GRE Example Essay: The Goal of Politics
GRE Analyze an Issue Essay Prompt:
Some people claim that the goal of politics should be the pursuit of an ideal. Others argue that the goal should be finding common ground and reaching reasonable consensus.
Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.
Watch the video where I write this essay LIVE: https://youtu.be/q9zsr-ekz-o
Brainstorming:
Mostly agree that we need to find a reasonable consensus
Body 1: lots of people who form the executive branch/carry out laws
IN THE US: Legalizing marijuana (so many points of view, different states, rely a lot of different law enforcement agencies to cooperate, etc.) (business side, where we need to think about state-specific laws)
Rely on bureaucracy in the US
Body 2: diversity of people who live in a country
Different things work in different places, especially when you have a lot of people trying to work/live together
Lot of times there is great space/room for consensus
Zoning laws/NIMBY-ism – very strong ideas in different places, best to have some different examples (and perhaps one side can learn from another with some experience/data)
Body 3: pursuit of an ideal is great BUT reliant on a single person (Stalin, Hitler), perversion of ideals that leads to danger for a lot of people
Essay:
Politics is innately a challenging profession because politicians, especially the most revered political leaders, must manage many people who often have opposing views of different issues that affect their locality. I believe that, because of all those different viewpoints, it is generally important to try to find a reasonable consensus on various issues. This is because, in the US for example, the law enforcement system relies heavily on a variety of players, especially those who have direct access to the issue on the ground, and there is typically a large diversity of people who live in a country.
Generally, the politicians who make laws are not the same ones who must enforce them. There are also many different situations that may require nuanced understandings or individual judgment. As a result, it is important to have a general consensus on new laws passed so that even law enforcement who have an opposing point of view can carry out new legislation with fidelity. For example, a complex issue in the United States is the legalization of marijuana. There is a patchwork of laws governing how the substance can be used in different states, for medical, commercial, and unlawful methods. One of the biggest challenges in determining federal laws for marijuana is the jurisdiction for marijuana-related situations. For example, states are responsible for most issues, but the federal government can step in when the situation is related to cross-state sales. When law enforcement needs to be involved, it is important for those employees to carry out whatever laws are applicable in the situation they find themselves. For this reason, they need to feel their personal viewpoints have been incorporated and considered to prevent corruption or black market dealings. As a result, law enforcement who have views that have contributed to the general consensus can often be more effective in carrying out said laws.
In addition, the US is also a very diverse country. Because of the variety of backgrounds, cultures, and viewpoints that people have, there are often many instances where blanket ideals are difficult to implement. Having the support of a general consensus is useful in these cases to ensure that people who are so different can live together harmoniously. With the issue of affordable housing and zoning laws, for example, there are many people who believe that new units should not be built because of how it affects their own housing values, and there are those who believe that zoning laws should be abolished. A city needs to strike a delicate balance between the two to ensure that people can have their wishes considered and to figure out what is the best for the city as a whole. When a consensus is reached, it is more likely that people who have opposing points of view can accept new changes and change their mind based on available data and examples.
In certain cases, such as when human rights are involved, the pursuit of an ideal can be very important. For example, having access to running water and clean air should be a one-sided debate. However, we can see sometimes that staunch dedication to a single ideal can become a perversion. Two good examples of these are Stalin and Hitler in the early-1900s and after. For both of these men, their ideals were so strong that they completely disregarded the humanity of groups of people who stood in their way. They became some of the most deadly leaders in history and negatively impacted tens of thousands of people. In these cases, their ideals were destructive and needed to be checked by a strong opposing force.
