half the legislation before Congress is agreed to by both Republicans and Democrats. That means it is boring and non controversial. Voters do not speak out on non-controversial issues, so there is no popular demand to vote on those issues. Lacking a majority of voters, a neutral Congress person must abstain from voting. In practice, voters judge candidates on whether they generally agree with the office-seeker's principles and philosophy of governing If the politician fails to deliver, the voters may vote differently next time. The voters do not follow every treaty and bill before Congress and form an opinion.The idea of neutral politicians is fundamentally unworkable.1. Pure DemocracyPro believes he is not arguing for a pure democracy, but what he is arguing for has all the problems of a pure democracy. Constitutional rights are not bright line issues. If the popular will is to undermine any Constitutional protection, or any right that is not in the Constitution, the resolution requires that the elected representative act to do so, if that's what the people want.Burke said, “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.” Pro wants “candidates that are more likely to follow voter sentiment than their own agenda.” That is a proven path to disaster.Pro has provided no evidence that candidates are likely to ignore the will of their constituents. Red states elect conservatives, blue states elect liberals. That's reflects popular sentiment. However, politicians have pressure to resolve logical inconsistencies, whereas popular opinion is free to case moonbeams and ignore real-world limitations. 2. Fundamental Rights Pro says, “If the majority of people do not support the fundamental rights of the individual, we have a big crisis on our hands.” Separation of powers and representative government limits the potential for crisis by foiling mob rule. However, to few limits on democracy has brought us to a crisis at hand. The people want unlimited government benefits, and there is no way to get the money to pay for them. The solution that the people want is to take all the money from rich people and redistribute it. As I showed, that does not come close to working as a fiscal solution, and it violates fundamental rights against persecuting a minority by stripping them of their property. The solution is to have fundamental guarantees on property rights.The Constitution was not the product of popular opinion. It was constructed by people much more knowledgeable in the ways of government than the populace as a whole. The resolution suggests that people good at demagogy are also good at governing. Pro should provide evidence of that. 3. The Constitution Pro says, “I'm less concerned about people accepting the Constitution and more concerned about politicians hijacking the current system.” I don't know what that means other than that Pro doesn't like politicians having opinions with which he disagrees. 4. Pro says "Minority Rule can be as Oppressive as Majority Rule"Pro provides a false choice between tyranny of the majority and tyranny of a minority, The Constitutional system of elected representatives is the best approach to avoiding either extreme. The system is currently under stress mainly from unchecked executive branch authority, but the Congress also has a serious problem with attempting to cater to public desires for unlimited benefits. The best hope is that elected representatives will act responsible and not obey the irrational desires of voters. 5. Politicians “... don't have to take a side on any particular issue.” How do they get elected without taking stands on issues? Elections are now the primary means for voters to express their opinion. Candidate A says “We can find a way for the government to provide everything the people want for free.” Candidate B says, “We need to be fiscally responsible.” The people always want both, which is impossible. In an election, people are forced to choose. How would it be done strictly by popular sentiment? 6. Politicians are Inconsistent and Unreasonable Pro says, “I argue that ... a group opinion is more reliable, harder to change from pressure or bribery, has less conformity, individual bias can be removed and more stable over time.” Group opinion is the definition of conformity. Groups behave according to mob psychology. Passions overrule reason. If it were not so, we would not see politicians endlessly demagogic, as they are. The public will always want to believe that they can get more from government and not have to pay for it. 7. Pro says, "Our elected Officials are Bringing on Financial Disaster, not Averting it." What exactly did politicians do to bring on financial crisis? They gave people exactly what they wanted: low interest rates to make housing "affordable." no-down-payment mortgages, lots of government subsidies and benefits. It was close to perfect democracy, with irrational mob psychology embraced by elected representatives. What we need is less democracy, not more. 8. Flip-flopping Pro says, "However, it will take a majority of people more time to change than an individual. Flip flops actually makes my case of a neutral candidate stronger." Pro is claiming that if new information proves a policy to be wrong, it is better to keep on with the bad policy rather than fix it. Bad policies pursued with determination are then good? This is illogical. Bad policies should be corrected as soon as they are proven wrong. ==================I believe our viewpoints are much further apart than Pro supposes. Individuals who would be rational as isolate individuals succumb to mob irrationality when empowered by unchecked democracy. Pro is really advocating elected representatives who have no role in checking the irrationality of popular desires to want everything for free, with someone else magically paying for it. That route is sure disaster. It is the classic mechanism by which democracies fail. We should be talking about new ways to increase rights, contrary to popular will. I think Pro is on the side of the French Revolution, I am on the side of the America Revolution. The positions are classically drawn. Certain groups in our society are now fair game to be stripped of rights for the "good" of the majority. Those include Conservatives, Libertarians, business owners, those who believe in meritocracy, people earning over $150K, traditional Christians, and pro-Americans.The popular will should be checked. The resolution is negated.