第一次写issue，新G，诚心求指点，谢谢

●＿●UID：3061271

28 The surest indicator of a great nation is represented not by the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists, but by the general welfare of its people.
FWrite a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.

=====================

A controversy has arisen and stood unsolved for several decades on whether the surest indicator of a great nation is represented by the accomplishments of its rulers, artists, or scientists, or by the overall well-being of its people. One side of the debate deems that overall well-being should be the NO.1 concern, to which I agree.

The US being generally thought to be the most powerful nation in the world, to a large extent might owe to its economic strength.  So we must admit that economic welfare of the people is fundamental.  A nation is built on the basis of the unity of its people and hence the first and foremost thing should be to safegaurd the basic rights of the most.  It is definitely not a great nation if starvation or poverty is everywhere, just like some countries in Africa, thus the basic daily demands of the masses shall be sure to meet namely the government should at least ensure that all ones have food, clothing and shelter to maintain their livelihoood.  And to provide a better life, labors' employment issues need to be solved, as well as the kids' education and some other aspects.  Also, an appropriate policy of taxation based on the principle of fairness will add the score, of course.

As to political welfare, besides that we all agree that every one shall enjoy the right of democracy and freedom, all citizens should be given the right to vote for their own mayor and president.  In some fascistic country like DPRK, for instance, no one dares to question the political and economic system, and it is apparently far from a great nation, even a normal functioning nation.

Moreover, the nationals’ health welfare may also be concern to the rulers of the nation.  As we all can see, like Sweden and some other European countries where there is little pollution, people can enjoy fresh air and water freely and infinitely, while people in China have to worry about the food security problem such as the contaminated milk powder.  In this level, we can not deny that this work has not been well done in our nation, especially when compared with those.

Admittedly, the achievements of rulers, artists, and scientists in other fields might also be taken into consideration when judging a nation.  We can not deny that sometimes outstanding figures will add luster to their nation.  Although poor and unrest, South Africa is still proud of its outstanding chief Nelson Mandela, and the people there were considered brave and strong-minded under his lead.  And as an ordinary country without any economic or political status in the world, Holland is highly regarded for the art achievement by the immortal artist Vincent Van Gogh.  What's more, there exists other ways to enhance the prestige of a nation.  For example, Spain was usually taken as a strong nation in sports, for its famous tennis player Nadal, F1 racer Alonso, and the wonderful performance in soccer.  

However, splendid accomplishments can not ensure the happiness of the masses, and do not outweigh the welfare of them, neither.  Therefore, I still hold the view that the well-being of the masses of the people should be prior indicator to a great nation.