- Joined
- Apr 21, 2011
- Messages
- 1,034
- Reaction score
- 3
If I wrote two essays of about this quality, what would I get (J-T)? I wrote this one in ~25 minutes.
This is from AAMC CBT #11:
Successful politicians are motivated more by practical considerations than by moral values.
This is from AAMC CBT #11:
Successful politicians are motivated more by practical considerations than by moral values.
Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which successful politicians might be motivated more by moral values than by practical considerations. Discuss what you think determines whether a successful politicians are motivated more by practical concerns or by moral values.
Politicians, at least in democratic societies, are given mandates by the voters of a nation to facilitate legislation that is deemed the most beneficial to citizens of that country. Politicians, those of whom create and support or argue against new laws and policies, base their support of new legislation on a number of factors, of which two of the most salient are practical considerations and morals. Morals fall under the "values" umbrella—politicians are guided by a set of guidelines, whether they are personal or codified in religions and other doctrine. Morals are at least somewhat intuitive in nature, and issues involving morals involve "gut" feelings and judgments on whether a particular course of action can be justified using the set of guidelines. Practical considerations are more utilitarian, and depend upon calculations of risk and potential benefits. In many cases, a combination of the two are used to come to conclusions about legislation, but in some cases, "morals" are what guide politicians in their work.
In recent election years, gay marriage has been an issue of great contention. Politicians on both sides, but especially conservative ones, have pushed the issue to raise the profile of their campaigns. Conservative Republicans, such as Republican presidential nominee Rick Santorum, have touted their opposition to the legalization of gay marriage on the basis of morals, specifically, morals that have been derived from theological interpretations of the bible. Santorum has unabashedly referenced the Bible while opposing the legalization of gay marriage in the United States, and thus his stance on the issue can be described as one derived from his morals. Whether or not Santorum can be considered successful as of yet, there is no doubt that his strong opposition to gay marriage has won him votes in the conservative regions of the country, and notoriety among those with more liberal views. His appeal to evangelical voters and lower to middle class voters cannot be denied, and much of it can be attributed to his moral views. Thus, his success rests on his strong moral convictions on the issue. In the same way, George W. Bush's success in the 2004 presidential elections was won in much the same way. He appealed to a large swath of voters by constantly bringing up the discussion of morals and values when he referred to the "War on Terrorism" and his opposition to gay marriage. His strong, somewhat polarizing, position on both issues appealed to many voters. Santorum and Bush are both politicians who were motivated by moral considerations, and became more successful because of it.
If we consider gay marriage from a utilitarian standpoint, there would be very little reason to oppose its legalization. In fact, studies have shown that the legalization of gay marriage would improve the economy, as those in the LGBT would spend more money on wedding ceremonies and the like. It is therefore very much the case then that conservative Republicans are motivated to oppose gay marriage based on morals derived from the Bible than from practical considerations.
There are a number of reasons why politicians may be more motivated by practical considerations rather than moral considerations, and vice versa. The number of votes that a politician may gain is most likely the most important reason for a politician to lean one way or the other. If a politician feels that he has much to gain in the way of the number of votes he can obtain for a future election by following his practical considerations, then he will place more emphasis on the practical considerations. For example, a politician might be an environmentalist, and his set of morals might lead him to oppose drilling for oil in the Alaskan wilderness. However, his constituents continually clamor for him to do something about the exorbitant oil prices. In this case, if he wants to be reelected in a future election cycle, he must follow the practical course and drill for oil in Alaska, even though he may be morally disinclined to do so. In the same way, a liberal politician may not voice his support for gay marriage even if he does support it for fear that his largely conservative voter base may refuse to vote for him in the future. As seen in the examples, politics is largely a game where politicians try to garner as many votes as possible, so that they may stay in office for the longest time possible. Ideally, politicians would weigh both practical and moral considerations when making decisions that affect the country, but it that is almost an impossible task when convictions are strong-headed, and politicians are in constant fear of losing their positions.
