Fled wrote:

Feisty - I agree that neither the paternalism of Burke nor the populism you ascribe to Mill is sufficient.  Burke's has much to be said for it but will lead to collapse for social and political reasons.  It can be too unresponsive, and ultimately will be, likely due to arrogance of power.  Utilitaririans are not really populists, so I find the characterization of Mill imperfect.  "The greatest good for the greatest number" credo is not necessarily a poll driven premise.  Indeed, I believe Mill wrote a great deal about needing to guard against the "tyrrany of the majority."  But your point is still well taken.  Chasing the majority in a never ending campaign ends up being nothing more than a day-to-day exercise in pandering. 

I am not sure that a rigid platform approach would be functional in a dynamic and barely predictable world; that is, it might work as long as what the politician anticipates in fact occurs but will not address surprises.  And I hope to gahd the platform you describe is not like that abominations the parties turn out at their conventions.  They are all like vomit pizza.  However, to insist that a candidate show a high degree of fealty to her/his articulated campaign positions once in office, absent some extraordinary intervening event, is entirely fair. 

I took some of your comments to be along the lines of "a plague on both your houses" in that you seemed to simply condemn both sides with the ultimate result that you would simply walk away from both.  If I was wrong, my apologies.  I think to "walk away" is abdication.  In large part, the "walk away" mentality got Bush elected the first time around.

First of all, forgive me for playing willy-nilly with my political philosophy.  For the record, my focus was international relations, not philosophy.

True, Mills' philosophy was comprised of much more than just the simplified version of the delegate model I presented.  However, they didn't have polling in Mill's day, so I adapted it for my purposes.  Regardless, it is very seldom that ANYONE strictly matches one or the other. 

Also, I was a bit tongue in cheek with my model.  If flip flopping was really a bad thing, then Bush would be the best president in the history of the world based solely on his "stay the course" mentality.  If someone DOESN'T change their mind once they get the job, given the additional intelligence they have access to, then there's something wrong with them.

First of all, forgive me for playing willy-nilly with my political philosophy. 

First of all, nothing to forgive.  Second of all, you can play with my willy-nilly any time, though I suspect you will decline the offer, being a lady and all.