"It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public."
I agree with the speaker that it is sometimes necessary, and even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public. A contrary view would reveal a naivetd about the inherent nature of public politics, and about the sorts of compromises on the part of well-intentioned political leaders necessary in order to further the public's ultmaate interests. Nevertheless, we must not allow our political leaders undue freedom to with-hold information, otherwise, we risk sanctioning demagoguery and undermining the philosophical underpinnings of any democratic society. One reason for my fundamental agreement with the speaker is that in order to gain the opportunity for effective public leadership, a would-be leader must fzrst gain and maintain political power. In the game of politics, complete forthrightness is a sign of vulnerability and naivete, neither of which earn a politician respect among his or her opponents, and which those opponents will use to every advantage to defeat the politician. In my observation some measure of pandering to the electorate is necessary to gain and maintain political leadership. For example, were all politicians to fully disclose every personal foibles, character flaw, and detail concerning personal life, few honest politicians would ever by elected. While this view might seem cynical, personal scandals have in fact proven the undoing of many a political career; thus I think this view is realistic. 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 government's strategies for thwarting specific plans of an international terrorist or a drug trafficker, those strategies would surely fail, and the public's 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
7
occasionally. For example, during the first few hours of the new millennium the U.S. Pentagon's 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 leader's 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 Nixon's 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. In sum, the game of politics calls for a certain amount of disingenuousness and lack of forthrightness that we might otherwise characterize as dishonesty. And such behavior is a necessary means to the final objective of effective political leadership. Nevertheless, in any democracy a leader who relies chiefly on deception and secrecy to preserve that leadership, to advance a private agenda, or to conceal selfish motives, betrays the democracy-and ends up forfeiting the polirical game.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 585, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nderpinnings of any democratic society. One reason for my fundamental agreement ...
^^
Line 1, column 1466, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...r; thus I think this view is realistic. Another reason why I essentially agree w...
^^
Line 1, column 1856, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'publics'' or 'public's'?
Suggestion: publics'; public's
...e strategies would surely fail, and the publics health and safety would be compromised ...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 2027, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...While such cases are rare, they do occur 7 occasionally. For example, during t...
^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Occasionally
...h cases are rare, they do occur 7 occasionally. For example, during the first few hour...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 387, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ht even have resulted in mass hysteria. Having recognized that withholding infor...
^^
Line 5, column 1371, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...political authority in the first place. In sum, the game of politics calls for a...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, if, nevertheless, so, thus, well, while, as to, for example, i think, in fact, of course, such as, as a result, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.5258426966 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.4196629213 129% => OK
Conjunction : 25.0 14.8657303371 168% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.3162921348 141% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 33.0505617978 97% => OK
Preposition: 78.0 58.6224719101 133% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 12.9106741573 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3298.0 2235.4752809 148% => OK
No of words: 591.0 442.535393258 134% => OK
Chars per words: 5.58037225042 5.05705443957 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.93056706295 4.55969084622 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.19497169221 2.79657885939 114% => OK
Unique words: 319.0 215.323595506 148% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.539763113367 0.4932671777 109% => OK
syllable_count: 1058.4 704.065955056 150% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 8.0 1.77640449438 450% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.6239028329 60.3974514979 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 143.391304348 118.986275619 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.6956521739 23.4991977007 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.21739130435 5.21951772744 119% => OK
Paragraphs: 2.0 4.97078651685 40% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 7.0 7.80617977528 90% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.13820224719 175% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.274701718492 0.243740707755 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0811552498596 0.0831039109588 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.104877144039 0.0758088955206 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.217313550877 0.150359130593 145% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0348800881392 0.0667264976115 52% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.7 14.1392134831 125% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 29.18 48.8420337079 60% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.92365168539 164% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.1743820225 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.38 12.1639044944 126% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.58 8.38706741573 114% => OK
difficult_words: 176.0 100.480337079 175% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 17.5 11.8971910112 147% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 18.0 11.7820224719 153% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum four paragraphs wanted.
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.