- Government officials should rely on their own judgment rather than unquestioningly carry out the will of the people whom they serve.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
Some would say that effective public officials are those who readily abandon their principles for the sake of compromise. In some sense, it is true that obstinacy of a political leader is a surest path for the entire country to a pandemonium. However, many historical lessons from the failures of populist regimes in the South America warn us that it might be much more dangerous for a political leader to cater to the demands of the capricious mass public.
Of course, it is undeniable that there are a number of merits we can expect from government officials who bravely forgo their own beliefs and follow the will of the people. When it comes to the synergic effects in the course of economic prosperity, the ability of a leader to incorporate basic impulses of the general public seems far more important than his or her insistence on particular ideals. During the economic roaring of several East Asian countries in the 1970’s and 1980’s, the leaders of those developing countries became the icons of devoted guiders partly because their primary focus of ruling was well in harmony with the demands of their citizens, liberation from poverty; taking into account the demand, the leaders not only secured their legitimacy but also successfully mobilized the passion of the people into a clear direction.
Nevertheless, this does not necessarily mean that any effective leader should unquestioningly follow the will of the public. When it comes to several political ideals that are usually elusive from the material needs, adamancy rather than compromise seems the primary virtue of a political leader. Abraham Lincoln, for example, might not have become a leader whom we know today if he had abandoned his political principle, the abolishment of slavery for the realization of the truly free country. In fact, he even ran the risk of causing the Civil War (in this context, he betrayed the will of many citizens who just wanted to live peacefully) for his own ideal. Then, should we label him an incompetent leader for the simple reason that he did not carry out the sentiment of the many White people?
Further,
"The study of history places too much emphasis on individuals. The most significant events and trends in history were made possible not by the famous few, but by groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten."
The speaker claims that significant historical events and trends are made possible by groups of people rather than individuals, and that the study of history should emphasize the former instead of the latter. I tend to disagree with both aspects of this claim. To begin with, learning about key historical figures inspires us to achieve great things ourselves--far more so than learning about the contributions of groups of people. Moreover, history informs us that it is almost always a key individual who provide the necessary impetus for what otherwise might be a group effort, as discussed below.
Admittedly, at times distinct groups of people have played a more pivotal role than key individuals in important historical developments. For example, history and art appreciation courses that study the Middle Ages tend to focus on the artistic achievements of particular artists such as Fra Angelico, a Benedictine monk of that period. However, Western civilization owes its very existence not to a few famous painters but rather to a group of Benedictine nuns of that period. Just prior to and during the decline of the Roman Empire, many women fled to join Benedictine monasteries, bringing with them substantial dowries which they used to acquire artifacts, art works, and manuscripts. As a result, their monasteries became centers for the preservation of Western culture and knowledge which would otherwise have been lost forever with the fall of the Roman Empire.
However, equally influential was Johannes Gutenberg, whose invention of the printing press several centuries later rendered Western knowledge and culture accessible to every class of people throughout the known world. Admittedly, Gutenberg was not single handedly responsible for the outcomes of his invention. Without the support of paper manufacturers, publishers, and distributors, and without a sufficient demand for printed books, Gutenberg would never have become one of "the famous few." However, I think any historian would agree that studying the groups of people who rode the wave of Gutenberg's invention is secondary in understanding history to learning about the root historical cause of that wave. Generally speaking, then, undue attention to the efforts and contributions of various groups tends to obscure the cause-and-effect relationships with which the study of history is chiefly concerned. Gutenberg is just one example of an historical pattern in which it is individuals who have been ultimately responsible for the most significant developments in human history. Profound scientific inventions and discoveries of the past are nearly all attributable not to forgettable groups of people but to certain key individuals--for example, Copernicus, Newton, Edison, Einstein, Curie, and of course Gutenberg. Moreover, when it comes to seminal sociopolitical events, the speaker's claim finds even less support from the historical record. Admittedly, sweeping social changes and political reforms require the participation of large groups of people. However, I would be hard-pressed to identify any watershed sociopolitical event attributable to a leaderless group. History informs us that groups rally only when incited and inspired by key individuals.
The speaker might claim that important long-term sociological trends are often instigated not by key individuals but rather by the masses. I concede that gradual shifts in demography, in cultural traditions and mores, and in societal attitudes and values can carry just as significant an historical impact as the words and deeds of "the famous few." Yet, it seems that key individuals almost invariably provide the initial spark for those trends. For instance, prevailing attitudes about sexual morality stem from the ideas of key religious leaders; and a culture's prevailing values concerning human life are often rooted in the policies and prejudices of political leaders. The speaker might also point out that history's greatest architectural and engineering feats--such as the Taj Mahal and the Great Wall came about only by the efforts of large groups of workers. And, however, it was the famous few--monarchs in these cases whose whims and egos were the driving force behind these accomplishments.
To sum up, with few historical exceptions, history is shaped by key individuals, not by nameless, faceless groups. It is the famous few that provide visions of the future, visions which groups then bring to fruition. Perhaps the speaker's claim will have more merit at the close of the next millennium since politics and science are being conducted increasingly by consortiums and committees. Yet, today it behooves us to continue drawing inspiration from "the famous few," and to continue understanding history chiefly in terms of their influence.