Analyze an Issue: The balance of government spending

[bzilnicki]

Hello,

Would someone be so kind as to grade the following "Analyze an Issue" prompt?

Governments should invest as much in the arts as they do in the military.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.


Response:
The statement “governments should invest as much in arts as they do in military” is one that I would agree with if we were to measure government spending over a long term average. This is not to say that, any given point in time government spending should be split equally between the two categories. The balance of spending is often dependent upon the state of world affairs; one tends to see increases in military spending during periods of war time, whereas a focus on domestic, cultural affairs such as liberal arts & education tends to reassert itself during periods of relative peace. An over-allocation to each during shorter periods of time is warranted while a long-run imbalance would lead to the ultimate decline of such a society.

The Roman empire would be a good example of a society which, over the long run, suffered a decline as a result of the ruling elite’s interest in non-military affairs. At the height of its power, the ruling state was incredibly wealthy on a per capita basis, and boasted one of the most well-developed, culturally advanced societies of its era. The emphasis on music, dance, culinary arts, etc has been noted in the history books throughout the ages, yet a lack of focus on military affairs led to poor tactical decisions regarding expansions. The empire was stretched too thin and a lack of focus on maintaining strongholds in remote regions left the empire vulnerable to bordering nations that had invested more heavily in military operations. If the ruling elite had channeled the budget more regularly towards maintaining external defenses on an ever growing region, or even better, to channel intellectual resources towards critical thinking regarding the necessary size of the empire, perhaps it would not have suffered such a rapid decline.

Conversely, a nation which focuses its budget solely on military operations, also known as a military state, may lack the cultural values which allow for peaceful coexistence between its citizens. Intellectual pursuits such as literature, painting, sculpture, playwriting often bring to light the complexities of human relationships as well as the internal emotions of an individual. Art often promotes the beauty which can be found in everyday existence and as such can help instruct citizens to place greater value on their own lives and the lives of their fellow citizens. Military states often suffer bloody regime changes and civil conflicts, largely due to the war-like nature of the people it governs. In some ways, art promotes the sanctity of human life and the broad investments from a nation’s governing body may lead to a more peaceful coexistence of its underlying members.
Indeed, over the long-term there must be a relative balance of resources allocated to cultural and military endeavors, yet when a nation is at war, investments will disproportionately be funneled to military and defense, and when a nation is at peace will typically enjoy a short term out-pouring of artistic expression. The ruling elite must be students of history recognizing that no state of peace or war will exist into perpetuity and maintaining a balanced focus on both cultural pursuits is imperative.


Thanks!

[tommywallach]

Hey Bzilnicki,

Really fantastic writing here. Your grasp of grammar and style is solid. I like the arguments in general, but I think your thesis kinda hurt you here. The desire to argue right down the middle of any prompt is tempting, but I'd encourage you to err on the side of choosing a side and defending it. In other words, the question here is whether government should invest more in arts than military. You said it depends, then explained why both things are important.

But we can sort of take for granted that both things are important. The question wasn't why are they both important, it was how should a culture prioritize them. Your argument was "Don't prioritize them. Just go back and forth."

I'm not saying this turned out in a bad essay. Far from it; I think your score here would be well above what you need to for any good school. But in the future, I'd encourage you to really try and answer the question on its deepest level, rather than dodging a bit. Rome example was great by the way, even if it's totally not true! : ) (Seriously, it doesn't need to be true to be a great example on the GRE!).

-t