GRE Issue Topic 109

Sample 1:

Author of the Constitution, James Madison once stated, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." I think that this quote aptly sums up why government officials should balance their own judgment and expertise with the will of the people they serve. This is the best way for the system to work because there are problems with the other forms of government, no one has perfect judgment, and it is the best way to ensure that quality policies are being carried out.

The founders of the United States set out to create a system like no other because they saw the problems that arose for other kinds of governments. They rebelled against a cruel and foreign monarchy which either didn't know the will of the people under its rule or didn't care. They knew from firsthand experience that the judgment of people in power was not always the best. However, at the same time, they saw the collapse of a pure form of democracy in ancient Greece where the people's whims were always carried out. Democracy was a dirty word, and equated to "mob rule." The majority always got its way even at the expense of the minority's rights. Therefore, they decided it best for the people to have some say in the policies and laws that affected them, but to ultimately put the power in the hands of representatives who were qualified and could use their expertise to make the tough decisions about what is best for the country. Since its inception, the representative form of government has been successful in the United States and when it is duplicated abroad.

It should be apparent that it would be dangerous to give lawmakers or the people complete power over what laws are made in the country. No one has perfect judgment all of the time, whether it be an expert policymaker or the general citizenry. There are a great many examples of this in the United States. For instance, the issue of same-sex marriage was put to a popular vote in many states. The more liberal and open minded state populations voted to allow it, while other more conservative and traditional state populations created added amendments to their state constitutions to ban same-sex marriage. This created problems when married couples moved to a new state with a ban and could not get divorced because their new state of residence did not recognize their union. Ultimately, it the judges appointed to the Supreme Court that decided this complex issue. These experts on Constitutional law took the rights of all citizens into account, and using their years of accumulated wisdom and experience, while also taking into account the changing nature of public opinion regarding same-sex unions, decided that it best served the nation’s interest to guarantee and protect the rights of same-sex couples.

However, it is also true that the representative form of government is far from perfect. Far too often, policymakers tend to lose touch with what their citizenry wants, especially those in Congress and the Senate, who spend much of their time in Washington, DC, far from the everyday lives and concerns of their constituents. This day and age, politicians at the national level may be influenced more by lobbyists than by their constituents. For instance, the recent debate about gun control. The vast majority of American citizens would like for their to be some new laws regarding purchasing guns, specifically related to background checks for gun buyers. Yet, even though bills related to this have been introduced in the Congress, they have either failed to pass them or failed to even schedule a vote on the particular bill. In theory, lawmakers should be held accountable (by citizens voting them out of office if they are unhappy) by the citizens they serve. However, in practice, this is not always the case. If government officials no longer even had the threat of being held accountable for their voting records by citizens, they could just pursue the policies that benefit themselves and the special interests that donate money to them for every issue, without regard to what would happen to the people they serve. In my opinion, this is a very flawed way to govern.

Thus, for a representative government to be effective and result in the best policies, it is imperative that a combination of the judgment of government officials and the will of the people is in place. It is impossible for the general public to be knowledgeable about every governmental issue. This could be for a variety of reasons: they don't have the education or the time to study the issues, or certain areas of policy should not be made known to a large number of people (i.e. information that might impact national security). On more technical issues ( which also tend to coincide with things people do not care about), government officials should use their judgment and expertise to make policy. But when it comes to issues that their citizenry care greatly about, they should also take into consideration the will of the people they serve. The United States government was set up in such a way to ensure that the best policies are made. This involved the two chamber system, where the House could be more responsive to the citizens as they were directly elected by citizens every couple of years. The Senate is more deliberative (though now they are also elected by the people). But, the idea is to have a diverstiy of people and procedural steps involved to ensure that everyone's voice is heard and that policies that are being created can actually solve the problems they are meant to address. With some exceptions, I would say that this process has worked out astonishingly well. So, in summation, it has been shown throughout time that no men (or women) are angels, which is why it is vital that both the personal judgment and expertise of government officials and the will of the people are necessary are consulted when making policy.