Democracy or Inequality?

America has a distinct character that isn’t only engrained in the culture and history of the country, but the society as a whole. American society has been shaped by the ideals and individualistic nature of those who framed it, all contributing to the wealth-driven, dreamer-esque, and relentlessly democratic disposition of the country. However, the notion of democracy has presented itself as an issue throughout the country’s history as it is continuously fought for in an environment that has democracy promised in its foundation. Noam Chomsky introduces the concern for a more democratic society by the people in Requiem for the American Dream, where I found the first principle entitled “Reducing Democracy” an interesting yet challenging feature as it levies the matter of how much democracy to permit to the American people.

Democracy is an ideal central to America’s underpinnings and that of the beginnings of other civilizations. A concept so notably fought for centuries and yet is still a tender, controversial topic. The history and foundational aspects to the making of America’s constitution dates back to importance of freedom and democracy, yet Chomsky points out how democracy would limit the wealthy and those in power, an issue realized by both James Madison and Aristotle. Thus, a solution was created by both: “One is: reduce inequality, and you won’t have this problem. The other is: reduce democracy. Well, in those conflicting aspirations you have the foundation of the country.” Madison thought reducing the amount of freedom the people have would retain the power of the opulent and Aristotle believed that by decreasing the inequality, people would have no reason to rebel, both ideals that went into the creation of America’s foundation. The challenge lies in how much democracy is truly democratic. In a country that was built on democratic fundamentals you’d think that democracy would be overwhelmingly present in society, but that’s not entirely the case as inequality is a more fitting thought when describing American society.

Inequality has been apparent in the country incessantly, from the presence of slavery during colonial times to modern day, where people are still judged or ridiculed based upon their race, religion, or gender. I don’t think the amount of democracy needs to be reduced in order to maintain an ideal democratic stature in the country, but rather reduce the amount of inequality that fuels so much hatred to the point where people have to question the values of the country they live in. By diminishing the inequality present in the country, people wouldn’t feel as though the democracy allotted to them was limited, they would feel as though they had what was needed to voice their opinions and live freely in society.

Inequality based on race or gender is still ever present in the country, with the notion of women still being inferior to men drifting in the minds of the power-driven and the mistreatment of minorities by those who still consider themselves superior simply because they are a part of the majority. Once we rid our society of inequality and introduce a more open-minded, balanced one, the issue of how much democracy to allow a people will not exist, as society would be content enough with how the nation is functioning that there would be limited opposing views to the ideals of America.

Comments

  1. AnonymousSeptember 11, 2017 at 7:18 AM

    This either/or situation introduced in the book of whether to reduce democracy or reduce inequality was really challenging for me to understand. Good thing you shed light as to what the text said and elaborated on the fact that resolving the inequalities in America would prove to be successful for a better democracy. The fact that reducing one or the other is simply astonishing for I would not have noticed the tremendous impact inequality has plagued the world. Then again, democracy in the late 1700s and the Madisonian model would be in support of the wealthy class at the time for they thought that the majority could just take plots of land away from the respective landowners. Without a doubt, this would seem outlandish to some, as it did to me unknowingly thinking that property meant power. The wealthy men are the target audience of the model and their strife to stay in power would be very demanding as socioeconomic standards slanted in their favor.

    ReplyDelete
  2. UnknownSeptember 11, 2017 at 10:26 AM

    This is a really interesting point made by Chomsky. There is some harsh truth in the clash between democracy and an interest in policy for the normal American. It is unfortunate that people with power have a much larger hand and so his interest in reducing democracy isn't outright ridiculous. America isn't a truly free market economy because the government influences how our economy works through regulations and whatnot. This has especially been true since the Great Depression and so if the government already plays a role in our economy, why not have it play in favor for the majority of Americans that are middle-class, working citizens? Very interesting elaboration in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Erin FlewSeptember 12, 2017 at 6:40 PM

    Lots of questions here.
    Regulations are often designed to protect the ordinary middle class. For example, to allow greater earnings to big banks, congress reduced regulations on how much money the banks could play with.

    And so the big banks played. Made a ton of money. And then went bust. Lots of ordinary middle class people lost their retirements. Lots of ordinary middle class people lost their jobs and houses. Congress bailed out the banks, reinstituted the regulations, but the ordinary middle class people are still recovering.

    Right now congress is considering rolling back those regulations again.

    That's a simplistic version of the crash in 2007/2008. It's more complicated than that, I think, but I know a lot of people who are still hurting from that time, so it feels personal.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Final Dreamz

Image
So, I focused primarily on gender and the American Dream and how the opportunistic feature of the dream is unequal when concerning genders as there are certain notions embedded into society that place men at a higher ranking of success than women. The issues revolving around this idea is that the success and opportunities of women are hindered by the gender stereotypes that surround aspects of living such as education, occupations, income and more. I learned that men and women share slightly different definitions of the American Dream. In terms of the nature of the American Dream, men responded by saying that it was mostly about acquiring material goods, while women were more likely to say that the Dream was about acquiring spiritual happiness (White & Hanson 84). I found that interesting as I would of also expected a sentiment towards material goods from women, however the spiritual happiness I had expected to have greater numbers by women. More knowledge I encountered on my re...
Read more

American Values & What Not

Image
The nation as a whole is composed of various ethnicities and cultures yet America has a distinct nature and connotation associated with its individuals. When referring to Americans, the first words that may come to mind are “individualistic,” or “self-centered,” which are both entirely accurate and a distinction that shouldn’t be frowned upon by fellow Americans as that is just simply what the country was raised with. We, as Americans, are inherently individualistic people, a characteristic that was simply meant to be. In Gary Athen’s chapter entitled "American Values and Assumptions," from American Ways: A Guide for Foreigners in the United States, different American values are elaborated upon and presented in such a way that explains American behavior. Specifically, Athens discusses values including individualism and time, both of which I can relate to my own life and realize how they have exerted influence. Athens presents individualism as his first value and goes i...
Read more

Different Dreamz

Image
In the modern day it may be a bit more difficult to see the American Dream in action, as often when referring to the dream itself, people typically tend to speak about it in reference to the past, as if it has already came and gone. With this perspective, it seems as if the American Dream had more value and meaning in the past, during times when Americans needed something to hold on to. Yet, in 2017 we witness values of the American Dream, but not necessarily the dream itself in the same light as we would of in 1972. In USC Professor Walter R. Fisher’s “Reaffirmation and Subversion of the American Dream,” two American Dreams are focused upon, being a materialistic dream and a moralistic dream, both claimed to be central towards maintaining an overall dream in the country. The claims made within Fisher’s piece are relevant in modern times, specifically how materialism encourages self-centeredness and how moralistic values feed on our guilt. Materialistic values connote feelings...
Read more