well-intentioned political leaders necessary in order to further the public’s ultmaate interests.
Nevertheless, we must not allow our political leaders undue freedom to with-hold information,
otherwise, we risk sanctioning demagoguery and undermining the philosophical underpinnings
of any democratic society.
One reason for my fundamental agreement with the speaker is that in order to gain the
opportunity for effective public leadership, a would-be leader must fzrst gain and maintain
political power. In the game of politics, complete forthrightness is a sign of vulnerability and
naivete, neither of which earn a politician respect among his or her opponents, and which
those opponents will use to every advantage to defeat the politician. In my observation some
measure of pandering to the electorate is necessary to gain and maintain political leadership.
For example, were all politicians to fully disclose every personal foibles, character flaw, and
detail concerning personal life, few honest politicians would ever by elected. While this view
might seem cynical, personal scandals have in fact proven the undoing of many a political
career; thus I think this view is realistic.
Another reason why I essentially agree with the speaker is that fully disclosing to the public
certain types of information would threaten public safety and perhaps even national security.
For example, if the President were to disclose the government’s strategies for thwarting
specific plans of an international terrorist or a drug trafficker, those strategies would surely fail,
and the public’s health and safety would be compromised as a result. Withholding informationmight also be necessary to avoid public panic. While such cases are rare, they do occur7
occasionally. For example, during the first few hours of the new millennium the U.S.
Pentagon’s missile defense system experienced a Y2K- related malfunction. This fact was
withheld from the public until later in the day, once the problem had been solved; and
legitimately so, since immediate disclosure would have served no useful purpose and might
even have resulted in mass hysteria.
Having recognized that withholding informarion from the public is often necessary to serve
the interests of that public, legitimate political leadership nevertheless requires forthrightness
with the citizenry as to the leader’s motives and agenda. History informs us that would-be
leaders who lack such forthrightness are the same ones who seize and maintain power either
by brute force or by demagoguery--that is, by deceiving and manipulating the citizenry.
Paragons such as Genghis Khan and Hitler, respectively, come immediately to mind. Any
democratic society should of course abhor demagoguery, which operates against the
democratic principle of government by the people. Consider also less egregious examples,
such as President Nixon’s withholding of information about his active role in the Watergate
cover-up. His behavior demonstrated a concern for self- interest above the broader interests of
the democratic system that granted his political authority in the first place.
In sum, the game of politics calls for a certain amount of disingenuousness and lack of
forthrightness that we might otherwise characterize as dishonesty. And such behavior is a
necessary means to the final objective of effective political leadership. Nevertheless, in any
democracy a leader who relies chiefly on deception and secrecy to preserve that leadership, to
advance a private agenda, or to conceal selfish motives, betrays the democracy-and ends up
forfeiting the polirical game.
Issue 6
"Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need in
order to thrive, because it is primarily in cities that a nation’s cultural traditions are preserved
and generated."
The speaker’s claim is actually threefold: (1) ensuring the survival of large cities and, in turn,
that of cultural traditions, is a proper function of government; (2) government support is needed
for our large dries and cultural traditions to survive and thrive; and (3) cultural traditions are
preserved and generated primarily in our large cities. I strongly disagree with all three claims.
First of all, subsidizing cultural traditions is not a proper role of govemment. Admittedly,
certain objectives, such as public health and safety, are so essential to the survival of large
dries and of nations that government has a duty to ensure that they are met. However, these
objectives should not extend tenuously to preserving cultural traditions. Moreover, government
cannot possibly play an evenhanded role as cultural patron. Inadequate resources call for
restrictions, priorities, and choices. It is unconscionable to relegate normative decisions as to
which cities or cultural traditions are more deserving, valuable, or needy to a few legislators,
whose notions about culture might be misguided or unrepresentative of those of the general
populace. Also, legislators are all too likely to make choices in favor of the cultural agendas of
their home towns and states, or of lobbyists with the most money and influence.
Secondly, subsidizing cultural traditions is not a necessary role of government. A lack of
private funding might justify an exception. However, culture--by which I chiefly mean the fine
8
arts--has always depended primarily on the patronage of private individuals and businesses,
and not on the government. The Medicis, a powerful banking family of Renaissance Italy,
supported artists Michelangelo and Raphael. During the 20th Century the primary source of
cultural support were private foundations established by industrial magnates Carnegie, Mellon,
Rockefeller and Getty. And tomorrow cultural support will come from our new technology and
media moguls----including the likes of Ted Turner and Bill Gates. In short, philanthropy is alive
and well today, and so government need not intervene to ensure that our cultural traditions are
preserved and promoted.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the speaker unfairly suggests that large cities serveas the primary breeding ground and sanctuaries for a nation’s cultural traditions. Today a
nation’s distinct cultural traditions--its folk art, crafts, traditional songs, customs and
ceremonies--burgeon instead in small towns and rural regions. Admittedly, our cities do serve
as our centers for "high art"; big cities are where we deposit, display, and boast the world’s
preeminent art, architecture, and music. But big-city culture has little to do any- more with one
nation’s distinct cultural traditions. After all, modern cities are essentially multicultural stew pots;
accordingly, by assisting large cities a government is actually helping to create a global culture
as well to subsidize the traditions of other nations’ cultures.
In the final analysis, government cannot philosophically justify assisting large cities for the
purpose of either promoting or preserving the nation’s cultural traditions; nor is government
assistance necessary toward these ends. Moreover, assisting large cities would have little
bearing on our distinct cultural traditions, which abide elsewhere.
Issue 7
"All nations should help support the development of a global university designed to engage
students in the process of solving the world’s most persistent social problems."
I agree that it would serve the interests of all nations to establish a global university for the
purpose of solving the world’s most persistent social problems. Nevertheless, such a university
poses certain risks which all participating nations must be careful to minimize--or risk defeating
the university’s purpose.
One compelling argument in favor of a global university has to do with the fact that its faculty
and students would bring diverse cultural and educational perspectives to the problems they
seek to solve. It seems to me that nations can only benefit from a global university where
students learn ways in which other nations address certain soda] problems-successfully or not.
It might be tempting to think that an overly diversified academic community would impede
communication among students and faculty. However, in my view any such concerns are
unwarranted, especially considering the growing awareness of other peoples and cultures
which the mass media, and especially the Internet, have created. Moreover, many basic
principles used to solve enduring social problems know no national boundaries; thus a useful
insight or discovery can come from a researcher or student from any nation.
Another compelling argument for a global university involves the increasingly global nature
of certain problems. Consider, for instance, the depletion of atmospheric ozone, which has
wanned the Earth to the point that it threatens the very survival of the human species. Also, we
are now learning that dear-cutting the world’s rainforests can set into motion a chain of animal
9
extinction that threatens the delicate balance upon which all animals--including
humans--depend. Also consider that a financial crisis---or a political crisis or natural disaster
in one country can spell trouble for foreign companies, many of which are now multinational in
that they rely on the labor forces, equipment, and raw materials of other nations.
Environmental, economic, and political problems such as these all carry grave social
consequences--increased crime, unemployment, insurrection, hunger, and so forth. Solving
these problems requires global cooperation--which a global university can facilitate.
Notwithstanding the foregoing reasons why a global university would help solve many of our
most pressing social problems, the establishment of such a university poses certain problems