我的第一篇issue，请高手赐教

morrowstarUID: 189985

没人理我。。。借鉴了高手文章自己改了下，3楼
PS 借鉴了一个idea但是文字是自己写的，这样有抄袭嫌疑吗？[/SIZE]

167."It is impossible for an effective political leader to tell the truth all the time. Complete honesty is not a useful virtue for a politician."

There exists a public controversy over the issue of whether political leaders should be confined within the bounds of moral integrity. I agree that in order to be effective leaders, they should be honest with the public on cardinal issues concerning most people. However, it is unwarranted and ridiculous to extend this assertion to claim their complete honesty on ecery single issue, while ignoring certain compelling reasons why it is necessary, sometimes even desirable, for them the withhold the truth.

To begin with, despite assorted effusion to the contrary, the game of politics welcomes and demands a certain amount of chicanery by disingenuousness. This statement can be otherwise rendered as, “Ends justify means”. Political leaders’ primary concern is to build, maintain, and expand the wealth, prosperity and political influence of their nations. Many more times than one would like to admit, realizing those goals require them to make choices that are outside the bounds of honesty. Politics itself calls for its players to exhibit a certain amount of unstraightforwardness, and complete honesty, in this case, only stands for one’s naivety, vulnerability and an inability to participate rather than a useful virtue.

Furthermore, the tendency of public scrutiny to diminish one’s reputation also defies complete honesty of political leaders. In order to sustain their political success, political leaders need to be inspiring role models of values-based leadership, which is more likely to result in citizens giving the nation their loyalty and superior performance. It will be impossible for an effective political leader, none of whom free from personal foibles or character flaws, to maintain his or her good figure while being completely honest to the public. This viewpoint is particularly evident in our discussion of the private morality of political leaders, which reached its new heights during the U.S. Presidency of Bill Clinton. Highly appreciated for the job he was doing as President, he had his cause in close-call jeopardy when his affair with the Whitehouse intern Lewinsky became central in 1998. Although Mr. Clinton managed to get through the worst of the Monica Lewinsky charges, the possibility of his impeachment exhibited the fundamental contradiction between political success and total honesty toward the public.

However, the fact that a hint of unstraightforwardness is often necessary, and sometimes even desirable for political leaders cannot justify withholding of information on cardinal public issues that concern most citizens. On the one hand, seizure of power by complete delusion and maintenance by concealment, as history always informs us, give rise to corruption within the government, and hence jeopardize the regime of democracy. On the other hand, withholding cardinal information leads to public squandering of trust in both the government and political leaders individually, whose credibility contribute greatly to an effective political leadership, and thus making the political chicanery defeat its own purposes in the long run.

To sum up, the game of politics calls for chicanery by disingenuousness to a certain extent. And such behavior enables political leaders to maintain a good figure before the public so as to achieve effective leadership. In this sense, complete honesty, however favorable, is anything but a useful virtue for a politician. Nevertheless, any political leader who depends chiefly on deception is domed to failure.

morrowstarUID: 189985

沉了。。。顶一下

morrowstarUID: 189985

167. It is impossible for an effective political leader to tell the truth all the time. Complete honesty is not a useful virtue for a politician.

There exists a public controversy over the issue of whether political leaders should be confined within the bounds of moral integrity. I concede that politicians cannot base their leadership completely on duplicity. However, it is unwarranted and ridiculous to extend this assertion to claim their complete honesty on every single issue, while ignoring certain compelling reasons why dishonesty is necessary, sometimes even desirable.

Note the words “duplicity” and” dishonesty” mentioned above. It is crucial to differentiate absolute lies from political rhetoric. Lies involve distortion to the truth, whereas political rhetoric is achieved simply by withholding it. Political leaders’ primary concern is to build, maintain, and expand the wealth, prosperity and political influence of their nations. Many more times than one would like to admit, realizing those goals require them to make choices that are outside the bounds of honesty. The game of politics itself demands a certain amount of disingenuousness to hold the truth back, especially in terms of national security. Example. Golda Meir, the Russian-born Israeli prime minister said, “A leader who doesn't hesitate before he sends his nation into battle is not fit to be a leader.” I would say a leader who hesitates to withhold truth from the public for its own good is not fit to lead. Leaders should not be praised for their virtue if they lack the energy to be mean; in such cases, honesty is only the effect of naivety and vulnerability.

Furthermore, the public’s tendency to relate political leaders’ private morality with political integrity also defies their complete honesty. In order to gain or sustain their political power, politicians need to be inspiring role models of values-based leadership, for whereas positive public images are more likely to result in citizens’ loyalty and superior performances, one’s personal foibles and character flaws only invites public doubts toward his leadership. This viewpoint is particularly evidenced in the discussion over the private ethics of political leaders, which reached its new heights during the U.S. Presidency of Bill Clinton. Highly appreciated for the job he was doing as President, he had his cause in close-call jeopardy when his affair with the Whitehouse intern Lewinsky became central in 1998. Although Mr. Clinton managed to get through the worst of the Monica Lewinsky charges, the possibility of his impeachment exhibited the fundamental contradiction between political success and total honesty toward the public.

However, the fact that a certain amount of disingenuousnes is often necessary, sometimes even desirable for political leaders cannot justify withholding of information on cardinal public issues that concern most citizens. On the one hand, seizure of power by complete delusion and maintenance by concealment, as history always informs us, give rise to corruption within the government, and hence jeopardize the regime of democracy. On the other hand, withholding cardinal information leads to public squandering of trust in both the government and political leaders individually, whose credibility contribute greatly to an effective political leadership, and thus making the political chicanery defeat its own purposes in the long run.

To sum up, the game of politics calls for chicanery by disingenuousness to a certain extent. And such behavior enables political leaders to maintain a good figure before the public so as to achieve effective leadership. In this sense, complete honesty, however favorable, is anything but a useful virtue for a politician. Nevertheless, any political leader who depends chiefly on deception is domed to failure.


Against: Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
For: Ends justify means.

第二段苦于找不到例子。。。

zqimagineUID: 193623

167. It is impossible for an effective political leader to tell the truth all the time. Complete honesty is not a useful virtue for a politician.

There exists a public controversy over the issue of whether political leaders should be confined within the bounds of moral integrity. I concede that politicians cannot base their leadership completely on duplicity. However, it is unwarranted and ridiculous to extend this assertion to claim their complete honesty on every single issue, while ignoring certain compelling reasons why dishonesty is necessary, sometimes even desirable.

Note the words “duplicity” and” dishonesty” mentioned above. It is crucial to differentiate absolute lies from political rhetoric. Lies involve distortion [U]to(of)[/U]  the truth, whereas political rhetoric is achieved simply by withholding it. Political leaders’ primary concern is to build, maintain, and expand the wealth, prosperity and political influence of their nations. Many more times than one would like to admit, realizing those goals [U]require(requires)[/U]  them to make choices that are outside the bounds of honesty. The game of politics itself demands a certain amount of disingenuousness to hold the truth back, especially in terms of national security. Example. Golda Meir, the Russian-born Israeli prime minister said, “A leader who doesn't hesitate before he sends his nation into battle is not fit to be a leader.” I would say a leader who hesitates to withhold truth from the public for its own good is not fit to lead. Leaders should not be praised for their virtue if they lack the [U]energy(boldness )[/U]  to be mean; in such cases, honesty is only the effect of naivety and vulnerability.

Furthermore, the public’s tendency to relate political leaders’ private morality with political integrity also defies their complete honesty. In order to gain or sustain their political power, politicians need to be inspiring role models of values-based leadership, for whereas positive public images are more likely to result in citizens’ loyalty and superior performances, one’s personal foibles and character flaws only invites public doubts toward his leadership. This viewpoint is particularly evidenced in the discussion over the private ethics of political leaders, which reached its new heights during the U.S. Presidency of Bill Clinton. Highly appreciated for [U]the job(his work) [/U]  he was doing as President, he had his cause in close-call jeopardy when his affair with the Whitehouse intern Lewinsky became central in 1998. Although Mr. Clinton managed to get through the worst of the Monica Lewinsky charges, the possibility of his impeachment exhibited the fundamental contradiction between political success and total honesty toward the public.

However, the fact that a certain amount of disingenuousnes is often necessary, sometimes even desirable for political leaders cannot justify withholding of information on cardinal public issues that concern most citizens. On the one hand, seizure of power by complete delusion and maintenance by concealment, as history always informs us, give rise to corruption within the government, and hence jeopardize the regime of democracy. On the other hand, withholding cardinal information leads to public squandering of trust in both the government and political leaders individually, whose credibility contribute greatly to an effective political leadership, and thus making the political chicanery defeat its own purposes in the long run.

To sum up, the game of politics calls for chicanery by disingenuousness to a certain extent. And such behavior enables political leaders to maintain a good figure [U]before(in front of)[/U]  the public so as to achieve effective leadership. In this sense(只听过in this case啊，是不是我孤know寡闻?), complete honesty, however favorable, is anything but a useful virtue for a politician. Nevertheless, any political leader who depends chiefly on deception is domed to failure.

改不出来了，我觉得自己水平太此，能赶上你就谢天谢地了。汗^
希望搂主有空指点下我啊，呼呼~

morrowstarUID: 189985

多谢楼上的
还有一个月就考了，才写了3篇。。。

PS. in this sense是在这种意义上来说的意思