<h2>Hey guys. I’m taking the SAT this month. Here’s my essay! I’ll grade some other ones too :P</h2>
<h2>PROMPT: Should leaders be judged by how they treat their followers? </h2>
<pre><code> Though sociable and friendly people must be kind and compassionate to their acquaintances, Leaders in the true sense of the word, have no such obligation. As the famous automobile magnate Henry Ford once said “Leaders are those who get things done.” In the same vein, leaders should not be judged solely on the way they treat their followers because to achieve great things sacrifices must be made. This universal concept is repeatedly exemplified in the course of history.
At the outset of the 20th century, the USSR was a backwards, agricultural country with no real economic power. By 1950, however, Joseph Stalin, had transformed the USSR into a world economic and military superpower. Furthermore, Stalin was a ruthless leader, one who would not hesitate to kill off opposition. In 1936, Sergei Kirov spoke out about the excesses of his rule which led to the Great Purges which claimed the lives of some 150 soviet officers. In addition, the sweeping and rapid changes made to the agricultural sector to accommodate for heavy industry killed off many millions of peasants. Although known for his cruelty, Stalin was undoubtedly an efficient and successful leader. From his position of power, he led Russia from the wooden shovel to the metal tank. In 20 years, Stalin had achieved what other leaders struggled to do in 100. Through sacrificing the lives of his people and officers, Stalin ensured the survival and development of the USSR and therefore exemplifies the notion that a leader should not be judged solely on how he treats his people.
Similar to Stalin in his attitude, Ho Chi Minh, a Vietnamese war leader, conveys through his actions how leaders cannot be judged by their treatment of subjects. During the War of Vietnam, Minh directed his guerrilla forces against the American Juggernaut. Through a hard-line attitude against surrender, Minh was able to repel the most powerful army of the day and preserve North Vietnam’s borders. In war, Minh made sacrifices as he saw fit and did not spare a second thought for the lives of his soldiers. Threatening Execution, Minh would order his troops to attack weak American bases and defend strategic hills. Telling of his attitude towards his troops, Minh, during the Tet Offensive (which dealt a fatal blow to American Morale), told an unwilling platoon to “Shut up and fight, or die by my hands.” Despite this utter indifference to the well being of his troops, or perhaps even because of it, Minh was able to achieve what the world thought to be impossible: defend against the USA. There is no denying that he was cruel to his subjects, but we must also recognize that he must have been an excellent leader to organize such a cohesive defense. Minh’s great achievement as a leader, despite his callousness towards his troops, reinforces the notion that leaders should not be judged through how they treat their people, for his actions led to a greater good from a Vietnamese standpoint.
In a different perspective, President Jimmy Carter is an automatic proponent of how leaders should not be judged solely by their attitude towards followers. During his presidency in the US, Carter was known for being amicable and empathetic to his senators, staff, and citizens. He would appear at public speeches and events a jovial and positive individual. His presidency, however, was devoid of any real significant achievements or progress which had peppered those of his predecessors. Save for the Camp David Accords, which did relatively little to ease the Cold War, Carter’s contributions to "D
</code></pre>