gre writing issue sample writing 50
- Government officials should rely on their own judgment rather than unquestioningly carry out the will of the people they serve.
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.
he speaker asserts that government officials must remain committed to their own judgment rather than carrying out the will of the public unquestioningly. In some sense, it seems true that any political leader would accomplish little when he or she simply yields to the capricious demands of the public and their time. Only by emphasizing the importance of the loyalty to one’s own principles, however, the speaker is overlooking the possible harms inherent in the obstinate commitment to the self-promoted principles, especially in terms of its exclusion of rational oppositions and possible estrangement of the leaders from the public.
Needless to say, it is undeniable that the effective political leadership is sometimes a matter of sticking to leaders’ own philosophies. For most political matters which have diverse, sometimes conflicting opinions in themselves, lack of the resolute attitude toward those issues among politicians or government officials would result in the failure of the effective leadership as well as the social progress. Abraham Lincoln, a person who did not compromise his own beliefs despite of the general oppositions to his political view would have been just a mediocre president in the U.S. history if he had yielded to the public’s will to discontinue his revolutionary policies. This shows that the most desirable attitude public officials should have is the commitment to one’s own judgment.
Nevertheless, the persistent belief in one’s own judgment is not always the virtue to the effective leadership of most government officials. For some policies which need to incorporate and harmonize the conflicting interests to be successful, the excessive loyalty to the certain position by government officials may generate the exclusion of the rational oppositions which can help the integrity of the policies. Jimmy Carter, for example, was not successful as president not because his policy goals were not sublime or seriously blemished but because he and his cabinet members were too assured to their idealistic visions to employ the diverse opinions from the outside. He rejected the public’s demand to take more aggressive actions to solve the Middle East affairs including Iranian hostage case. This says that relying exclusively on one’s own principles by politicians can result in the unhappy fiasco rather than great success in the effective leadership.
Moreover, objecting to compromise by public officials tends to be unsuccessful for the effective governing with respect to its possible increase in public hostility. In most modern democratic societies where political leadership is periodically assessed and checked by the general public who are not informed and sophisticated enough to evaluate the long-term significance or inter-relatedness of policies, the image of a politician as a hard-nosed and hidebound leader at one issue can enhance the public antagonism toward his/her other policies, which in turn result in the abortion of other beneficial policies. Unlike “greater communicators” such as Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, most unsuccessful politicians have suffered from the public hostility toward almost all political actions because they failed to establish the image to respect the will of the common people. Myungbak Lee, the present president of Korea, is struggling with the public distrust in most of his policy areas not because they are controversial and problematic but because he could not gain public support in his first political decision. This also indicates that even to be really committed to one’s own principles, any political leader or government official should take account of the will of the public.
To sum, despite the importance of the loyalty to one’s own principles to achieve some meaningful reformations, the possible problems related to snubbing the public demands such as exclusion of helpful oppositions and alienation of the general public say that the effective leadership is not just a function of adhering one’s own judgment. Taken together, I cannot fully agree with the speaker’s assertion. What political success can exist if public officials fail to consider the demands of the public?