GRE Issue Topic 143

Sample 1:

“Men and women enter the political arena ready to do battle against special interest groups and pork barrel spending. They’ve promised their constituents that they’re going to clean up that mess in Washington or the capital in the state they serve. The voters are confident they’ve elected someone who will stick to his or her guns. Without dreams of making a change for the better, politicians would not exist. But as poet Robert Burns said, ‘The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry.” It doesn’t take long for politicians to realize that their individual voices aren’t very loud, or that they may not have a full understanding of the policy that they are attempting to argue.

Everyone who chooses politics as a career must possess at least a modicum of naiveté. If the candidate didn't think he or she could make a difference, there would be no reason to run for office. Changing the world is a lofty goal, but it is generally accomplished at a snail's pace and one compromise at a time. We learn to compromise as young children. Our parents tell us if we clean our rooms, we can have a treat. If compromise means that both sides give up something to get something, then the deal we made with Mom is compromise. We give up some free time to clean our rooms and get in return more TV time or a candy bar. Mom gives up some peace and quiet but gets a clean room.

Political compromise is more difficult to achieve, and the stakes are higher. The principle, however, is the same. Reaching a consensus takes a little sleight of hand and a gift for rhetoric. The idealistic politician may have to temper his or her enthusiasm when choosing from the list of persuasive techniques at hand to lead his fellow politicians to common ground. This politician must keep the constituents in mind as he seeks the consensus that will allow him to retain his ideals. Today, in the halls of Congress and in the White House, there is great debate about the budget. Senators and congressmen on both sides of the debate are finding it difficult to find common ground. The ideals of some make them refuse to consider raising taxes for any citizens in America, while others believe that the wealthy should pay more taxes. Some feel so protective towards the poor and the elderly that they refuse to make cuts in any of the tax–funded programs that serve those groups, while others say that those programs must be reduced in scope to protect everyone. It is sometimes difficult for citizens watching this debate to determine if their representatives in Washington are holding steadfast to the ideals they took with them to Congress, or if they are spouting the rhetoric, they believe will get them reelected.

All politicians, whether on the local, state, or national level would do well to revisit the Preamble to the Constitution, whose first line includes the words, “in order to form a more perfect union.” Perfect means ideal and union means agreement. Whatever the issue may be, politicians should strive for perfect agreement. In the end, the agreement may not seem perfect to every politician, but it should serve the needs of the people they represent.

Sample 2:

What is politics? Is politics restricted to the government and the political leadership that implements policies which affect the lives of millions of citizens? Most people consider politics as something that is represented by corruption, competition and a race to gather votes. However, the truth is that politics is a game of power. Certain individuals are granted the power and authority to provide solutions to the existing conflicts in a society or an organization. Therefore, it is not necessary that politics is limited to the government only. One can come across politics in an organization or institution that has given its employees the empowerment to elect a group of people to govern their functioning and also resolve their conflicts. In either case, the goal of politics has to be the pursuit of an ideal situation or else the people in power may find it very difficult to identify the restrictions and policies that are essential for the smooth functioning of the country or organization.

Searching for common ground and reasonable consensus may lead to issues that remain unresolved especially since none of the conflicting parties would like to make an adjustment to their demands. One can see the example of an organization where the power to make undisputed decisions lies with the boss. Even in the past, all tribes, empires and countries had leaders and rulers who made the decisions to resolve conflicts for maintaining peace and harmony in their reign. There was no need for them to search for common grounds and reasonable consensus. This was because such a decision could have been cited by some party at some other time to demand justice.

In present times, the elected governments that exist in most countries make the task of politics much easier. It is the people who have elected the political leaders to power and they are the ones who can change the leadership at the center if it does not come up to their expectations. The same holds true for organizations wherein the top management has been elected by the employees of the company. Therefore, the leadership has to carefully set an ideal goal for itself in the form of rules, regulations and policies. They should not deviate from their ideal even if it means losing their power. This is a major stumbling block for a majority of leaders. Who would not like to always remain in power? Therefore, the need to arrive at a common ground or reasonable consensus arises because all politicians try their best not to disappoint their vote bank while resolving an issue. However, in the long run this can prove to be detrimental for the well-being of a nation or organization as a whole, because the society would be living in conditions that are far from ideal and this is definitely not what was in mind while electing the leadership at the center.

If there are two parties fighting over an environmental issue or an educational issue, how should the matter be resolved? Should the leadership favor the solution that has been arrived at by studying common ground or should the leadership look for what the ideal solution is in such a scenario and implement that irrespective of the damage it does to the face-value and vote bank of the political party? The first solution will effectively lead to the end of the disagreement between the two parties, but the solution would be far from the ideal situation that would have been the best for the society. The second solution would definitely disappoint one of the parties, but the nation would gain from such a decision as it would lead the society towards an ideal situation, but unfortunately, it might jolt the leadership out of power. Therefore, despite the heavy risks involved, the best option for politics is to maintain a goal that is the pursuit of an ideal no matter how expensive it might prove to be. This is because attaining such a goal will result in the betterment of the entire society as a whole.