Post your essay. Get expert feedback. For free.We're trying to help students improve their writing the hard way. Do you know students who want critical essay reviews from a professor of English Literature? Click like to share. Click here to sign up and post your own essay. We offer no paid services. All reviews are completely free.
Politicians Should Pursue Common Ground And Reasonable Consensus Rather Than Elusive Ideals. - With A Free Essay Review
Instructions: “Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.”
Politics is a rather complex issue; thus whether politicians should pursue common ground and reasonable consensus rather than elusive ideals or not depends on the specific situation. I agree that politicians should pursue common ground and reasonable consensus rather than elusive ideals when the country is in crisis, such as an invasion. However, I think elusive ideals should also be encouraged, because this can help foster citizens’ different respects and beliefs.
First of all, I agree that politicians should pursue common ground and reasonable consensus rather than elusive ideals when the country is in crisis, because in this situation, politicians should prioritise the benefit of the nation rather than elusive ideals which may potentially further divide the unity of the country. For instance, when a country is invaded by another country, in this circumstance, different political beliefs among politicians should be undermined, and instead politicians should find common ground and reasonable consensus to stand together against foreign invaders. Since the ultimate goal of all politicians should be serving the country and the wellness of the country, even though they may have different political views or elusive ideals, when the unity of the country is being threatened, it should be clear that politicians should align against invaders rather than fighting among themselves, or pursuing their own ideals. Therefore, in this specific circumstances, politicians should pursue common ground and reasonable consensus rather elusive ideals.
However, different politicians may have different beliefs, and sometimes it is common that their political views may contradict to each other. I think politicians should be encouraged to have their elusive ideals because this creates a political environment that fosters various views, and represent citizens with different thoughts. This can significantly broaden perspectives of other politicians. For instance, the United States have two major parties and other third parties as well. The third parties sometimes represents political views that deviate from these major parties, and help people express and pursue their political ideals. I think in this circumstance, it is encouraged to have elusive ideals because a domestic nation should be able to forster different political views, and it would be unnecessary to require all politicians to have common ground because people’s beliefs are diverse.
To sum up, I think the statement depends on the specific situation, I agree that when the nation is threatened by the foreign invasion, then, politicians should pursue common ground, however, during peace time, I also think politicians should have elusive ideals which can represent goals for diverse groups.
You mention in your comment below that you had some difficulty with this prompt, which is understandable given the fact that the pursuit of "elusive ideals" is not very obviously the antithesis of the pursuit of "common ground." In this essay, you overcome that difficulty by pretending that the pursuit of elusive ideals actually is the antithesis of the pursuit of common ground. That's a mistake, however, and the second part of your essay suffers significantly as a consequence of that mistake. Pursuing elusive ideals really has nothing to do with (or nothing directly to do with) fostering various views or broadening perspectives, even though fostering various views does seem like the opposite of pursuing common ground.
Pursuing common ground and reasonable consensus is opposed to pursuing elusive ideals in the way that pragmatism is opposed to idealism. A pragmatic political attitude is informed by a desire to get things done, and a good way for a politician to get things done is to focus on those areas in which there is a possibility of agreement among politicians. Elusive ideals are "elusive" because they represent outcomes that are difficult to achieve. If a majority of politicians in a state support the death penalty, for example, then the opponents who focus on abolition of the death penalty might have a tough time getting anything done, possibly unlike the opponents who focus on areas of agreement (the ones who say, for example that given the existence of capital punishment, we need to make its implementation as fair and just as possible). So the prompt can also be seen as asking you to reflect on the value of sticking to your principles versus the value of putting those to one side in order to focus on more obviously achievable goals (note: it does not go without saying that the former has no value even in the political realm).
I recommend your taking another bash at this essay.