- 最后登录
- 2011-5-24
- 在线时间
- 16 小时
- 寄托币
- 29
- 声望
- 0
- 注册时间
- 2009-11-29
- 阅读权限
- 10
- 帖子
- 0
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 15
- UID
- 2732007

- 声望
- 0
- 寄托币
- 29
- 注册时间
- 2009-11-29
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 0
|
发表于 2010-2-11 11:40:55
|显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 dreamernation 于 2010-2-11 11:42 编辑
topic167"Itis impossible for an effective political leader to tell the truth all the time.Complete honesty is not a useful virtue for a politician."
This statement is composed of two relatedclaims:1) An effective political leader can never tell the truth all the time2) Complete honesty is not a useful virtue for a politician. I concede theformer while disagree with the latter. Now I’ll illustrate it in detail tobetter present my viewpoint.
The first claim is actually argues about oneof the political leader’s duty. How should an effective political leader toinform his people? Telling the truth all the time? Obviously, when thepolitical leader saying to his people, his supporters or not, to inform is justone of its purposes. The other is aimed at protecting the whole society inharmony. Sometimes when a certain event occurs, to choose the best time to tellis of great importance. In many cases, the best time for truth is hardly at thefirst time. Too early, it may cause tense atmosphere which lead to not only a materialbut also maybe a spiritual disaster. Meanwhile, telling them correct ratherthan telling them fast will benefit a lot for a political leader. For instance,the people may trust their leader more for the belief that when their leader leta piece of news be known to the public, he must have carefully examined thenews to make sure it is true. Hence, the moments for political leader staysilent for the immediate interview are not rare. Though someone strongly applyfor the right to know for public, in my prospect, the political leader has morethings to take into consideration when spread a massage.
However, even the author tries toequal the second claim with the first one, which at first glance to be reasonable,the difference of the two claims can be found after a second thought. In thesecond assertion, the author uses “completely honesty” to replace “not tellingthe truth all the time”. Nevertheless, as I discussed above, not telling thetruth in many cases is all about a efficient way to choose the right time.Meanwhile, when criticizing a politician is not completely honest, we accusehim for lying to the public. Not telling the truth leads to silence, butdishonesty result in lies. When referring to the issue focused on the honestvirtue for a politician the Watergate Affaire may be recalled by millions ofpeople. That is how lies and dishonesty ruin a certain person’s repute and destroyhis career. In another word, once a politician lied, people believe he or shewill continue, then how can he or she earn any trust from the majority? If thepeople never trust a politician, where can he or she get his or her backup? Ifhe or she fight all alone, in which way can he or she step onto the stage?
To sum up, everyone wants a leader who is completely honest but also intelligent to measure his behavior including his words. Honesty is a basic moral standard while knowing what can be said is also regarded as a necessary ability. Neither can be ignored to make a efficient political leader.
时间越来越少 自己一个人准备又完全迷茫了。。。。 |
|