Government officials should rely on their own judgment rather than unquestioningly carry out the will of the people whom they serve.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoni

Which criterion should be given when assessing government officials, their devotion to the will of the people whom they serve or their own resolution to act as their own decision? While someone argues that political leaders should serve as people's servants, others appreciate they have strong volition to follow their own heart, with conditional degradation of people's wills to secondary position. From my perspective of view, while to serve directly with people's wills could bring about short-term benefits, it would be myopic even dangerous to take it as long-term strategy. Furthermore, as society bellwethers and elites, government officials need to have courage to take practise with their ideas and plan to lead the society for the right future direction.

To start off, I have to concede that people's wills especially urgent requirements should carefully handled with and satisfied by political leaders. As people's wishes normally focus on their immediate requirement, such as education, electricity providing, normally such demands are obvious and easy to take actions for follow-up. Therefore, government officials could easily catch up with their pain point and collect necessary resources for solving with such conspicuous issues. In addition, the outgrowth of such problem-settling could help political leaders win the repute for the first time. Thus, to aim at the people's demands could definitely not only give political leaders direct credit, but also avoid their arduous searching for the society's requirements

Furthermore, granted the people's wills might focus on private interests and short-term benefit, it would be myopic and even dangerous to blindly follow without any wise choices. For example, when considering the issue of lack of electricity powers, normally people could only request to increase electricity supply. And with considering the safety relevant with their own, they would reject nuclear power as an option. However, from long run, the normal electricity providing could engender all of society cost and they are normally coming with several side effects, such as severe pollution. Thus, government officials, especially with the technical background of physics, would raise up their opinions why and how to leverage the nuclear power, but eliminate the negative impact as much as possible. Under such similar cases, to follow up with people's will instead impede with the wise suggestion from government officials.

Most important, as Roman's brilliant history could not be built in a day, our society leaders should balance the benefit both the long-term and the short run for the sake of guiding our world on the right way. Unlike what point out by the people's direct will, our political leaders with comprehensive knowledge understand why and how to make decision for the public end and take actions more efficiently. Therefore, their decisions could represent a more beneficial direction and avoid our society input to restrict with several limited direction. Take Roosevelt's New Deal as example, as one of great president in American, Roosevelt understand well about the disadvantage of economic driven purely by market, and also have comprehensive picture how to involve with national power to balance with such disadvantages. Thus, his new policy for economic recovery actually balance two ends, and help America come out of crisis.

In summary, considering that social development is actually a gradual and long run process and different interests from diverse groups could tangle together, it's better for our social leaders to plumb various factors and make wise decision after meticulous considerations. With their comprehensive knowledge and probity that we trust with, we should take side with them and encourage them to stick to the right policies for society improvement.