I60--政治家的共识与理想问题 求拍

冷月钟笛

面对这个很大的题目，我特意使用定时器定了40min。最后已经写了600+字，但依然有没来得及展开的观点，即使结束后补写在了后面。当时写的时候没有时间草拟提纲，心里勾勒了一下~回头理提纲的时候，又扩展了一点。
政治题目练得比较少，不知道大家对这个题目有什么想法分享呢？

60. 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.

老G：195

提纲摘要：

（危难求同）面对相同难题，政治家们应该摒弃不同的政见与追求，共同为解决这一难题达成共识；
（自由存异）一般情况下，每个政治家所属的政治团体都有自己的宗旨与信条，也应该被接受他们追求各自的目标与理想，即使是深奥难懂的——深奥不一定没有价值
（深奥的追求，可能只是一时间没有被人们所理解，但可能社会有着巨大益处——例如民主制度从希腊城邦的诞生）——当时忘说了。。。
危险的政治主张或执政宗旨是不可取的，应被放弃而追求共识

Politics issue is fairly a complex topic for discussion. It is mainly about the relationship between different groups and the dealing actions between them in purpose of distinct interest. Sometimes, different groups can join hand to reach an agreement on some issue for a best gain of profit, while sometimes they just contend and complete for each targets and credos. It is hard to tell which situation could be more profitable for the whole society, let alone the elusive and blurring definition on their specific "ideals" and so-called "consensus". I suppose this issue really requires a case-by-case analysis.

For some ideal situations, shown in the movies or other literary articles, the political groups, especially the governments, are expected to join hands, make compromises for a common ground, which is considered to be most favorable for the highest profits of the whole mankind. When facing some common calamities or disasters to all human beings, this point may become much clearer. In the movie 2012, all human beings are confronting of the great jeopardy of being endangered. At this moment, we witness all different governments forgo their biases and different political ideals to join hand and deal with this greatest challenge together. It is the specific situation in which all different political groups, races, religions, all people around the world have to face the same issue for the basic purpose--survival-- that incorporates all different political powers together. From this case, we can understand the merits of the statement in this issue: when all different politicians from distinct groups share the same target---the great welfare of the mankind, they cooperate.

However, as the game theory predicts, not in all situations can politicians join together for a common big topic, sometimes even not reasonable. After all, when the general welfare of people and the ordering of the society can be maintained at some level, parties and political groups should pay much effort for their own goals, even the elusive ones. Every political group, from the national governments to the student unions, owns its own credos and purposes. We always narrowly consider politicians as the big guys in the government dealing with the national issues, but actually politics is not that far away from us. As I mentioned before, we are all in dealing with people and making deals for some purposes, and those are some sorts of politics. So, it is unreasonable for the chairman of SU to stop a debate team from contending, or terminating the sport clubs from exercises or something else. We cannot force every group to make compromise to chase for the common and be the same. After all, different groups are built to serve different functions.

Moreover, pursuing the common ground and consensus can be harmful sometimes. in some extreme situations, the unreasonable thing what we view now may be distorted to be reasonable, making it acceptable for all. In the book 1984, the oligopoly government tries to dismiss all personalities, playing tricks, inciting people of common hatred, and even crash the outliers just for some common ground. In that situation, it is horrible to give up personal ideals, for freedom, for hope, for personality or other kaleidoscopic things. From this point, we should be aware about the necessity for a further scrutiny on the so-called common ground and reasonable consensus.

In sum, it is always necessary to consider different situations for the discussion on a political topic. Even though in most situations, we all hope different groups can join hand and stand together for a common issue, it is reasonable to leave some space for the individual variance for their ideals, and allowance for different voices. It is always better for a politician to make effort for the common welfare of all people, and his own achievement for some goals.
(634---40min)

这是时间不够未能展开的倒数第二段~ 文章当时仓促结尾了~

Last but not least, even though we consider the elusive ideals of a political party an individual event, enjoying the freedom of political opinions, however much elusive or weird the ideas are, it is not OK for some ideas extremely radical or dangerous for the common welfare of the society. Consider the following situations: some people form a party only for subvert your nation, setting up wars to kill for the name of “justice“—actually out of hatred—or commiting crimes for money, religions or something else. What would you react on that? Tolerating their “ideals”? Of course not! Their ideals are more than unrealistic or meaningless, but harmful to ther people, leaving us no space for the existence of them. Thus, whether to forgoing or keep the ideals of some party should depend on the real meaning behind.

(7min)

PS. 在文章第三段，也就是第二个观点的讨论时，中间有一段东西比较废物，似乎放在前面交待罗技会更清晰一点~ 这样第三段和第四段就可以合在一起了~ 当时怕段落太长，不便阅读~ sign~

ppguo

赞一下：危难求同，自由存异。
我想到一点，政治家的共同目标应该是国家长期的发展和国民最大利益。

冷月钟笛

谢谢拍砖！嗯 这一点很好！