In the dilemma of either pursuing common ground and reasonable consensus or fulfilling elusive ideals, the speaker suggests the prior one. Although I concur that listening and following public voices are essential parts of politicians' jobs, I disagree on the arguer's attempt to put ideals and consensus into antithesis. In the choice mentioned above, I suggest politicians to take them both.   Pursuing consensus of public is a basic job of politician. In my observation, there are two objects that politicians usually consider when making decisions: to win the public affection and prepare them a better life. On the way of finishing both goals, it is crucial to listen to what is generally considered issue of the public. For example, when the public is constantly complaining about the unemployment problems of the local area, the politician should respond with solution and explanation to it instead of focusing on other issues that only he/her himself/herself is concerned.  Without doing this, the politician might lose a remarkable amount of votes from local electors on the next campaign, which is apparently not wanted by the politician. At the same time, the complaints of citizens indicate the impending need of public, which acquire an immediate response from the politician. To actually improve the life quality of citizens, the politician should be aware of these impending needs; in other words, to pursue common ground.   However, a consensus of the society is something ideal in essence. A policy can seldom satisfy everybody in the society. For example, a policy of putting heavy tax on wealthy people may be welcomed by ordinary people, but it obviously violates the rights of tycoons. In such case, whose advices should be taken or whose rights should be protected is tough decision to make. A good ruler to measure the rationality of each choice can exactly be the so-called elusive ideals of the politician.    In fact, there is no shortage of examples of famous politicians make decisions based on their ideals in the history. Churchill demanded a military revenge towards German Nazi in the wish of regaining peace in Britain; Deng Xiaoping designed an open policy for China in the wish of the prosperous(prosperity) of the nation; Nixon declared the war on drugs in the wish of a cleaner environment of adolescents. These decisions may have not what the public were eager for at that time; instead, they were made from the prediction of the nation future of these great politicians. Actually, the outcome of these policies are the strongest disputes of the arguer's claim that public consensus comes beyond ideals. What might be relieving for these politicians is that the results of their consistence finally meet the interests of public.   In the end, I want to conclude that pursuing ones ideals does not always conflicts the common ground of public. Sometimes politicians are more far-sighted that ordinary people and public policies that might not be welcoming at present but will benefit the next generation.