Some people assert that the purpose of politics should be the pursuit of an ideal. Others aver that the goal should be finding common ground and reaching consensus.Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position

The two opposing poins of view on the goal of the politics exist in our society. One part of the public believes that a good politician should be able to find a compromise with a rival. At the same time, another part of the people assumes that a politician should adhere to ideals which he or she represent. As far as I am concerned, the ability to find a common ground and arrive at consensus is a valuable facet of a good politician, however, not always a compromise is an option and some ideals should not be used for bargaining in any case.

First of all, consensus is indeed one of the essencial means of moden politics, the Congress of the United States of America is a bright example of this statement. The Congress initially was created in such a way that any individual will not have to much power. Consequently, elected officials have to organize coalitions to pass the laws and get their work done. To illustrate the idea imagine that you are a congressman who wants to pass a law which is desirable by your voters, for example it will prohibit usage of a certain pesticide in argriculture, to pass the law you need to make agreement with other elected officials. A group of people is organized, the basic idea is that I will support your law and you will help to pass my project. This example is an illustration of a consensus in the politics.

However, the consensus is not always possible. For instance, we may return to our example with the Congress. If the law which you want to pass is in conflict with interests of other congressmen they will not support your project. As we said above imagine that you try to pass a law about prohibition of usage of a pesticide, in case in coaltions is a person who was elcted by farmers who use this chemical he will not support the proposal. In other words, if we have a conflict of interests the arriving at the agreement is unlikely.

Moreover, our society has values and liberties such as the freedom of speech, which cannot be objects of bargaining owing to the fact that they are a core of our culture and identity. These values are a cornerstones of our perception of the world and the position from which we speak with the world. American international politics are determined by them. For instance, when we have a deal with the North Korea, the govenment possition is based on understanding that the rival regime violates the rigths of its citizens. Although the making an agreement with the North Korea may be desirable, for instance, we may demand to limit ist development of nuclear weapon, we cannot accept the rigime due to its authotaritarian nature.

In conclusion, the consensus indeed is an efficient and useful tool of politics, it is not a panacea. A consensus is not an option when we have a deal with contradict interests. Moreover, some ideals of our society should not be used for bargaining in any case.