Populus Politicians are good for America.
By Jesse Naiman

Politicians come in all shapes and sizes. Some are male, some female, some are white, some are black, some are liberal and others conservative. When it comes to their method of governance, politicians frequently split into two extreme camps. The first camp acts based on their own val- ues and judgment of issues, willing to buck the popular sentiment if necessary. On the other hand, some politicians appeal to and follow the will of the voters regardless of their own personal positions. Ideally, the politicians we elect would fall in the middle of these two extremes. But if we were forced to choose between the two, Americans should prefer populist politicians.

To successfully argue this position, I must distinguish between a populist and a demagogue. When people hear “populist,” they frequently conjure up pictures of Depression-era politicians such as Huey Long, who advocated cap- ping personal wealth at one million dollars. A demagogue does not simply take on popular political positions, but primarily plays off of people’s extreme emotions when offering political solutions. These answers rarely make sense as policy, but rather assuage the people’s fears during times of great uncertainty, just as Long did during the Great Depression.

A populist politician, on the other hand, appeals to the voters’ already- existing desires. Such a candidate under- stands that he alone is not qualified to govern and that he must listen to the collective wisdom of his constituents. We do not live in a small and simple society where any one person understands how the whole of society works. Therefore, in an act of humility, officials should listen to their constituents to attain a picture of what they desire. Even though individuals’ interests may intersect and differ, the populist politician renders his decisions based on the general consensus of his constituents as a whole, rather than on what he thinks is in their best interest.

This abstract idea becomes clear upon a retroactive examination of the special election in Massachusetts two weeks ago. Voters were offered two candidates: Democrat Martha Coakley, a lifelong prosecutor and state attorney general, and Republican Scott Brown, an unknown state senator from some town nobody had ever heard of. The election received little if any fanfare after Coakley breezed through the December primary, but as the general election approached, the contrast between these two candidates came to light. Brown was the quintessential populist. He understood rightful voter frustration with Obamacare and the excessive tax-and-spend culture in Wash- ington and offered a simple remedy: if you voted for him, he would stop President Obama’s agenda. He offered no radical solutions to appease voters, merely a pledge to stop an already unpopular agenda.

Coakley on the other hand appeared to be a Washington D.C. insider who was completely oblivious to not only the political leanings of her constituency, but also unwilling to treat her elector- ate as equals. She may have tried to come across as a populist by highlighting settlements she won from “predatory” lenders, but she refused to interact with her constituents. She mocked Scott Brown for shaking hands outside of Fenway Park “in the cold,” instead insisting that she was better off allying herself with union officials who could convince their members to vote for her. As final proof that she was out of touch, this strategy failed. A majority of union households in Massachusetts voted for Brown despite traditional political leanings of union families.

Populist candidates are good for democracy. A good populist, like Brown, is in touch with his constituents on both a personal and political level. In a constitutional democracy, elected officials who can relate to their constituents are a must. Citizens should avoid demagogues who offer unreasonable solutions in desperate times, but we should elect populist candidates whenever possible.

Populist Politicians: Undermining Representative Democracy
By: Akash Chougule

Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”

It is easy for a politician to ap- pear effective when he agrees with his constituents. But a truly strong politician is one who can remain strong in his convictions at a time when he may disagree with many people, including those who elected him to power.

When the founding fathers were designing the government of the United States and envisioning how it would function, they wanted it first and foremost to be government for the people and by the people.

They wanted the voice of the people to be heard and reflected in the laws and actions of local, state, and federal government, a tendency that was rarely followed in Great Britain.

However, at the same time, the founding fathers acknowledged that some citizens had greater knowledge and understanding of political and legal processes. They also understood that eventually, the population of the United States would be too large for every person to be directly involved in the government.

Finally, the founding fathers wanted there to be some sort of representation or voice for minority. It is for these reasons that they chose to make the United States to be a representative democracy.

We elect our politicians for the beliefs and actions they campaign on, which (in an ideal world) are their true convictions and principles. We put our trust and faith in them to execute democracy to its fullest extent, the way we would like to see it executed.

There will most likely never be a politician with whom one agrees on every single issue, or a politician who agrees with the majority opinion on every single issue. However, it is important as Americans in a functioning democracy that we accept these facts.

Politicians are elected by people in order to put into effect their beliefs and principles, not to exactly mirror the desires of their constituents.

A politician that merely fol-lows the wishes of the majority he or she represents shows neither conviction, nor any consideration for the minority, not to mention that that politician shows that their main priority is merely to get re-elected.

A weak politician is one who is undecided on an issue, and therefore sides with constituents, rather than weighing the pros and cons of each side and making an educated decision.

A weak politician is also one who goes against his or her own beliefs because they are in the minority, and instead follows the inclinations of the majority of people.

Doing so is nothing but incorrect practice of representative democracy. As previously stated, we do not elect our politicians to cater to our every whim and desire. We elect them because we believe in their principles and convictions, regardless of how they may feel regarding some specific political issues. Americans who cannot accept that the politicians they elected may not always agree with majority opinion, are merely falling victim to Tocqueville’s “tyranny of the majority.”

As a person of strong political convictions myself, as are most readers of The Observer, I would like to be represented in government by people who mostly agree with my political and principle beliefs, but who are also not afraid to stand out, stand up, and speak and act for what they believe in, regardless of dissenting majority opinion.

It is these people who help make the American government effective and dynamic, which keeps making the United States the greatest place in the world to live and work freely.

Related Articles:

1. The Good Body Performance As Love Your Body Week came to...