Can Wealthy Politicians offer Fair Representation to all People?

Wealthy politicians cannot offer fair representation to all the people.
Describe a specific situation in which a wealthy politician might offer fair representation to all the people. Discuss what you think determines whether a wealthy politician can or cannot offer fair representation to all the people.

___


In the last few years, people have expressed a general high disapproval of national politicians. They reserve terms, such as "elite," for politicians who are seemingly out of touch with the needs of the people. Namely, the "elite" label has mainly been use to denigrate wealthy politicians educated at prestigious institutions. It implies that these politicians cannot fairly represent ordinary people because they do not understand their common struggles. Parties have juxtaposed "elite" politicians with their alternative candidates, including the so-called soccer moms and regular Joe's who could better understand the people. Indeed, the electorate should not judge candidates solely on their abundance or lack of wealth. In order to bring in the most qualified people , the electorate should vote for candidates based on the whole context, including previous accomplishments and historical records.

Some have argued that in order to represent his constituents fairly, a politician should ideally share demographic characteristics with the people. This may include a background based on income, ethnic background, etc. For example, some believe that higher-income candidates will not understand the daily struggles of ordinary people and can only possibly protect the wealthy and big business. They maintain that the soccer moms and regular Joe's can offer new perspectives to Washington due to their personal experience as "regular people."

Indeed, there is merit in encouraging diversity in politics, the workplace and all institutions due to the new perspectives introduced into the environment. However, judging a person's fitness for office should not be solely based on few superficial characteristics, such as amount of wealth and one's gender or race. The voter should look beyond these labels of "elite" and "regular Joe" and instead evaluate what exactly they have accomplished in the past. For instance, have they proven success in their previous work running a company or serving the public interest? During the campaign trail, have they emphasized issues that click with the middle class? Indeed, there are different factors to consider in choosing the candidate that will best represent the people and that choice should not be made based on one's wealth.

Others argue that wealthy people cannot be fair representatives due to the fact that they bought their way into office. Granted, candidates need a lot of money to run for office and be elected. Those who can finance their own campaigns on an independent basis arguably do not have as much incentive to reach out to the people and businesses--therefore, not being sufficiently touch with voter's needs. On the other hand, a wealthy candidate could argue that he is not beholden to special interests and big business because of the fact that he did not have to solicit funds in the campaign. Indeed, a voter must not assume that wealthy candidates have not made efforts to reach out to voters and understand their needs.

Lack or abundance of wealth per se should not determine whether a candidate can fairly represent the people as a politician. Sharing demographic qualities with constituents may be a good indicator of the politician's understanding of the people's needs. However, voters should not equate superficial factors, such as amount of wealth, ethnic and gender background with competence and the ability to fairly represent the people. Candidates should be evaluated holistically based on previous accomplishments and projects.