Politicians should pursue common ground and reasonable consensus rather than elusive ideals.
In an undoubtedly complex era of always prevaricating politicians, discussing the necessity of a concrete consensus from the citizen needs, for sure, to consider the many aspects of the role of the ruler and the relationship that links people’s interests and the responsibility of a politician. This means, all being said, that, as history clearly demonstrates, men of politics have to guide nations towards idealistic decision with an attempt to improve the social awareness of a greater, less narrow-minded point of view, still paying attention not to forget that the politician himself is not flawless and needs to seek approval and feedback from his people to understand their eventual mistakes.
One of the most recognizable example of the importance of ideals when dealing with politicians’ acts is the late 18th century French Revolution. In that circumstance, few wise thinkers guided their fellow citizens to several fundamental revolutionary actions that led straight to the modern set of European political mechanisms: those of our democracy. Basically, Montesquieu and his colleagues forced French population to rise against their oppressors (the kings) and, while consensus arrived only much after the first stages of the revolution, it is unavoidable to observe that, all considered, people were thankful to those eccentric thinkers at the end of the century.
Moreover, right now we are experiencing what is called “Populism”, a brand new political attitude that encourages politicians, like Trump in America, Salvini in Italy and a considerable amount of other European leaders, to blindly follow the sort of social justice that masses ask for. This results in a non-extant attempt of giving value to the rich asset of moral and ethical values that our long-standing history has come up with, first among all the awareness of global pollution and the attention for migration fluxes. In these circumstances, then, politicians forget how pivotal it is to show a correct path for their nation to follow, thus avoiding that citizens, who have a concretely poorer view on geo-political measures, fall into unforgivable traps just like the one of the unstoppable global warming.
Nevertheless, it is again from history that it is clever to extract a correct and wiser point of view over this topic. In fact, while it is crucial to have even elusive ideals to seek, some social situations may need a correction in politicians’ behaviour. For instance, consider Italy and its relatively young history: it was born in 1861, when a group of soldiers and simple citizens, headed by Garibaldi, tried to unite the entire peninsula under one unique government. Unfortunately, he did a tremendous mistake: he did not consider how mandatory was for his goals to be achieved that Italians were aligned with his ideals of a single great nation. This resulted in an unhappy reaction from the whole population and still nowadays, sometimes, people maintain that Italy itself is but an imposition, surely not wanted by the people themselves, that clearly shows how politicians do need to pursue a minimum common consensus by their ruled and cannot just impose their ideals, even if these are perfectly reasonable.
Under the light of these historical and modern evidences, it seems coherent to accept that politicians do gain advantages from their people’ consensus, but they still mainly have to give their citizens an idealistic guide that, be it elusive or not, will eventually lead the nation to a more consistent and convenient decision by both the citizens and the politicians they sustain.
- Politicians should pursue common ground and reasonable consensus rather than elusive ideals. 70
- Colleges and universities should require their students to spend at least one semester studying in a foreign country. 66
- It is primarily through our identification with social groups that we define ourselves. 83
- It is primarily through our identification with social groups that we define ourselves. 70
- It is primarily through our identification with social groups that we define ourselves. 83
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, may, moreover, nevertheless, so, still, then, thus, while, as for, for instance, in fact, sort of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.4196629213 40% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 14.8657303371 135% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 11.3162921348 159% => OK
Pronoun: 55.0 33.0505617978 166% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 84.0 58.6224719101 143% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 12.9106741573 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3052.0 2235.4752809 137% => OK
No of words: 574.0 442.535393258 130% => OK
Chars per words: 5.31707317073 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.89472135074 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.11690342914 2.79657885939 111% => OK
Unique words: 322.0 215.323595506 150% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.560975609756 0.4932671777 114% => OK
syllable_count: 963.9 704.065955056 137% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 20.2370786517 69% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 41.0 23.0359550562 178% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 89.7229295199 60.3974514979 149% => OK
Chars per sentence: 218.0 118.986275619 183% => OK
Words per sentence: 41.0 23.4991977007 174% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.07142857143 5.21951772744 155% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 5.13820224719 19% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.101467571062 0.243740707755 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0340635318565 0.0831039109588 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0400356061454 0.0758088955206 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0592512711099 0.150359130593 39% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0330309112759 0.0667264976115 50% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 24.1 14.1392134831 170% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 21.4 48.8420337079 44% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 14.6 7.92365168539 184% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 20.5 12.1743820225 168% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.46 12.1639044944 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.1 8.38706741573 120% => OK
difficult_words: 161.0 100.480337079 160% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 31.5 11.8971910112 265% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 18.4 11.2143820225 164% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 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.