Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.________________________________________
One may argue that the most reliable indicator of a country’s greatness is the general welfare of all its people rather than the existence of extraordinary individuals in politics, arts, or sciences. In general, it is undeniable that major social problems confronted by the majority of social members such as high rate of crimes, chronic poverty, low level of education, or inequalities on gender, race, or region in a country might be understood as symptoms of the incapacity of a nation, and that the state of the average citizens directly reveal the effectiveness of a government. However, I firmly believe that the fate of a country is determined by several talented individuals far more greater degree than we can imagine.
Needless to say, it is true that the present state of a country can be reliably diagnosed by the actual state of well-being enjoyed by the general public. Because a limited number of elites cannot represent the whole picture of a country’s potential, it will be unrealistic to claim that one country is greater than another from the fact that several individuals from the former apparently outshine those from the latter. That is, we do not say that Mexican economy is stronger than that of Germany because Mexico has the world’s richest person. We would not say that cultural life for Japanese people is far more boring than that for Chile simply because the latter produced greater number of Nobel Prize honorees in literature. The point is that it is ultimately the social infrastructures shared by the representative many rather than a few excellent individuals that determine the potential of a country.
Nevertheless, this does not necessarily mean that several talented figures in arts, sciences, or politics are negligible in evaluating the greatness of a society. When it comes to finding out a turning point on a long term stasis, it is not the mathematical addition of group intelligences but the creativity of a few insightful individuals. Just as a company’s fortune can be dramatically altered by an excellent leader—as we observed from the case of Steve Jobs’ Apple, so the fate of a country may be influenced by the appearance of several imaginative leaders. In general, every type of “paradigm shifts” in all human endeavors originates less from group works than from personal imaginations of a genius.
Furthermore, the importance of several distinguished people in estimating the power of a society seems clear at the time of crises. Though it is hard to deny that supports and participations from the general public are still important, symbolic figures during a political or economic crisis may exert influences on the effort of a society to overcome the crisis that cannot be replaced by the simple passion of the crowd. From the unwavering faith of George Washington in a new country, many followers during the uncertain revolution could maintain their own share of confidence. Because they provide energies for fighting against many frustrating moments, leaders in politics, arts, and philosophy seem as much important as or more important than the group of the general public in assessing the potential of a society.
In sum, despite the fact that they are just an atypical few, several distinguished individuals can serve as a surest indicator for the greatness of a society through their incompatible abilities to design a totally new world and to inspire the whole people. ~~~.
![Welfare spending [Part 1/3]](/assets/noimage.svg)