Another reason why I essentially agree with the speaker is that fully disclosing to the public certain types of information would threaten public safety and perhaps even national security. For example, if the President were to disclose the governments strategies for thwarting specific plans of an international terrorist or a drug trafficker, those strategies would surely fail, and the publics health and safety would be compromised as a result. Withholding information might also be necessary to avoid public panic. While such cases are rare, they do occur
occasionally. For example, during the first few hours of the new millennium the U.S. Pentagons missile defense system experienced a Y2K- related malfunction. This fact was withheld from the public until later in the day, once the problem had been solved; and legitimately so, since immediate disclosure would have served no useful purpose and might even have resulted in mass hysteria.
Having recognized that withholding informarion from the public is often necessary to serve the interests of that public, legitimate political leadership nevertheless requires forthrightness with the citizenry as to the leaders motives and agenda. History informs us that would-be leaders who lack such forthrightness are the same ones who seize and maintain power either by brute force or by demagoguery--that is, by deceiving and manipulating the citizenry. Paragons such as Genghis Khan and Hitler, respectively, come immediately to mind. Any democratic society should of course abhor demagoguery, which operates against the democratic principle of government by the people. Consider also less egregious examples, such as President Nixons withholding of information about his active role in the Watergate cover-up. His behavior demonstrated a concern for self- interest above the broader interests of the democratic system that granted his political authority in the first place.
【GRE作文北美范文:政客是否有必要对公众有所隐瞒】相关文章:
最新
2016-03-01
2016-03-01
2016-03-01
2016-03-01
2016-03-01
2016-03-01