"It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from
the public."I agree with the speaker that it is sometimes necessary, and even desirable,
for political leaders to withhold information from the public. A contrary view would revea
l a naivety about the inherent nature of public politics, and about the sorts of compromis
es on the part of well-intentioned political leaders necessary in order to further the pub
lic's ultimate interests. Nevertheless, we must not allow our political leaders undue free
dom to withhold information, otherwise, we risk sanctioning demagoguery and undermining th
e philosophical underpinnings of any democratic society.I agree with the speaker that it i
s sometimes necessary, and even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information f
rom the public. A contrary view would reveal a naivety about the inherent nature of public
politics, and about the sorts of compromises on the part of well-intentioned political le
aders necessary in order to further the public’s ultimate interests. Nevertheless, we must
not allow our political leaders undue freedom One reason for my fundamental agreement wit
h the speaker is that in order to gain the opportunity for effective public leadership, a
would-be leader must first gain and maintain political power. In the game of politics, com
plete forthrightness is a sign of vulnerability and naivety, neither of which earn a polit
ician respect among his or her opponents, and which those opponents will use to every adva
ntage to defeat the politician. In my observation some measure of pandering to the elector
ate is necessary to gain and maintain political leadership. For example, were all politici
ans to fully disclose every personal foibles, character flaw, and detail concerning person
al 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 thin
k 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 a
nd perhaps even national security. For example, if the President were to disclose the gove
rnment's strategies for thwarting specific plans of an international terrorist or a drug t
rafficker, those strategies would surely fail, and the public's health and safety would be
compromised as a result. Withholding information might also be necessary to avoid public
panic. While such cases are rare, they do occur occasionally. For example, during the firs
t 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 ha
ve served no useful purpose and might even have resulted in mass hysteria.Having recognize
d that withholding information from the public is often necessary to serve the interests o
f that public, legitimate political leadership nevertheless requires forthrightness with t
he citizenry as to the leader's motives and agenda. History informs us that would-be leade
rs who lack such forthrightness are the same ones who seize and maintain power either by b
rute force or by demagoguery--that is, by deceiving and manipulating the citizenry. Parago
ns such as Genghis Khan and Hitler, respectively, come immediately to mind. Any democratic
society should of course abhor demagoguery, which operates against the democratic princip
le of government by the people. Consider also less egregious examples, such as President N
ixon's withholding of information about his active role in the Watergate cover-up. His beh
avior demonstrated a concern for self- interest above the broader interests of the democra
tic system that granted his political authority in the first place.In sum, the game of pol
itics calls for a certain amount of disingenuousness and lack of forthrightness that we mi
ght otherwise characterize as dishonesty. And such behavior is a necessary means to the fi
nal objective of effective political leadership. Nevertheless, in any democracy a leader w
ho relies chiefly on deception and secrecy to preserve that leadership, to advance a priva
te agenda, or to conceal selfish motives, betrays the democracy-and ends up forfeiting the
political game.