As we uncover the role of a democracy in class, I thought I would post about the American democracy, something that we can all relate to. Although America is stereotypically the ideal democracy, I find more and more that our country isn't "governed by the people"-- the definition that Ms. Finn gave us in class. I cannot say that we are all equal and that we all exercise complete freedom. As we know, we elect officials who we think are going to make right decisions, but we rarely have say in what actually happens in our political system. I know it seems impossible for everyone to have a say in everything, but then is this a true democracy?
Following is a letter to the editor from the New York Times (October 14, 2007) from a woman from MA who feels like her voice (and actually many others who agree with her) is not being heard and that she is not living in a society where justice and democracy are supposed to be prevalent.
"Thank you, Frank Rich, for calling attention to the troubling reality of American apathy that has allowed the Bush administration to violate our most cherished principles of justice, democracy and human rights.
Along with millions of other Americans, I have participated in a multitude of events protesting the policies of this administration, including a famously underreported march of half a million people in Washington right before the start of the Iraq war.
Along with my friends and family, I have written letters, signed petitions, contacted my Congressional representatives and actively campaigned at the grass-roots level. None of it has helped.
I am profoundly discouraged. What can we do? "
So my questions are:
Do you feel part of a truly democratic society here in the U.S.? If not, why not?
What are the advantages and disadvantages to the U.S.'s form of democracy? Does one outweigh the other?
Can you answer this woman's last question: "What can we (as individuals) do"?
10 comments:
yes, i feel like i'm part of a truly democratic society. at 18, i can vote. i can say what i want, write what i want, practice whatever religion i want... i can basically do whatever i want. there are people (in vermont in particular) who want to secede from the US... and they're totally allowed to say that. that's free speech right there...
i'm not really sure what you mean by advantages and disadvantages... but i guess what i have to say is that nowhere in the constitution does it state that everyone will have their voice heard. that's just... not going to happen - there are way too many people in this country for that. i think that voting is the closest that we're going to get - everyone can vote. (well, everyone 18 and over)
what can we do? i think that we have to be persistent... we keep writing to people, we keep talking - in such a big country, we can't expect people to hear us right away. but, if our arguments have validity and we support them with hard evidence, i think that eventually, some people will hear us.
i just have to ask... how has the bush administration violated our most cherished principles...? the patriot act? i personally don't feel that my rights have been violated.
-coe
I feel like the US is a really close version of democracy, but is definitely not completely there. Our constitution and laws are very democratic, but the reality of our nation is that a lot of un-democratic activity exists as well. In particular there is a lot of hypocrisy in regards to politicians. What comes to mind first is definitely free speech and censorship.
The Bush administration bans protesters and dissidents from events and moves them to areas where they will not be shown in the media or be able to be heard by the audience or press. Is that really democratic to censor people and violate their right to free speech just because they oppose Bush? More about censorship by the Bush administration: http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/30298prs20070628.html
Also it is definitely not democratic to outsource prisoners and alleged terrorists to foreign countries for "interrogation" which is essentially torture, and it's certainly not democratic to practice extraordinary rendition. Extraordinary rendition is what ends up putting hundreds of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay for years on end with no charges or trials. An interesting film to see about this is "Road to Guantanamo" where 2 tourists are kidnapped and put in Guantanamo for being alleged terrorists. Here's more on extraordinary rendition: http://www.amnestyusa.org/War_on_Terror/Extraordinary_Rendition/page.do?id=1231047&n1=3&n2=821&n3=1497
To answer Coe, the PATRIOT act definitely violates our rights, and although I don't really feel like I'm directly affected on daily basis by the PATRIOT act, the US is not a true democracy if huge loopholes exist like the PATRIOT act that completely revoke our constitutional rights.
I agree with Melissa about the fact that constitutional rights are beign violated by the present administration. I also think that a democracy does not mean that everyone's opinions need to be utilized; for instance, if one group of people petition for a bill to be passed on and another group petitions for it to be killed, only one group can have their desired outcome occur. The woman from MA in the letter says that none of her petitioning has "helped," but helping can be anything from spreading awareness to actually affecting the opinions of government officials (rare but possible). So, I think that the right to vote and speak freely is all that is truly guaranteed in a democracy, but we can't call ourselves democratic until we know that is guaranteed, which it is not.
"i never expect to see a perfect work from an imperfect man" (if you can guess who said that, then you know me too well.)
i know our democracy isn't perfect, and i don't expect it to be. but as of now, i think it's the most democratic society in the world. where else do people have rights like ours? :)
@ melissa - your link doesn't work... :\ perhaps you could either repost it or give me more specifics about the situation (what protest, etc)? from your summary, it doesn't sound like censorship - president bush isn't telling people NOT to say these things or taking away their right to say them... the protesters could say whatever they want, just not in certain areas. where were they? were they protesting in a secured area? protesting where they can't protest? please provide more specifics.
about extraordinary rendition:
are we TORTURING? what is "torture" in your opinion?
is there an alternative to extraordinary rendition?
in response to the patriot act...
the government also has constitutional rights - "elastic clause," so technically, it's not a loophole. also, the government has restrictions within the patriot act... it can only be used "To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes." (thomas.gov!)
we're fighting a war against people who would do anything to kill us (and i seriously mean "us" as in... americans.) how can we protect ourselves from them? is there a way to do it without violating constitutional rights? it's not like the majority of americans have their rights violated on a regular basis. the bush administration is just trying to protect us.
so uh... i guess these questions were more like "how can we stop genocide," which is, as we know a rather hard question to answer. but the topic of constitutional rights lies with these questions, i suppose... :)
-coe
ps: sorry for the long post.
i'm a bit in between views. I agree with some of what Coe says - yes we are very democratic and our rights to a fair extent are realistic but then there are always (and will probably continue to be) cases where rights are violated.
I just wanted to raise the role of the media... since all of us are talking about various incidents and we are getting most of our information from the internet orr other news sources... how do we know those are unbiased?
also - along the lines of the media and rights - do you think it is going against the ideals of democracy if a movie is rated R solely because it contains contact that is "anti-US" or the current government. once a movie is rated R statistically the views go down dramatically.. is that censorship as well? I mean it is still being shown...
Thanks for the Hamilton quote, Coe.
First of all, although we have a government based around democracy, we are by no means a pure democracy. We actually have more of a constitutional republic to protect against "mobocracy" and essentially rule completely by the majority of people. I think the aspect of American democracy that is actually democratic is being able to vote for who you want to make decisions for you, and not necessarily getting to make those decisions yourself.
I do feel part of a democratic society because I have access to information and know my rights. On the other hand, many people have no access to information about voting and their government. For example, last year I did a paper on the illiterate in America who cannot participate in democracy at all simply because they have no means to make their voices heard or to gain information.
I am still very torn over the issue of free speech, which I have been exploring for this past quarter. I think free speech is essential to any democracy, but at the same time, when inflammatory things are said, should free speech be inhibited? Does free speech mean that people can say what they want whenever they want without being censored? Or does it mean that people can say whatever they want, but face the potentially negative consequences?
i thought the quote was fitting. :)
anyway, i guess melanie's last post brings us to the topic of hate speech - something that we've been exploring since we saw hate.com.
is hate speech considered free speech? if so, does it ever cross the line and become "criminal?" what are the advantages/downsides of protecting hate speech under freedom of speech?
also, connecting back to tal's "censorship" question and to things in class about the weimar republic:
criticism of the government is often considered a good thing. is there any point when this criticism is inappropriate? is there any point where it is more detrimental than helpful? is there any point where it can be considered hate speech?
-coe
I thought I would just give a follow up on the censorship of the Bush administration...Just to clarify officials have been instructed to prevent protesters from entering certain events, so besides from relocating them, they are also sometimes barred from attending events/conferences/rallies at all. The ACLU says, the "Presidential Advance Manual from the Justice Department... is the Bush administration's guide for planning presidential events around the country, and it repeatedly instructs organizers about "the best method for preventing demonstrators," "deterring potential protesters from attending events," "designat[ing] a protest area . . . preferably not in view of the event site or motorcade route," and the like."..."
The manual also says "if demonstrators are yelling, rally squads can begin and lead supportive chants to drown out the protesters (USA! USA! USA!)." I find this really funny...if this isn't censorship, I don't know what is!
The ACLU has filed a lawsuit and commented, ""When the president attends a public event, the First Amendment does not allow him to speak or listen only to those who agree with him," said Arthur Spitzer, Legal Director of the ACLU of the National Capital Area and co-counsel in the lawsuit. "Public places cannot be 'cleansed' of all dissent just to make the president look popular on television.""
Further censorship has been noted, most significantly the Bush administration's attempts to keep the photos of soldier's coffins from Iraq hidden from the public and media. "White House press spokesman Scott McClellan said that the president’s opposition to media coverage of the returning war dead was rooted in his determination to “show respect for those who have made the ultimate sacrifice.”...Jane Bright, whose son Evan was killed in Iraq in July 2003 said “Let the media and the rest of America see the coffins when they return to US soil,” she said at the rally. “Our children did not live in secrecy, they should not be shrouded in secrecy upon their passing.”"
Here's more info on this topic:
- http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/coff-a24.shtml
-http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-12-31-casket-usat_x.htm
Here's the link again, and if you click the title of this blog post "How real is our democracy?" and then scroll down the link isn't cut off and I think it works now.
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/30298prs20070628.html
i actually don't think this is censorship.
i think it's kind of like during the mock senate committee meeting when buzz jumped up and yelled... there needs to be order. buzz wasn't being censored, it was just that he was being disorderly.
if there are people protesting, there is definitely chaos. it's not censoring them if they are forced to move. they can still SAY what they want, just not WHERE they want. and, it's not like the media can't get to them anyway.
president bush ISN'T popular on television. i must say that nearly all the major newstations, except for foxnews, have particularly anti-bush views. in fact, i think that if any voice isn't being heard, it's the conservative side of the argument.
if hiding pictures of the coffins is considered censorship, then is it censorship when mainstream media doesn't present the positive sides to the iraq war? a lot of soldiers believe that the iraq war is truly doing good and that they're fighting for good, but we rarely see or hear this side of the story.
just to ask a question... you rely on the information from the aclu a lot. how do we know that they are giving us dependable information? they are known for being "liberal," so perhaps they're skewing the actual situation?
-coe
Eh, I still feel like it's censorship. Protesting is a part of free speech, no matter the location. You can't really say its "free" if you can only do it in designated locations at certain times...
I feel like as much as the ACLU is biased, it's for social justice and human rights reasons. The whole basis of the ACLU is civil liberties, free speech, equal protection under the law, due process, etc, so any bias they have as a nonpartisan, nonprofit group is for these causes.
I think a part of democracy is definitely lots of dissent, criticism and activism from whoever and everyone. A part of my English project this semester is reading and studying writings and things from republicans, democrats, liberals and conservatives, and I actually think that there's an equal amount of bias, it just depends where you look. (If you're looking for some conservative resources, Ann Coulter's website has "Readings for right wingers" and "Patriot Links")
Plus, a part of being president is being laughed at, mocked and hated, and it just so happens that Bush has done a lot more than past presidents to increase this in the media.
Post a Comment