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 p

Essay topics:

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.

When it comes to political pursuits, it is critical that the decisions made for set goals benefit and enhance the well-being of society. The prompt demonstrates two positions demonstrating whether pursuing an ideal or common ground should be the goal of politics. In my subjectivity, I mostly agree with the position that finding a common ground and reaching a cogent consensus should be the goal of politics. For that reason, it would help eschew heedless actions, incongruent relationships within society and members of politics, and foster development within a nation.
Rather than pursuing an ideal, finding a common ground and reaching reasonable consensus would avoid careless actions that would potentially harm the well-being of society. When taking a look at the United States government, the decision to ideally create a wall engendered harmful measures towards a minority group: immigrants. The creation of a wall not only led to imperil restrictions on who enters in and out of the country, but also led to hostility and oppression towards the immigrant population, such as separating immigrant families and caging children. Had the government took a decision that would lead to common ground and reasonable consensus would have eliminated chaos and harmful treatment against a population. The above example illustrates that pursuing an ideal can lead to precarious decisions that ultimately can harm the well-being of a society. While it is true that pursuing an ideal doesn’t necessarily harm a population, that can only be valid if consideration of the consequences in pursuing an ideal is considered. Therefore, reasonable actions are needed regardless of whether one pursues and ideal or reaches a common ground.
Additionally, the goal of politics that avoids an abrupt pursuit in ideals can form congruent relationships and promote unity. For example, political parties have opposing views when it comes to hefty topics of discussion, such as aboriton. The decision on aborition contains contrasting views on whether or not it is one’s right to save or destroy a life. For many circumstances, one party will always be in favor of saving a life, while the other will reason that it is solely one’s decision. This division in opinions can lead to division in congress. However, it does not have to be that way. Both sides can adhere to their ideals, while reaching a common ground on deciding what law should be made for society. The aforementioned example demonstrates that abruptly pursuing and ideal can lead to hostility and division within politics. However, it does not have to be that way if a silver lining is made, while most can adhere to their partialities. While it is true that pursuing ideals does not lead to incongruent relationships, that is only if people are on the same page of what they agree on. Therefore, a common ground is still necessary to avoid divergence.
Lastly, development within a nation should be considered when the goal of politics is to reach a common ground and reasonable consensus. If politics listens to what a society wants in the progression of a nation, such as free higher-education and promotion of equal rights for all, a nation would progress fairly. History has shown that if the United States had listened to society prior to the 1900s that women obtain equal standing in the work force and political inclusions, the nation would have had a leg up in the amount of citizens contributing to the economy and decisions of the wider population. Therefore, finding a common ground with the people can foster development in a nation that can perhaps lead to equal standing in what ideals to pursue that considers all.
Therefore, I agree that a common ground and reasonable consensus should be the goal of politics. Carfee and harmful actions can be avoided while the accretion of unity and development can be quite beneficial for all.

Votes
Average: 7.8 (2 votes)
Essay Categories

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 298, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...aborition contains contrasting views on whether or not it is one’s right to save or destroy a ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, lastly, look, so, still, therefore, well, while, for example, such as, it is true

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.5258426966 133% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 26.0 12.4196629213 209% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 26.0 14.8657303371 175% => OK
Relative clauses : 26.0 11.3162921348 230% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 38.0 33.0505617978 115% => OK
Preposition: 72.0 58.6224719101 123% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 12.9106741573 155% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3271.0 2235.4752809 146% => OK
No of words: 639.0 442.535393258 144% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.11893583725 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.02776782673 4.55969084622 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94210784801 2.79657885939 105% => OK
Unique words: 263.0 215.323595506 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.411580594679 0.4932671777 83% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1014.3 704.065955056 144% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 10.0 4.99550561798 200% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 8.0 3.10617977528 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.38483146067 23% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 20.2370786517 138% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.3859905513 60.3974514979 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.821428571 118.986275619 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.8214285714 23.4991977007 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.75 5.21951772744 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 18.0 10.2758426966 175% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.296679148714 0.243740707755 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.101624638158 0.0831039109588 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0961017855731 0.0758088955206 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.204806788112 0.150359130593 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0509962874909 0.0667264976115 76% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 14.1392134831 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.8420337079 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 12.1639044944 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.29 8.38706741573 99% => OK
difficult_words: 144.0 100.480337079 143% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => 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.