新G ISSUE60 怎么破题

windieicloudieUID: 2938017

RT


Politicians should pursue common ground and reasonable consensus rather than elusive ideals.

这个题刚拿到手的时候觉得挺好写，但是又觉得对待  commonground 和 elusive ideals的意思抓的不准~~~

求高手指点~

GuessyUID: 2184792

我的建议是 开篇第一段把你觉得模棱两可的概念都给个定义 你自己定义过了就能抓准了

shinian1987UID: 2797009

common ground and reasonable consensus 指的应该是一些实在的利益吧。
elusive ideals 指的是政治理想。
可以两边都兼顾，两边都举例说明。
纯属个人意见，呵呵。。

windieicloudieUID: 2938017

common ground and reasonable consensus 指的应该是一些实在的利益吧。
elusive ideals 指的是政治理想。
可以两边都兼顾，两边都举例说明。
纯属个人意见，呵呵。。
shinian1987 发表于 2011-5-29 16:34

目前为止，我是这么想的。但是我在考虑，如果想however，而举反例的话应该怎么说，比如说，政治家因为政治野心而获得成功的。。。。。。

windieicloudieUID: 2938017

我的建议是 开篇第一段把你觉得模棱两可的概念都给个定义 你自己定义过了就能抓准了
Guessy 发表于 2011-5-28 01:47

好办法。。。。

sallyzywhappyUID: 3139283

我看到的一个翻译版本是：“政治家应该寻求共同点和理性的一致，而不是深奥的理想。”

windieicloudieUID: 2938017

这个帖子放到这里很久了，我说一下我想的。
我想的是common ground and reasonable consensus基本上都是在人民的角度出发，为人民谋利益方面而来的，在这里我的论证是一正一反：1.可以带来安定的社会和稳定的发展。2。倘若没有追求common……就会尤其是在国家或社会处于危难的时候给人们带来疾苦。然后最后论证，这两方面并不冲突，在独立战争的时候，解放黑奴在所有人眼里就是elusive ideal。但是他还是本着为人民的利益出发，努力实施这项政策，并且取得成功。这就可以说是两方面的结合，既idealism又pragmatism

我是这么想的。欢迎交流

thefinaldancerUID: 3392703

Should our political leaders pursue common ground and reasonable consensus? Or should they focus on elusive ideals? While it is true that a pragmatic leader would aim for reasonable consensus and succeed in accomplishing a common goal, their achievements may only be mediocre, whereas the rare iconoclastic leader achieves greatness by attaining goals  thought to be unattainable, holding true to ideals which many people may classify as elusive. Let me illustrate my viewpoint with some examples.
Abraham Lincoln is considered as one of the greatest presidents of the United States. He led the country through a great consititutional, military and moral crisis – the American civil war – preserving the union, while abolishing slavery and promoting economic modernization. Had he strived for a consensus and compromised his ideals of true equality for every individual, regardless of their race, the course of our nation’s history might have been different. Slavery, a brutal injustice could still have flourished in this country for longer. The life and legacy of Mahatma Gandhi is another case in point. When India was under the British rule, when the demands for the independence of the nation was being ignored and  Indians were treated like second rate citizens by the imperialists in their own country, Gandhi advocated for a nonviolent resistance as a strategy to fight the British. Many thought that the principles of ahimsa and nonviolence were elusive ideals, however through his words and deeds, Gandhi was able to convince the masses and go forwards with the nonviolent freedom struggle which culminated in India attaining independence in 1947.
Is it always worthwhile pursuing elusive ideals? I do not think so. The recent failure of the super committee in reaching a consensus regarding deficit reduction is an example. The Republicans and Democrats both stuck to their ideals, were unwilling to compromise, and no effective deal could be made. This indecision is frustrating when United States is going through trying economic times, and the debt levels are at an all time high.
In summary, I believe that politicians should try their best to reach a consensus and pursue goals benefitting the public while aspiring to stay true to their ideals. If a consensus cannot be reached, and the ideals at stake are the ones that would lead to a greater common good, they may have to try alternate strategies and unconventional methods to attain those ideals.