有些人认为政治领导向大众隐瞒信息是有必要的，甚至是有益的。也有人认为公众有知情权利。
Agree
1. In order to gain the opportunity for effective public leadership, a would-be leader must first gain and maintain political power. In the game of politics, complete forthrightness is a sign of vulnerability and naiveté, neither of which earn a politician respect among his or her opponents.
2. Fully disclosing to the public certain types of information would threaten public safety and perhaps even national security.
3. Nevertheless, legitimate political leadership indeed requires forthrightness with the citizenry as to the leader's motives and agenda.
可供参考老题库8 "It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public."政治领导们在公众面前有所保留经常是必要的，甚至是值得赞许的（45+2）
观点：agree in some respects, disagree in other respects
1． 政府不可能把所有事情都告诉公众，有所隐瞒还是有好处的，尤其是那些涉及到国家安全及社会稳定的信息。A）国防（national defense）信息，不暴露弱点 B）SARS病在全国造成恐慌，政府为了安抚公众情绪，会多报道些积极的信息
2． 然而，过度的隐瞒信息也会使得政府难以和群众取得沟通，并可能最终破坏民主的根基(While, on the other hand, distribute the government with the rights to freely conceal the information may also ruin the philosophical underpinnings of the democratic climate)
3． 所以，在涉及到人民生活与利益方面，政府应该办公透明化。A）利于社会稳定，公众了解了政府才能信任政府 B）利于领导者与公众的交流，听取民众的意见和建议 C） 使政府接受监督，防止腐败
可供参考老题库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."有效力的政治领导者在任何时候都告诉真相是不可能的。对于政治家来说，太坦白不是美德
In order to evaluate this contention it is necessary to examine the nature of politics, and to distinguish between short-term and long-term effectiveness.
1. On the one hand are three compelling arguments that political leader must sometimes be less than truthful in order to be effective in that leadership. The first argument lies in the fact that politics is a game played among politicians—and that to succeed in the game one must use the tools that are part and parcel of it.
2. Secondly, it is crucial to distinguish between misrepresentations of fact—in other words, lies—and mere political rhetoric.
3. Thirdly, politics is a business born not only of idealism but also of pragmatism; after all, in order to be effective a politician must gain and hold onto political power, which means winning election.
4. On the other hand, although in the short term being less-than-truthful with the public might serve a political leader's interest in preserving power, would-be political leaders who lack requisite integrity ultimately forfeit their leadership.
观点：agree to some extent; however, not too excessive
1． 诚实坦白对每个人来说都是美德。对于政治家，能够树立良好的公众形象，赢得公民的赞赏和支持。例如Lincoln家里很贫寒，他在竞选的时候丝毫没有掩饰自己的贫穷，赢得了下层阶级people from low class的支持
2． 然而，在某些时候，尤其涉及到国家安全及社会稳定时，有所隐瞒还是有好处的。A）国防（national defense）信息，不暴露弱点 B）SARS病在全国造成恐慌，政府为了安抚公众情绪，会多报道些积极的信息
3． 但就长远来说，领导者应该tell the truth，而且the government he leads应该办公透明化。A) 正直的人品才能真正获得民众的支持和信任如：Gandhi, Martin Luther King B) 利于领导者与公众的交流，听取民众的意见和建议 C) 政治家们过分的欺骗民众会导致人民不相信政府并导致不满，并最终导致灾难性的后果。
范文：
I agree with the speaker that it is sometimes necessary, and even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public. A contrary view would reveal a naivetd about the inherent nature of public politics, and about the sorts of compromises on the part of well-intentioned political leaders necessary in order to further the public's ultmaate interests. Nevertheless, we must not allow our political leaders undue freedom to with-hold information, otherwise, we risk sanctioning demagoguery and undermining the philosophical underpinnings of any democratic society.
One reason for my fundamental agreement with the speaker is that in order to gain the opportunity for effective public leadership, a would-be leader must fzrst gain and maintain political power. In the game of politics, complete forthrightness is a sign of vulnerability and naivete, neither of which earn a politician respect among his or her opponents, and which those opponents will use to every advantage to defeat the politician. In my observation some measure of pandering to the electorate is necessary to gain and maintain political leadership. For example, were all politicians to fully disclose every personal foibles, character flaw, and detail concerning personal life, few honest politicians would ever by elected. While this view might seem cynical, personal scandals have in fact proven the undoing of many a political career; thus I think this view is realistic.
Another reason why I essentially agree with the speaker is that fully disclosing to the public certain types of information would threaten public safety and perhaps even national security. For example, if the President were to disclose the government's strategies for thwarting specific plans of an international terrorist or a drug trafficker, those strategies would surely fail, and the public's health and safety would be compromised as a result. Withholding information might also be necessary to avoid public panic. While such cases are rare, they do occur occasionally. For example, during the first few hours of the new millennium the U.S. Pentagon's missile defense system experienced a Y2K- related malfunction. This fact was withheld from the public until later in the day, once the problem had been solved; and legitimately so, since immediate disclosure would have served no useful purpose and might even have resulted in mass hysteria.
Having recognized that withholding informarion from the public is often necessary to serve the interests of that public, legitimate political leadership nevertheless requires forthrightness with the citizenry as to the leader's motives and agenda. History informs us that would-be leaders who lack such forthrightness are the same ones who seize and maintain power either by brute force or by demagoguery--that is, by deceiving and manipulating the citizenry. Paragons such as Genghis Khan and Hitler, respectively, come immediately to mind. Any democratic society should of course abhor demagoguery, which operates against the democratic principle of government by the people. Consider also less egregious examples, such as President Nixon's withholding of information about his active role in the Watergate cover-up. His behavior demonstrated a concern for self- interest above the broader interests of the democratic system that granted his political authority in the first place.
In sum, the game of politics calls for a certain amount of disingenuousness and lack of forthrightness that we might otherwise characterize as dishonesty. And such behavior is a necessary means to the final objective of effective political leadership. Nevertheless, in any democracy a leader who relies chiefly on deception and secrecy to preserve that leadership, to advance a private agenda, or to conceal selfish motives, betrays the democracy-and ends up forfeiting the polirical game.
Is complete honesty a useful virtue in politics? The speaker contends that it is not, for the reason that political leaders must sometimes lie to be effective. In order to evaluate this contention it is necessary to examine the nature of politics, and to distinguish between short-term and long-term effectiveness.
On the one hand are three compelling arguments that a political leader must sometimes be less than truthful in order to be effective in that leadership. The first argument lies in the fact that politics is a game played among politicians--and that to succeed in the game one must use the tools that are part-and-parcel of it. Complete forthrightness is a sign of vulnerability and naivete, neither of which will earn a politician respect among his or her opponents, and which those opponents will use to every advantage against the honest politician.
Secondly, it is crucial to distinguish between misrepresentations of fact in other words, lies--and mere political rhetoric. The rhetoric of a successful politician eschews rigorous factual inquiry and indisputable fact while appealing to emotions, ideals, and subjective interpretation and characterizations. Consider, for example, a hypothetical candidate for political office who attacks the incumbent opponent by pointing out only certain portions of that opponent's legislative voting record. The candidate might use a vote against a bill eliminating certain incentives for local businesses as "dear evidence" that the opponent is "anti-business," "bad for the economy," or "out of touch with what voters want." None of these allegations are outright lies; they are simply the rhetorical cant of the effective politician.
Thirdly, politics is a business born not only of idealism but also of pragmatism; after all, in order to be effective a politician must gain and hold onto political power, which means winning elections. In my observation some degree of pandering to the electorate and to those who might lend financial support in reelection efforts is necessary to maintain that position. Modern politics is replete with candidates who refused to pander, thereby mining their own chance to exercise effective leadership.
Although in the short term being less-than-truthful with the public might serve a political leader's interest in preserving power, would-be political leaders who lack requisite integrity ultimately forfeit their leadership. Consider Richard Nixon, whose leadership seemed born not of ideology but of personal ambition, which bred contempt of the very people who sanctioned his leadership in the first place; the ultimate result was his forfeiture of that leadership. In contrast, Ronald Reagan was a highly effective leader largely because he honestly, and deeply, believed in the core principles that he espoused and advocated during his presidency--and his constituency sensed that genuineness and responded favorably to it. Moreover, certain types of sociopolitical leadership inherently require the utmost integrity and honesty. Consider notable figures such as Gandhi and King, both of whom were eminently effective in leading others to practice the high ethical and moral standards which they themselves advocated. The reason for this is simple: A high standard for one's own personal integrity is a prerequisite for effective moral leadership.
To sum up, I concede that the game of politics calls for a certain measure of posturing and disingenuousness. Yet, at the end of the game, without a countervailing measure of integrity, political game-playing will serve to diminish a political leader's effectiveness perhaps to the point where the politician forfeits the game.
Orignal From: Some people believe it is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public. Others believe that the public has a right to be fully informed
没有评论:
发表评论