As for written English, it is the first time I will take the GRE analytic writing essay. Lacking experience and skill, I am not confident enough to pass the exam. I am looking forwarding your cirtics on every part of my essay. Thank you in advance !
I agree with the idea that under some specific circumstance withholding information from public is necessary for political leaders in order to protect the long-term interest of the public and the nation ultimately. This authority nevertheless should be restricted in the reasonable level, or as what most democratic society are doing.
Obviously, the vital information of the nation, such as where nuclear submarines are, the key technique used in super computer and the coming financial policy, always should be locked in the doors of the White House and Pentagon offices. The unpredictable consequence of disclosing this information will be of no use to the society while mass confusion may come out. For example, once the president of the Poland and his companions died in the air crack, the new leader from vice president not the overt news should be the first task the government do. At the same time, public willingness sometimes unhelpful, even harmful under some conditions. People should never forget how Hitler's army destroyed European continent using petroleum provided by the U.S. steamship-the implementing of Neutrality Act which reflected the malapropos isolationism of the public.
In short, confidential information opposing public thoughts may be acceptable because it benefits most of the citizens.
Besides, as it is widely admitted that all leaders are not as perfect as they performed, total frankness and opening privacy would do great harm to powerful leadership. The little bit flaws of the leader's policy and mistake of his or her behavior, no matter how affectless they are and no matter whether they have corrected it, may be taken advantage of by the opponents for some contemptible purpose. The effective leadership requires comprises or pandering to the electorate, which is essential to the continuous strategy piloted by the powerful political leaders.
Though kindhearted the citizenry are, deception and secrecy had been abused by sorts of leaders, for instance, Hitler, Stalin and Nixon. Demagoguery in Nazi Germany and Soviet Union has ended up with millions of death while the cover-up of Watergate caused distrust of federal government. Even some leaders have the belief that they aligned with their personal interest with his or her fellow citizens, which the opponent may argue about, we, the public, not only in civil right but also for the wealth of the nation as a whole, require the government reveal the motives and agendas of their each steps.
To sum up, the reasonable extent of information withholding of leaders should be put into a controllable procedure. On one hand, certain information are kept back by responsible leaders to protect the ultimate wealth of public and security of nation. On the other hand, collective control would not allow unreliable leader to purse personal interest regardless of his or her honorable duty to fully devote to the goodness of the public.
I agree with the idea that under some specific circumstance withholding information from public is necessary for political leaders in order to protect the long-term interest of the public and the nation ultimately. This authority nevertheless should be restricted in the reasonable level, or as what most democratic society are doing.
Obviously, the vital information of the nation, such as where nuclear submarines are, the key technique used in super computer and the coming financial policy, always should be locked in the doors of the White House and Pentagon offices. The unpredictable consequence of disclosing this information will be of no use to the society while mass confusion may come out. For example, once the president of the Poland and his companions died in the air crack, the new leader from vice president not the overt news should be the first task the government do. At the same time, public willingness sometimes unhelpful, even harmful under some conditions. People should never forget how Hitler's army destroyed European continent using petroleum provided by the U.S. steamship-the implementing of Neutrality Act which reflected the malapropos isolationism of the public.
In short, confidential information opposing public thoughts may be acceptable because it benefits most of the citizens.
Besides, as it is widely admitted that all leaders are not as perfect as they performed, total frankness and opening privacy would do great harm to powerful leadership. The little bit flaws of the leader's policy and mistake of his or her behavior, no matter how affectless they are and no matter whether they have corrected it, may be taken advantage of by the opponents for some contemptible purpose. The effective leadership requires comprises or pandering to the electorate, which is essential to the continuous strategy piloted by the powerful political leaders.
Though kindhearted the citizenry are, deception and secrecy had been abused by sorts of leaders, for instance, Hitler, Stalin and Nixon. Demagoguery in Nazi Germany and Soviet Union has ended up with millions of death while the cover-up of Watergate caused distrust of federal government. Even some leaders have the belief that they aligned with their personal interest with his or her fellow citizens, which the opponent may argue about, we, the public, not only in civil right but also for the wealth of the nation as a whole, require the government reveal the motives and agendas of their each steps.
To sum up, the reasonable extent of information withholding of leaders should be put into a controllable procedure. On one hand, certain information are kept back by responsible leaders to protect the ultimate wealth of public and security of nation. On the other hand, collective control would not allow unreliable leader to purse personal interest regardless of his or her honorable duty to fully devote to the goodness of the public.