For better or for worse, America's political system, as well as thepolitical systems of most of the rest of the world, are filled with professional politicians. But were all of these lawmakers thepragmatic policy-pushers that we know them as today? It is likely that many of them arrived to Washington as idealists, hoping to stay true to their beliefs and to use them to change their nation for the better. They may have discovered, however, that to get things done in our political system, one must often abandon his or her beliefs in thename of politcal progress. Some likely compromised their beliefs inthe hopes of gaining concessions for their most important initiatives, but others likely felt forced to abandon their ideals in the search forthe ever-present voting populace's approval. Paradoxically, however, these compromises are sometimes the only way to pass real policy that affects the lives of millions.
In this debate, we will discuss the question of whether it is virtuous to enter politics. Can one traverse the murky world of politics without leaving with an irreparably damaged moral compass, or should we agree that politics should be left to the more unscrupulous types? Is compromise absolutely necessary in lawmaking, or can one remain totally faithful to his or her morality and still be an efficient politician? Should the virtuous be our lawmakers, regardless of their training? Questions like these will likely arise as we debate the virtues and vices of public office.