题目：
The goal of politics should not be the pursuit of an ideal, but rather the search for common ground and reasonable consensus.
，而是寻求共同点和合理的一致。
正文：
I safely agree with the speaker's argument that the search for common ground and reasonable consensus is the goal of politics. But I am reserved to support his or her idea that the goal of politics should not be the pursuit of an ideal. The pursuit of an ideal is not doomed to conflict with the search for consensus.
Politics, as it was defined is an art of balancing, that is to keep subtle balance between different parties, which represent vested interests of different groups, hold different ideologies, to harmonize disparate social organization such as Green peace organization and Arms manufacture association, to concert different development plan and the like. Various interests of different groups intertwined together, forming a huge net. It is this net that restrains any individual part's self-intention and possible partial proposal, makes the leaders think over before leap. In this way, the policy making would be more stable and reasonable, meanwhile the majority’s interests could be taken care of. A convincing example in this point is the nomination of the candidate of President in certain party. One must be selected from tens of candidates who are on the behalf of different groups. At first, every group may name his own representatives,but the winner is single. After seeing his nomination is not supported by the majority,thus has no chance to win, they will compromise on the premise that their core interests are ensured, select the one who can be accepted by most groups if not all to reach reasonable consensus, This interacting relation is the fundament of democracy, which marks a country's civilization degree and propel the society to forge ahead.
When it comes to another point of the speaker’s argument, namely the goal of politics should not be the pursuit of an ideal; my attitude sharply varies between different explanations and comprehensions on the key word- ideal. If ideal was defined as impractical ideas- castle in the air, of course, it should not be the base for the policy-making. The leader with hollow ideal may lead his people to abyss, such as the former Iraq president ‘s dream of his “Arab empire”. However, if the ideal was defined as certain ground and reasonable ambition, it could even be argued that the very difference between politician and statesman comes from the pursuit of ideal. Politicians do with the ideal, statesman without. The most brilliant politicians in the history are those who are harboring holy but ground ideals, cherish their ideals as the source of commitment.
In a sum, politics has its specific trait, once an individual steps on the power stage; he (or she) will greatly influence the rest of people, and his (or her) decision impacting the interests of various groups are unavoidable to be the result of compromise, a wiser politician will pursuit their reasonable ideals and move ahead on the process of compromise.