GRE习作修改集--Issue篇(老外修改）

Issue 8 - "It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public."

People are taught that honesty is a virtue. But as a political leader, total honesty—whether to partisans or to competitors, especially to the public—often plays a negative role instead of a positive one. A thorough straightness always amounts to a complete failure in political realm. Nevertheless, overly withholding information may lead to destructions to the basis of democracy society.


The first reason why I agree with the speaker’s claim lies in that it would serve the interest of political leaders to keep information from the public for the purpose of gaining popular support. Naturally, human cannot avoid making mistakes. To disclose his indulgence or small shortcomings would be a negative force for a leader to establish or maintain a perfect political image. Take the consideration of President Kennedy. Although few would query his ability to lead his people a happy life, his marital indiscretions still inevitably undermined his image among the public. Since the people always tend to judge a leader by his external performance, it is necessary or even desirable for a political leader to hide the information which goes against himself from the people. Actually, in my observation, leaders willingly abandon their own hobbies to cater to the public’s tastes, for the sake of being seen approachable. After all, what could be a more attractive performance in a leader’s political career than keeping a perfect image?


Another reason why I suppose it necessary or even desirable to withhold information is that total information exposure might endanger the development of a nation and social stability. Most politicians would agree that policies in military affairs, politics, and diplomacy that adopted by a nation—to be disclosed—would impede the country’s advancement or even the existence. This is especially true in wartime. Otherwise, leaders whose naivety urges them to disclose information continuously have to consider the mass panic that might be brought by the disclosure. It immediately brings to mind the SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) that plagued in China 2003. Admittedly, people have the right to know the extent to the spread of the disease. Yet, had they informed the concrete numbers of patients and deaths, there would have been an uncontrollable panic around the corner. In such case, to withhold information serves primarily to pacify the mood of the public, and to guarantee the whole society in order.


Having learnt that keeping information from the public plays an important role in political ploy, overly withholding information would carry as tragic a result as totally exposing information.
Keeping information merely for deceit’s sake would lead to nothing but rumor and gossip or panic. A telling example of such case involves President Nixon whose immoral behavior compelled him forfeit his leadership as a result. Many leaders have long known the harm of deceiving people; yet they weigh the cost against the interest of deceit, and continued to fool the public by withholding their unspeakable immoral secrets.


In the final analysis, tactics—even those regarded as immoral, such as withholding information from the public—are needed in political affairs. However, it would be cautioned that extending the disguise too far might risk undertaking a losing ending: once a political leader runs counter to the interest of the people, he has to surrender his leadership.