GRE Issue Topic 14

Sample 1:

More than a century ago, Ralph Waldo Emerson said that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. When one becomes enamored of an idea or principle, he or she becomes blind to alternatives. It is as though a hobgoblin or little monster has entered the imagination and blocked off new ideas or the ability to see a different perspective. When opposing parties in a debate refuse to acknowledge any value in their opponents’ ideas, nothing is accomplished. We certainly see this in the United States Congress today. Poll numbers are on the decline for the President and most senators and representatives because of their inability to get anything done. Compromise may seem like giving in or giving up, but the alternative is to leave problems unsolved.

The United States may have been governed very differently than it is today if it were not for the Great Compromise. In the early days of America, there was heated debate about the way states would be represented in the national government. One plan called for a unicameral congress where the number of representatives from each state would be based on the state’s population. This plan favored states with larger populations. The other plan stated that each state should have the same number of representatives, again in a unicameral legislature. This would leave the people in states with larger populations underserved. The Great Compromise created the bicameral system we have today in America. One body, the Senate, is comprised of two senators from each state, creating a body in which each state, regardless of population, is represented equally. The lower house, the House of Representatives, is comprised of representatives from each state based on population. In this manner, most citizens of the United States are served equally by their elected officials.

The world has become increasingly complex since those early days of America and debate still rages in the halls of government in Washington, DC. A flagging economy, rising unemployment, greater numbers of housing foreclosures, threats to entitlement programs, and bank failures have sparked contrasting ideas about fixes for these problems. Citizens watch while their President or senator or congressmen declare to the media that there will be no bill if their own ideas are not included. Those whose terms in congress next year are already making campaign promises with no sufficient plan to pay for those promises.

Therefore, there must be compromise. After all, promise is part of compromise. Those who are retired or near retirement worry about proposed cuts to Social Security and/or Medicare, and the young workers worry about rising taxes to pay for those entitlements and wonder what will be left for them when they reach retirement age. Current and prospective workers worry about the exportation of jobs to other countries while they are trying to pay for their homes or save money to send their children to college. Students in college worry about the debt they will be saddled with after graduation and if there will be jobs for them once they have their sheepskin in hand. The President and Congress should look to the past and see that compromise was the vehicle that placed them in the positions they now have. They must combine their promises for the good of every citizen. 

Sample 2:

Leaders at all levels are confronted with the question that when should they hold on to a particular issue and when should they let it go and yield to public opinion? Great artists and thinkers may have decided to stick to their principles as they could have easily afforded to do so. The decisions taken by political leaders affect the entire nation and hence they have to think a lot before choosing between compromises and sticking to their principles. There are many times in the life of a leader when he has to decide between going in for a compromise and standing firm on principles. Successful leaders are those who make more number of correct decisions than the wrong ones, irrespective of whether these decisions were an outcome of a compromise or persuasion of their principles. Therefore, the decision making strategy for political leaders is a blend of yielding to public opinion and sticking to their principles in varying proportions.

There are unwritten rules that suggest when a political leader should ideally stand firm and when he should be willing to compromise on an issue. A political leader can opt for a compromise when the issue being addressed is not very critical or when the results of the compromise could lead to major benefits for the country. At times, being unnecessarily rigid may lead to damage that cannot be undone. The situation that arises out of this rigid attitude of political leaders may lead to further worsening of the situation and the leaders may be forced to compromise in the end but the administration would have already borne the damages incurred because of the rigidity of the leaders. There might be countrywide protests and violent movements as a result of the decisions being taken by the leadership. The dilemma increases manifold for political leaders as a wrong decision may permanently damage their image among the masses. The decision making process is further complicated by the correlation between popular or politically correct decisions and the apparently harsh decisions that can bear rich dividends in the longer run. There is no simple way of making correct decisions. It is a matter of making the correct judgment from amongst the options available.

History provides enough examples where there were cases in which opting for a compromise would have been a better option, while in others, a little more persuasion would have been better so that the principles were adhered to. During World War II, Adolf Hitler refused to let his soldiers abandon positions as he believed that soldiers should never retreat. However, later it was realized that if he had allowed withdrawing at critical times, and then counterattacking, he could have been more successful. We all are aware of the accusations being made against President George W. Bush that he is making an error by pursuing his policies on Iraq. However, Winston Churchill’s uncompromising resolve during World War II was eventually justified.

Therefore, certain cases require that the political leaders step back and accept a dilution of their principles so that the issues can be resolved in a way that is the best in the interest of the nation. However, there may be cases where the political leaders have to stick to the principles no matter how strong the opposition is, especially when the principle is such that abandoning it will affect the nation drastically.