Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
--Edmund Burke
Okay. That doesn't answer my question at all - all you're doing is assuming venal motives with no justification at all. Is it not possible that the representative -is- exercising their judgment, and shares the same opinion about the issue as the many voters to whom they are supposedly "pandering"?
All your response does is show that, since YOU don't think it's an important issue, it therefore can't be for anyone else, and that makes it "pandering". Again - that's an utterly content-free criticism.
From dictionary.com, the only applicable definition of "pander":
"2. To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses: “He refused to pander to nostalgia and escapism” (New York Times)."
So wishing to protect the pledge of allegiance as it stands, and to preserve an acknowledgment of God, amounts to a "lower taste and desire of others"? Sorry - doesn't wash. And I say that as an agnostic. It's hardly a hedonistic impulse driving people to care about the issue.
Qwinn