[i习作temp] issue169 自虐狂恭请拍砖！ [复制链接]

zehua
UID：199246

特级会员

Rank: 6 Rank: 6

声望: 16
寄托币: 7314
注册时间: 2005-3-7
精华: 3
帖子: 30

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2005-7-17 12:11:32 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

题目：Those who treat politics and morality as though they were separate realms fail to understand either the one or the other
--------------------------------------------
Should we impose a strong requirement of moral level on any politician elected? Or should we primarily emphasis on the quality of his ability as a leader? Although high level of morality can enhance a leader's overall prestige, we should mainly concentrate on the politician's ability as a leader.

A high level of morality is very helpful for the leader to be elected, because he would easily become the star who the people try to imitate, and honesty makes the leader's promise sounds more trustable. A leader as the head of a people could become the star whom everyone tries to imitate. When Kennedy was elected as the president of USA, almost every parents of the family said to their children: You should imitate everything as Kennedy does. In this way, the leader would make himself more popular and more strongly supported. The politician could also made his promises more trustable as a candidate in the election. Suppose the ability of the two candidates are generally the same, why would people elect the one who lives on lies? Every sane man would elect the honest candidate. Therefore with a high level of morality, the leader is more likely to be trusted and supported.

However, the foci would be too narrow if we over-emphasis on morality of a politician, and overlook the primary quality that one must have to be a politician. The politician as it stands, is the one who would lead the whole country. Suppose a man who never lies, never steals, and never has any sexual scandals, but is a warmonger becomes the president of a country, then how much disaster he would bring to the entire humanity world? How many wives will lose their husbands, and how many children will lose their fathers?
Admittedly, such an example is a little exaggerated. Yet we still cannot elect a leader with a very high level of morality, while without any quality as a politician. Therefore we should mainly emphasis on the overall ability of a politician as a leader, such as decisiveness and foresight. Bill Clinton, as one of the most famous president in the USA, had a sexual scandal during his term. However we still admit his great feats as a leader who built a bridge of friendship with other countries, and who dramatically improved the economical conditions in USA.

While morality is a important part of a politician, as any human being in the society, the ability as a leader is much more important. Thus we should mostly emphasis on the leading ability of a politician, while still look for the one with the overall quality as a social being. However if we are faced with the dilemma of having to elect between two candidates, one with a high moral level but weak in the ability as a leader, the other with a strong leading quality but some minor scandals, we would prefer to elect the latter one.

In the final analysis, we should realize the complexity of the issue. Although a high morality level of a politician is favored, we should not impose a strict requirement on every politician. On balance, it would be most desirable to choose a politician with both high standard of morality and strong ability as a leader.