I think you're both right. Like Peter, I want a representative, not a teacher. But Alan's right in saying that "they" do - or, rather, should - know better than the rest of us, if only because, with considerable resources and advice behind them, they're doing the job full time. And because a fair tranch of the electorate hasn't got the time, expertise or inclination to delve into it all, at least until policies start impingeing negatively on them, or strike them as ineffective, barmy, unjust or malign.
As happened with Thatcher over the poll tax, and with Blair over Iraq. Electors started thinking "hang on, this is just barking - I could do policy better than this ..." And suddenly the "intelligent folk" don't look intelligent enough to be trusted with the politics.
And fortunately we're still enough of a democracy for the elector's instinct to take effect, which is why both Thatcher and Blair passed into history, even while they both passionately continued to believe that they had so much more to give us! Democracy's core value, as Peter says.
One of the reasons - in fact the main reason - why I've pinned my colours to the Lib Dems is that they seem to do responsive politics better than the big two. And one of the reasons I respect John Leech is that I reckon he exemplifies this. Would they carry this on into government if they ever got there? I'm frankly less sure of that, but, having seen what we get from Tory and New Labour, I'm willing to give them a go.
Alan, if we're on Plato, I rather like:
"The state whose prospective rulers come to their duties with least enthusiasm is bound to have the best and most tranquil government, and the state whose rulers are eager to rule the worst." ("The Republic", the Philosopher Ruler, part 7, book 7)
So reluctant politicians are the best! Rules out some of the climbers of the slippery pole that comes to my mind ...
