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.
Politics is an integral part of communities and societies. It has a process through which various opinions and policies can be accommodated and harmonized. Given this point, it is reasonable to state that the objective of politics is finding a logical consensus between different members. However, one of the other important roles of politics is also pursuing specific ideals that many people strive to realize. That is why there are a myriad of ideological positions in political scenes. While I think both of the aforementioned roles are truly significant and they can be compatible, I still consider the former as a more essential part of politics.
To be sure, the pursuit of ideals through politics is natural and desirable. That is an important reason why a plethora of parties compete with each other. It is not simple to enumerate all those sorts of different ideological stances, such as liberalism, communism, capitalism, conservatism, and then some. Such various ideological positions provide political decisions with logical bases. Without such evident and detailed ideological imperatives, any government or community would be faced with the dangers of excessive populism and even total anarchy. As Plato indicated, if politicians are preoccupied with winning votes or supports only, there would be a chaotic situation where any important decision cannot be wisely made. This circumstance has been unfolding in several countries including Argentina in the middle twentieth century when political leaders did not give detailed perspectives for the future but myopic free incentives.
Therefore, it seems to be reasonable to mention that finding common ground is also important to make a balance between diverse political arguments. This process is not incompatible with the pursuit of ideals. Instead, this procedure actually results in balanced and reasonable agreements in most cases by accommodating and respecting a variety of ideologies. These sorts of agreements are likely to lead to a stable condition of national security in welfare. There are a lot of examples related to this point, and I can present one newly democratized state named Tunisia. Although there have been serious political crises between different parties and political groups in Tunisia, they have succeeded in entrenching democracy and relatively stable social conditions compared to neighboring countries thanks to its room for compromising different political opinions. While both secularists and Islamists have tried to realize their ideals through politics, they have agreed to concede some of their goals to more comprehensive policies for finding common grounds between them. For instance, the Islamists gave up to add the phrase ‘Tunisia is a country based on Islam’ in the constitution. Meanwhile, the secularists have agreed to the legalization of various Islamist groups. As aforementioned, such agreements have made Tunisia more secure than nearby states.
Furthermore, it should also be noted that no ideology is impeccable. Thus, it is better for ideologies to compete with each other so that they can fix some faults and contribute to better conditions for all people. If the procedure of harmonization and sound competition is omitted, the result would be devastating as history has demonstrated. For example, when communist countries banned all other ideological positions except communism, they did not get communist ideals. In contrast, in each state, this sort of communism evolved into destructive ideology, such as red fascism in the Soviet Union and a cult for Kim Il-sung in North Korea. Given this situation, the pursuit of an ideal should be controlled to some degree by finding common grounds.
In conclusion, I can say that both statements presented in the question have valid points. However, it is needed to give more importance to finding reasonable consensus because this procedure is vital to make desirable political decisions. In addition, the pursuit of a single ideal can be inimical to society, and therefore there should be a tool to control this, the process of reaching common grounds.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 437, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. Did you mean 'myriads'?
Suggestion: myriads
...ive to realize. That is why there are a myriad of ideological positions in political s...
^^^^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... as a more essential part of politics. To be sure, the pursuit of ideals throug...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...the future but myopic free incentives. Therefore, it seems to be reasonable to ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...unisia more secure than nearby states. Furthermore, it should also be noted tha...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...some degree by finding common grounds. In conclusion, I can say that both state...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, furthermore, however, if, so, still, then, therefore, thus, while, for example, for instance, i think, in addition, in conclusion, in contrast, sort of, such as, in most cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 35.0 19.5258426966 179% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 14.8657303371 141% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 33.0505617978 118% => OK
Preposition: 84.0 58.6224719101 143% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 12.9106741573 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3484.0 2235.4752809 156% => OK
No of words: 640.0 442.535393258 145% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.44375 5.05705443957 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.02973371873 4.55969084622 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01739099845 2.79657885939 108% => OK
Unique words: 321.0 215.323595506 149% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.5015625 0.4932671777 102% => OK
syllable_count: 1122.3 704.065955056 159% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 19.0 6.24550561798 304% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 3.10617977528 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 32.0 20.2370786517 158% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.311374211 60.3974514979 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.875 118.986275619 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0 23.4991977007 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.125 5.21951772744 117% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 18.0 10.2758426966 175% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.83258426966 166% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.276341689339 0.243740707755 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0703643609214 0.0831039109588 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0652042532744 0.0758088955206 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.163355686265 0.150359130593 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0263788505197 0.0667264976115 40% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 14.1392134831 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 34.26 48.8420337079 70% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.5 12.1743820225 111% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.27 12.1639044944 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.39 8.38706741573 112% => OK
difficult_words: 193.0 100.480337079 192% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.8971910112 76% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.