Unlike great thinkers and great artists, the most effective political leaders must often yield to public opinion and abandon principle for the sake of compromise.
With the respect of history, today’s democratic structure of politic roots deeply in ancient Greek philosophers’ advocation for the respect of public and individual beings,their admiration of the egalitarian, and the eagerness for justice as well as the electoral system specially devised to surpvise those in power. The Renaissance taking place in Europe and the democratic Revolution booted up by Napoleon in France both have produced great thinkers who demand the restriction of the politicians’ power and authority, labeling the end of an era in which politicians could lay their hands on almost every objects of demand. Driven by this trend, the contemporary politicians ostensibly deprived of certain freedom enjoyed by most artists and scientists could no longer behave in the way they would like to. These people, taking the responsibility of the democratic government, are restrained from several aspects. These restriction mainly comes from the public’s desire and different groups’ attitudes.
Although being neglected sometimes, the artists and the scientists still adhere to their own responsibilities, appear undisturbed and display astonishing indifference to the public. Such right is deserved as to artists and scientists, since their insightful thoughts and complicated feeling about life far go beyond what normal people may achieve.Frustrated and deterred by these maestros, publics turn to the other extreme―ignoring these great thinkers and even cursing them as heretics that destroy the current harmony. Again, scientists and artists enjoy the freedom to obliterate the influence laid on them by the mundane world since their interests are just focused on the exploration of the purity of the truth and reciprocating the perfect memory of the past or wonderful visions about future, rather than caring for the public’s benefits.
During such process, they just jump out of the world and objectively describe it, any scorns or restrictions are treated as part of the object they are proceeding, and this is just the hits of their successes. Sometimes, certain behavior that even force the community members away from communicating with these elites are taken as pride in that artists and scientists could employ their free time to continue their interest.
On the other hand, never would the politician own such comparatively broad freedom. As for a politician, the key to success in politics is to gain and maintain political power.Such power comes from certain identification of the public morality with the politician’s private one and the balance of different groups’ benefits and demands. Consequently,the politician’s attitudes, behavior and even the life style are tightly restricted for fear that any diversion from public’s taste may conduce to losing authority which is a real tragedy for a politician. To be an effective political leader excludes the opportunity that a politician may taste the freedom of the same merits as that enjoyed by artists and scientists, the freedom characterd by consciously seperating oneself from commentary and neglecting the demands made by majority. The successful leadership could be achieved by submerging oneself into the public and being sufficiently prepared for sacrificing some freedom for the majority’s benefits.
It is always funny to imagine what will happen to a special politician who could share a scientist or an artist’s freedom. When this politician is bored at the legitimate meeting that is being broadcast by media agencies, he escape to have a chess with his child.Subsequently, critics begin to accumulate the dissatisfaction of the public to attack this leader’s lacking responsibility of the public affairs. Moreover, he may again utilize the freedom to isolate himself from the public pressure by flying out to have a summer holiday. Then, only one thing can be assured, our special politician is deprived of the right to initiate his power which is a symbol of the end of his political life.
The development of technology and recognition of our society require both politicians and insightful thinkers. However, the democratic system of our contemporary world fixes two distinct sets of freedom that could enjoyed by them. While we agree that artists and scientists enjoy the comparatively broad one, we can not expect the political leaders to have opportunity to taste it.
Truly innovative ideas do not arise from groups of people, but from individuals.When groups try to be creative, the members force each other to compromise and, as a result, creative ideas tend to be weakened and made more conventional. Most original ideas arise from individuals working alone.
I agree with the speaker on that truly innovative ideas arise from individuals.Nevertheless, it is unfair to claim unilaterally that the groups tend to weaken creative ideas without thinking of their positive effects on the ideas; it is equally important for groups to examine, modify, or even reject the ideas.
First of all, truly innovative ideas are destined to arise from individuals in that inter-personal thinking process is so far impossible. This is to say, when we sit still and have a cluster of phenomena, theories, statistics and so forth of a certain issue in our mind, we are thinking it over yet with no assistance at all. After all it is impossible for one to intrude into other's mind. Following this principle, innovative ideas spark off during the process of meditation, and they are the produced by one's own effort. It is equally possible, however, for people to be inspired by each other, yet this is by no means assistance in thinking. Clues, hints, inspirations are to remind people of things ignored or taken for granted, but have nothing to do with the process of thinking, that is, to sort out the whole vision and draw conclusion. In one word, innovative ideas arise from meditation, which is solely limited within one body, one brain. Therefore innovative ideas are always the product of individual's work.
Nevertheless, it does not suggest that innovative ideas then have nothing to do with group work, and actually it is just the opposite. When a novel thought is brought up, it is of great importance to fully evaluate its validity, feasibility, and consequences if carried out. This point need no further illustration if we think of a father who resolutely stops his 6-year-old son from playing matches. The kid might have intended to try something new, driven by an innovative idea, yet the whole house might have caught fire also since the boy is incapable of dealing with accidents. This is the same case in academic fields. In a chemistry lab for example, a novel route design of synthesizing a new compound is never carried out without further evaluation. Practical conditions such as equipments, reagents, and economic efficiency, namely yield per cost, are always taken into consideration and sometimes restrict the application of those ideas.
This is to say, innovation is usually good but not always practicable. This claim is fully demonstrated in the political field. Governors of all levels must take holistic views of the situation and make balanced decision in order to avoid mistakes; innovative ideas alone cannot justify their practicability and goodwill to others. For instance, when we look back, the development of plastic industry has resulted in great loss in the global ecosystem. Thus we see the disastrous consequences of carrying out such innovative yet premature ideas.
Hence, it is necessary for the groups to assess, remedy, and conclude the value and use of innovative ideas. All innovative ideas should be brought to discussions. With the clash of skeptical attitude of others to the advocating behavior of the thinker, fallacies made in a haste can be easily found and eliminated, which rectifies, sometimes supplements the idea. I don't agree with the speaker on his/her judgment of group work as compromising, weakening and conventionalizing innovation. Group work promotes those justified and useful innovative ideas and rejects those invalid, sometimes dangerous ones, as we see the case between father and son, in a chemistry lab, in all nations around the world. Only after the group censorship can the innovative ideas be carried out and benefit people, and this is the time when its innovativeness is fully appreciated.
In conclusion, I concede that most original ideas arise from individuals, yet I believe the group effort on these ideas should never be downplayed. It is the group that judge,reject or develop these ideas; this process is equally important with the innovative thinking.