“assume”? I thought this was Great Debates.
If I had asked to take two years off from my job, I wouldn’t have been able to return to it. That’s true for most people.
This was the same issue Britain went through over the issue of paying members of Parliament. Some people argued that people should serve out of a sense of duty rather than because they we’re getting paid. But the reality was that making the job unpaid limited it to only wealthy people.
I think it’s better for the country if we treat politics like it’s a job rather than like it’s a hobby for the idle rich.
Plus, only one-third of the current Senate was serving in 2005. That’s a 66 seat turnover in ten years. Is the Senate better now?
If only there was some method whereby we could replace the incumbents with these opposing candidates.
I haven’t seen anyone comment on this yet, but I don’t think it’s a defensible statement or that any of the Founding Fathers would have agreed with it.
Being a Congressman/Senator is a job, and, like most jobs, is one that someone with experience is typically better at doing than a complete novice.
Imagine what our economy would look like if we expected everyone to change to a new job every five years.
In fact most of the founding fathers believed in a natural aristocracy. Voters could choose among the better sorts who should hold a particular office, but they would be choosing from the natural aristocrats.
How so?
“Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself.”
- Mark Twain
How do you propose that we objectively measure the effectiveness of legislators?