Does the End rarely Justify the Means in Politics?

In politics, the end rarely justifies the means. Describe a specific situation in which a political end might justify using questionable means for accomplishing that end. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a political end justifies the means for accomplishing that end. When one believes that the end justifies the means, he will take any action to the desired result. Morality is not a factor in that the means taken could be good or bad. Politics is, in a sense, a game where players have the desire to gain and hold onto power. Without certain checks and balances, most of these players would probably maintain power using any means. In a true democracy, the end rarely justifies the means because the government places high value on transparency, freedom and human rights. Most democratic governments feel it is their responsibility to protect the life and liberty of their people. Inevitably, nations face threats from all directions--both domestic and external. In a post 9-11 era, the United States has focused its efforts on the fight against terrorism. The government wanted to avoid another terrorist act in the homeland and has spent a huge amount of its budget on several measures--for example, from fighting wars on two fronts to enacting costly changes in airport screening procedures. The means of avoiding another 9-11, indeed, has caused much controversy. Thousands of civilians in both Iraq and Afghanistan have died from drones and other attacks used to chase down terrorist suspects. People have felt their personal liberties have been compromised in more detailed screening procedures. Some have charged that the government is using 9-11 as a poor excuse to have more control over citizens per se and usher in more of a big brother-type era. Even in times of war and tighter control of national security, government should take steps to maintain the integrity of its democracy. This means being accountable to their people and making sure their means are in line with the values they seek to propagate inside and outside of the country. There are arguably situations in politics where the end might justify questionable means for accomplishing that end. For example, the capture of certain key terrorist suspects provides governments with the opportunity to get ahead of the enemy and foil plots. Mere questioning will not help an interrogator garner useful information. They must use proven techniques that coerce suspects to give up the truth. Of course, the use of torture by the US has been viewed by some as antithetical to democratic values and not helpful to the war effort in the long run. Others, though, see these suspects as having given up any right to dignity and any means of extracting information could be justified upon discovering terrorist plots. When certain countries seek to promote their democratic values worldwide, they should believe that the ends rarely justifies the means. Responding to domestic and external threats, however, makes it really easy for these countries to take actions not in line with their supposed value of freedom. Indeed, advocacy groups championing liberty and human rights play key roles in ramping up pressure for democratic governments to be accountable for the means they take to achieve a desired result.

Can only a fully Informed Electorate Vote Responsibly?

Only a fully informed electorate can vote responsibly. Describe a specific situation in which a less than fully informed electorate might vote responsibly. Discuss what you think determines how much information is enough to allow for responsible voting. One of the cornerstones of democracy is the freedom of citizens to access information. In particular, a free press and internet allows the people to learn about their representatives and workings of the government. In contrast, closed societies highly regulate information in the attempt to prevent growth of opposition movements and maintain the status quo. Democracies trust that people who have broad information will make electoral decisions that make sense for the country. However, the reality is that not all voters go to the poll after having researched the issues and candidates; many vote on the basis of superficial factors, such as appearance and name recognition. Thus, only a fully informed electorate can vote responsibly. In democracies, the people do not have a direct say in policy/government decisions. They must elect representatives who make these decisions for them. During election time, an engaged citizen will take time to learn about the candidates via newspaper, internet and other conduits of information. He will evaluate whether the candidate's position and past record are align with the country's and his own interests. This type of citizen goes to the poll well-informed and can make responsible choices. However, most people vote without knowing much about the candidates and issues; they have, perhaps, been influenced by soundbites or told by a friend about what decision to make. He really does not have an idea which candidate or issue would best represent his needs. It is unrealistic, however, to obligate the electorate to do their due diligence before going to the polls. After all, people come from different educational and family backgrounds. Some may be used to reading the paper on a daily basis and others are barely literate. All these citizens, however, have a right to vote and be represented. Just the act of going to the polls on election date might be thought of as being a good citizen per se and therefore, voting responsibly. In an ideal world, citizens of democracies would be well-informed about the issues and candidates at the voting polls. By taking time to investigate politics from reliable sources and different points of views, citizens would arguably be less susceptible to campaign spending and special interests. On the other hand, those who are not informed are more likely to make decisions based on a 1-minute ad seen on TV. Indeed, the educational system could play a big role in training students to analyze information and value the importance of being a fully-informed citizen.

Adaptation as Necessary for Success in Business

Adaptation is necessary for success in business. Describe a specific situation in which adaptation might not be necessary for success in business. Discuss what you think determines when adaptation is necessary for success in business and when it is not. As the common saying goes, the only certain thing in the world is "change." In order for a species to survive, it must be adaptable to their environments which inevitably change through time. The same can be said for someone running a business; that is, he must be able to embrace and work with changes in different realms to achieve success. Business people who are adamant in maintaining the same model despite an evolving environment will not run its organization at its optimal potential. Of course, it makes sense to stick to a business plan that has worked in the past. However, the inability to be informed and adapt to changes will prove to be a liability. , The best business people are able to keenly observe their environment and nudge their organizations in a way that adapts to certain changes. There exists an array of factors that may compel businesses to adapt, including, among others, shift in demographics, updated technology, financial economic downturns or upturns, etc. Business especially have to attract their clientele, as well as know the products of the competition. Indeed, several types of businesses, including big chains, have failed due to resistance to change. For example, the once-ubiquitous 50s style restaurant, Denny's, went out of business for many reasons. First, it seemed to have not altered its marketing strategies by maintaining outdated appearance and advertising. It also seemed to not have caught on with growing concerns about lifestyle diseases by not offering healthier options and emphasizing its big, greasy offerings. On the other hand, fast food restaurants, such as McDonald's and Burger King, maintained their high share of the market by constantly updating marketing techniques and also publicizing healthier options. Some businesses will experience success even though they have not adapted to a changing world. This is especially true in the case of businesses that have no competition or have a monopoly over the market share. The lack of competition allows business to continue with the status quo. Adapting to a changing environment around them would not be a cost effective because either way, they will still have clientele who need their services. Whenever there exists competition, businesses should be compelled to adapt to changes in the environment. People will patronize businesses that address their needs and are reflective of the times. They want to feel hip and are willing to shell lots of money on "fashionable" products. If businesses want to flourish, they must show people that they can provide not only for the practical needs of people but their desire to be associated with products that are in sync with the times and cultural sentiments.

Leaders following the Advice of those around them

The wisest leaders follow the advice of those around them. Describe a specific situation in which a wise leader might not follow the advice of others. Discuss what you think determines when it is wise for a leader to follow the advice of others and when it is unwise. During the presidential election season, voters judge candidates based on different criteria. Some make decisions due to shallow reasons, such as whether a candidate "appears" trustworthy. Others vote purely on partisan lines or what candidates have proposed in one-minute ads. A few voters attempt to not just analyze in detail candidates' positions but also the records of potential cabinet members. These voters realize that advice from a president's cabinet plays a significant role in the decision-making process. A president cannot be an expert in all areas of governance and often applies the expertise of cabinet members. Indeed, wise leaders will sometimes follow advice of those around them--especially those who have proven to be reliable sources. At the same time, a wise leader is able to trust his own judgment in certain scenarios. All humans are fallible and even the smartest leaders amongst us need advice in going about their affairs. The best leaders are discerning when it comes to seeking advice and will not defer to just any source; they have an innate sense of whom to trust and who can best complement their style of leadership. Indeed, some leaders in history have allowed their advisors to run the show, effectively diminishing their own sense of agency in the process. The best leaders are still able to take lead even while seeking advice from those who may have more expertise on a certain subject. Good leaders also maintain a sense of independence despite having advisors. They are not afraid to ignore the advice of others and go forward with their own judgment based on personal values. It is essential that leaders are able to emotionally distance themselves from popular sentiment and make decisions on a rational basis. Those unable to do so allow destructive forces, such as mob mentality or witch hunts, to occur on their watch. Indeed, it is important for leaders to be humble enough to listen to the advice of reliable and trustworthy people. He or she, however, should be able to analytically think about the advice around them before making a decision. If a leader takes the advice of those around him in a haphazard manner or without forethought, he is not truly taking leadership---instead, he is a mere "follower" of those he defers to.

Responsibility of the Press to Report all of the News

In a democracy, the press has not only the right but the responsibility to report all of the news. Describe a specific situation in which a free press would be justified in not reporting something. Discuss what you think determines when something should be reported by the press. In a democracy, the people vote for leaders to represent their needs in the political arena. These popularly-elected leaders are, therefore, accountable to their constituents and must be in touch with the issues that affect their lives. Indeed, the press plays a huge role in developing responsive leaders by both reporting on actions made by government and shedding light into what matters to regular people. The wide access to the internet and unlimited amount of news sources has arguably contributed to a more well-informed citizenry and therefore, more robust democracy. In general, the press has the responsibility to report all the news so that citizens of a democracy can make the best decisions for themselves; however, there are instances when the dangerous consequences of reporting certain news outweighs citizens' rights to be informed. When citizens have broad-base access to news sources, they are more likely to make decisions that support their best interests. For instance, news about their representatives' actions in government allow them to decide whether or not to support their candidacy come election time. Also, news regarding the nation's economic health help guide citizens in making smart personal financial decisions. Of course, for citizens to benefit from the ubiquity of news reporting, they must be educated and able to analyze whether the news is reliable and "newsworthy." Indeed, citizens who do not take the time to inform themselves about current events and other information lose out in their right to fully participate in a democracy by, for example, not keeping leaders accountable. In this sense, reporters have the responsibility to present news objectively and in a way that citizens can see all sides of an issue. There are certain instances when a free press can be justified in not reporting something. For instance, the country might be conducting activity overseas, including wars and espionage. When the press "outs" confidential sources (such as CIA agents), it could place the lives of these people in danger. Knowledge of certain actions overseas could also anger opposition groups and place a country's programs in jeopardy or ruin key diplomatic relationships. The Wikileaks scandals 2010 involved the New York Times selectively printing State Department leaks, as opposed to allowing all information to be released. This is because the executives understand the broad ramifications of their reporting and do not want to be responsible for endangering people's lives. The press, indeed, serves as another "check and balance" in a democratic system. The leaders of the country, including the executive and legislative branches, are kept on their toes by the press. In order for this system to function, the press must be completely free and not be hindered by threats such as jail time or death for unfavorable reporting. The press not only keeps leaders accountable; it also provides the people with information and resources that could help them make better personal decisions for themselves and the community as a whole.

Giving People as much Freedom as Possible

Society is best served by giving people as much freedom as possible. Describe a specific situation in which society might not be best served by giving people as much freedom as possible. Discuss what you think determines when society is best served by giving people as much freedom as possible. The year 2011 was marked by the mass protests and toppling of authoritarian leaders in the Middle East, commonly referred to as the Arab Spring. People belonging to diverse backgrounds rallied together to demonstrate against the repressive policies of leaders and lack of freedom in society. They demanded a more representative government that was accountable to the needs of the people and did not just serve the wishes of their family members and cronies. The people saw democratic institutions as a passageway for freedom and increased opportunities to thrive in society. Indeed, giving citizens freedom benefits society in profound ways, including the development of free, creative thinking and subsequent thriving of the economic sphere. When people experience broad-based freedoms, they are not afraid to express themselves. They do not fear for their family's safety when speaking about their true feelings and pursuing entrepreneurial ventures. Society gives them the space to reach their potential by exploring their interests through pursuing educational and professional interests. This freedom of thought allows societies to develop talent amongst the people and stimulate the economy through the vast amount of innovations and job creating opportunities. Those living in a repressive society must be sure that their feelings and ventures are in align with those of the government or those acting in power. Thus, the people do not feel free to run with new ideas that may threaten the status quo. In effect, their creativity is stifled and they also feel less empowered to improve their situations in life. By not belonging to the right family or political association, a talented individual cannot be nurtured to the full extent and is cut off from opportunities to reach his potential. For a society to work, however, freedom must be limited to an extent. The imposition of rules necessarily entails curtailing freedoms of individuals. Even a person in a free society cannot go about his day doing whatever he wants to with impunity. For example, if he drives recklessly, he will be fined by the police or put in jail. Working societies must establish rules that protect the welfare of the people, although this limit individual freedom. Indeed, a society allowing the total freedom will find itself in a state of anarchy. Societies that value basic, broad-based freedoms for their people must face a balancing act. That is, they must be able to maintain order and at the same time, still ensure that people experience freedom. A democracy is arguably the best government for accomplishing this goal. When representatives are popularly elected, they remain accountable to the people and help preserve their sense of freedom. An authoritarian leader, on the other hand, will be a poor judge for what constitutes freedom because he is , above all, interested in maintaining his hold of power at the expense of the welfare of the people.

Only the Educated take Advantage of New Technologies?

Only educated people can take advantage of new technologies. Describe a specific situation in which uneducated people might be able to take advantage of a new technology. Discuss what you think determines whether only educated people can take advantage of new technologies. The 21st century has so far been marked by rapid expansion of technologies that are accessible to a diversity of people. Innovations in telecommunications, including the cell phone and internet, are used more and more by rich and poor alike, in effect, creating a world with people that are more informed and connected to each other. Education, indeed, helps people take full advantage of these technologies in order to provoke social and political changes (for the better or worse) in society. However, even uneducated people have been able to benefit from technologies that are especially designed to be user friendly and accessible to the wider population. Education allows people to use new technology in a way that furthers change beyond their households. For example, educated people apply their higher thinking skills to enlighten others about a pressing societal issue through blogs and others means of communication via the internet. In fact, the Arab Spring movement became so powerful due to the efforts of (mostly) educated people who wanted to disrupt authoritarian rule in their societies. People of all economic backgrounds participated in the movement but the change agents were those who were informed about the politics and history of the nations in the first place. Not all educated people have a social conscience and wish to provoke positive change. In fact, some use new technology to promote their nefarious agendas. For instance, a brilliant computer scientist can plan ways to interfere with a nation's electrical grid and disrupt the lives of millions of people. A nuclear physicist can contribute to design of bombs that cause undue suffering amongst an innocent civilian population. Indeed, an educated person without a sound sense of ethics could wreak havoc in society and cause more harm than good. However, one does not need to be educated to benefit from new technologies. Increasingly, technologies, especially those in telecommunication, are more accessible to people who have not gone to the university to develop higher thinking skills. Uneducated people on a regular basis, for example, use the internet to handle day to day tasks, such as emailing and managing personal finances. While the internet was once limited to programmers and such specialist, it is now so user friendly that even a new reader, such as a six-year old, can navigate his way through it with ease. Educated and non-educated alike have been able to take advantage of new technologies. However, one's level of education is usually correlated with the extent of the use and impact on society. Education, in general, tends to increase one's vision and perception of what she can do to impact the world around her. Of course, there are special cases of individuals who did not have the opportunity to receive an education but whose intelligence allowed them to break through barriers and creatively use technology. Indeed, while one's level of education is not a sine qua non for taking advantage of technology to provoke change, it helps increase the chances for applying innovative thinking to real life problems.