Politiians Should Be Neutral

Thank you RoyLatham for your response. I want to apologize for misspelling "Politicians" in the title. 1. I Am Not Arguing for a Pure Democracy I want to clarify that I am not suggesting a pure democracy. I don't think those systems work either. A politically neutral candidate can exist within the context of a constitutional representative republic. I like the idea of electing politically neutral candidates to office, candidates that are more likely to follow voter sentiment than their own agenda. 2. Fundamental Rights are Not Negated Because a Politician is Neutral Fundamental rights were created because these ideas were thought to be good for all people through all space and time. Having a neutral candidate does not mean these rights are going to be overturned. If the majority of people do not support the fundamental rights of the individual, we have a big crisis on our hands. But I don't think we are in danger of slipping back to a barbaric society because we elect neutral candidates that follow the will of the people. 3. The Constitution Still is the Governing Law I'm less concerned about people accepting the Constitution and more concerned about politicians hijacking the current system. The Founding Fathers spoke about government not conducted by consent of the governed. They then started a revolution. The Constitution won't protect anyone if people become so dissatisfied they start overturning the very institution politicians were designated to uphold. 4. Minority Rule can be as Oppressive as Majority Rule Oppression is oppression, does it matter the origin? One man oppressing his entire country is called a tyranny. What if the majority of people wanted women to vote prior to 1920? If you assume that the population was 50% men and 50% women back then, an argument can be made most people wanted women to vote. However, no politician took a survey of both voters and non-voters to find out. It can be argued that majority rule applied to certain issues might have lead to better results sooner. 5. Politicians Have an Obligation to Know the Issues Agreed. They have to get elected and someone with lots of knowledge is more electable. But they don't have to take a side on any particular issue. 6. Politicians are Inconsistent and Unreasonable I don't think inconsistent behavior and being unreasonable are traits that solely voters have, its a human trait. I argue that individuals (politicians or non politicos alike) are inconsistent and unreasonable, but 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. 7. Our elected Officials are Bringing on Financial Disaster, not Averting it. Its arrogant to assume an elected politicians know more than the collective wisdom of the constituents. There are many more experts in finance outside of Washington DC than in Congress. How can one politician be an expert in all fields? The elected officials trying to figure out the financial crisis on their own have not fared well. 8. Changing your Mind is Human Nature New information will change people's hearts and their minds. 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. I don't think our view points are incompatible. I just place more belief in a group opinion than an individuals. And I feel that is the system we in the U.S. have all signed up for, for better or for worse.