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
Politicians should pursue common ground and reasonable consensus rather than elusive ideals.
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.
Whether a politician should search a consensus or stick to its ideals depends on what advantages or disadvantages a compromise will generate. Adhering to certain ideals might not make me be closer to its realization, while in many cases, through compromises, we would circumvent certain difficulties.
In fact, a politician needs to decide on a case-by-case basis whether to pursuer common ground or sticking to ideals. All depend on what compromises a politician has to make and what results he could reach through those compromises. It is worth noticing that in many circumstances, searching certain kind of consensus with the opposing side does help us to approach our objectives. The art of searching consensus is a tactic which allows us to make certain minor compromise in order to gain a major leap towards our objectives. Just consider the US relation with China. Certain United States hopes that one day China could accept the universal value such as human rights or freedom. However, it would be useless for United States to cut all its connections with China or to slide towards rivalry against China as long as China cannot reach criteria defined by US politicians. Many insightful politicians in United States correctly point out that the best way to deal with China is to put aside disputes and focus on encouraging China to be a free market, a point that Chinese leaders also agree. Although it seems to be that US leaders abandon adhering to their ideals, a free market and it concomitant rising of a middle class in China in fact, encourage Chinese people to demand democracy and freedom themselves. An ostensible compromise in fact is a leap towards the objective.
Moreover, refusing to make a compromise and adhering to its ideals in many cases turn out to be deleterious. In politics, if one side stubbornly refuses to compromise, it would make impossible for the other side to compromise either. Then the negotiation falls into a deadlock and in some cases even such deadlock even pushes government into dysfunction. Just consider the deadlock between the two parties over the issue of raising debt ceiling last summer. During the negotiation, hardheaded politicians of both parties were not willing to make any compromise. The deadlock resulted in a loss of confidence from investors. Some financial rating agencies even degraded the American debt rating. Although at the end, a temporary compromise was found. The damage had been created. It would not be easy for the whole world to forget that the stubborn American politicians pushed their country to an unnecessary financial cliff and discussed on the cliff seriously whether they should jump off. In this case, sticking to certain ideology did not help to get what a politician wants, rather it generates deleterious effects.
Then many critics might ask why, for example, Gandhi did not make compromise on his ideal of the independence of Indian? Why Martin Luther king adhered to his dream? The answer also depends on what effects would a compromise generates. Don’t forget that the legitimacy of powers that both Martin Luther King and Gandhi held was so-called charismatic legitimacy, first summarized by Max Weber. Max Weber pointed out that the leaders in this category have to stick to its ideals which appeals to his supporters in order that their leadership could remain effective. Imagine that if Gandhi had made some compromise and had told his supporters they could gain more autonomy by cooperating with British government, he would immediately lose his legitimacy of his power. Based on this consideration, in the cases involving those kinds of charismatic leaders, they would prefer to stick to their elusive ideals rather than make compromise.
To sum up, whether to search a consensus or to stick to a politician's ideal depends on the results that each strategy brings about. A real successful politician should be able to make a wise choice based on his accurate evaluation.