If words could talk I'd have nothing to say

WTF

2007-11-13T21:18:00.000-08:00

Warrior ship is something that has become obscured and increasingly more irrelevant in today’s society. Today a warrior is only a character in a movie or one of the many athletes on TV. In the not so distant past the warriors soul had a place in society, they were the virtuous leaders that brought society to new heights and provided a framework of ideals that weaker people could live up to. Warriors developed their virtue through training in the military arts, which were tested on the field of battle. Warriors are people that are willing to fight and die for the good of the society they support. Recently the modern businessman has been elevated to the status of the modern warrior because of the practicality in using battle tactics to engage in business dealings. Although today’s businessman shares much of the same knowledge of the warriors of the past in regard to strategy, cunning, and tactics the virtue that makes the warrior is lost to them. Both Eastern and Western societies agree that the path of the warrior is based on virtue similar to those found in the Meng Sae. In reviewing the virtues of the Meng Sae and looking at them through the lens of Western philosophy one can see where the path of the warrior lies in today’s society.

Humanity: The quality of being humane characterized by mercy and compassion, benevolence. While this definition of humanity may be lacking it provides a good foundation to build upon. Humanity is perhaps the most important virtue that the modern warrior can develop. It is astonishing how easy it is to forget the well being of our fellow man when people are concerned with fulfilling their own selfish desires for money, recognition, or what ever evil motivates a person to act. With the thought of humanity in the forefront of the warrior’s mind they realize they are people of service. While warriors are trusted with great power over the lives of people a true warrior comes to the realization that their power is not to advance their own selfish goals but to elevate the community as a whole. In doing so the warrior the warrior must be patient with transgressors in order to lead them to the path of the good. However this is not to say that the warrior does not use force when necessary because taking a life may the most humane thing to do if the soul has no chance of recovery. In developing humanity, as well as all the other virtues, the warrior must be vigilant in ensuring their virtue does not stray to far from the path because on both sides of the path lies great evil. For example if the leader of a state does not practice the art of humanity they become feared and hated by the people they are meant to serve. On the other hand, if a leader goes too far in trying to be humane then the people whom they serve are allowed to run amuck with no consequence for wrong action. Therefore a fully developed sense of humanity lies in between the two extremes. Even though a modern day warrior may never find themselves in a situation where they need to take a life compassion and benevolence are important to attaining enlightenment, which is what the path of the warrior is all about.

Honor: There are two types of honor one that that leads to selfishness and evil and another that upholds the greater good. When dealing with honor it is important for the warrior to act carefully and make sure that they are living by the correct type but distinctions between the two can become murky and send the warrior on the wrong path. The first type that will lead to the warriors ruin is disproportionate concern for their status and reputation. A warrior needs to be concerned with right action not how they are viewed by society because most people do not have any idea as to what motivates the warrior. By focusing on this type of honor the warrior makes gestures to show society how good they are and this act alone leads the warrior astray from their true path. However, there is another type of honor that the warrior must be eternally vigilant over, and that is in their development of personal integrity, this keeps the warrior focused on developing themselves in the image of the good. A warrior by nature functions on a higher level than most others in society it is important for them to realize this and dismiss the judgments of society early on and focus only on the greater good. This is going to be one the harder aspects for modern warriors to develop especially in Western culture where people place too much emphasis on personal achievement. Furthermore, today’s society is concerned more with the acquisition of things and status than with developing traits that will go unnoticed by many and appreciated by less than few.

Courtesy: Quite simply courtesy is polite behavior. This is important for the warrior because at every step on the warrior’s path they are going to be assaulted by lesser people. The act of being polite in all situations is advantageous to the warrior for a multiple of reasons. First by remaining calm and polite in tense or chaotic situations the warrior shows others proper behavior in this way they are leading by example. More importantly a courteous soul allows the warrior to remain calm and control the chaos that surrounds them. To the warrior training behavior is just as important as training the body. When the mind and body are trained to act a certain way in a particular situation the easier it is for the warrior to make all actions benefit the good of society.

Knowledge: Awareness or understanding gained through experience or study. This is perhaps the very foundation on which the warrior is build and to some extent the one they have the least control over. The reason I say that the warrior has the least control over this aspect is because they are dependant on others to give it to them (a persons knowledge is only as good as their teachers). If a warrior like any one else experiences something or learns something at the wrong time it can change their path indefinitely. A prime example of this is the archetypal villain in American and perhaps Western culture, Darth Vader. Annakin Skywalker became seduced by the dark side because through all of his training he had been told the dark side was evil and wrong (hence the name the dark side) but Annakin did not know why the dark was wrong, he was never allowed explore the horror of evil, so when it was put in a pretty package with a bow on top he took the gift without a second thought. In this respect Annakin was let down by his teachers, the ones who were responsible for guiding his learning and experience. In this respect a warrior must choose their teachers wisely and gain experience with evil so they will be able to combat it intelligently. A warrior at some point realizes that only through the darkness can they reach light and the only way they can make it through the darkness is by the guidance of those further along their path.

Trust and Friendship: Trust and friendship is important to the warrior because it is an extension of their honor. Trust is another person’s belief in your integrity and it is important for the warrior to earn this from people. It is important for the warrior to earn the trust of people because their presence elevates society and they are role models for others and it is a good way to judge it a warrior’s honor is on the right path. If a warrior finds oneself lacking the trust of others it is a good indication that they are on the wrong path. While relying on the perceptions of others may seem contradictory to many things already discussed it is not. The path of the warrior above all else is one of service and if the warrior does not have the goodwill of the ones they serve then the warrior is not fulfilling their duty.

Kindness: Meaning showing sympathy and understanding. Kindness is important for the warrior because the people that they serve give them a huge amount of power. A warrior always needs to keep the well being of the people they serve at forefront of their thinking. While it may be necessary for a warrior to use force against another they use it in the proper amount using only what is necessary to get the job done.

Wisdom: Wisdom is the ability to discern to judge what is true and right. Through cultivating wisdom the warrior gains the ability to not be deceived and manipulated. A warrior cultivates wisdom through insight gained through their knowledge and insight by repeating the actions that were virtuous until a true understanding of their virtue is realized. Along these same lines a warrior must learn from their more sinister actions (actions that hurt the people) they must spend countless hours of looking into themselves to make sure the motivations that drive them are true and serve the greater good.

Loyalty: Meaning faithfulness to duties and obligations. Many of the things discussed previously lead up to this point, a warrior must disperse there loyalties over a great area such as to the people they serve, the people that serve them, themselves, and the virtuous path they chose. The first two are fairly self explanatory as noted previously the path of the warrior is a path of service and all a warriors actions must be done with the good of the people in mind. Along their path it is inevitable that the warrior will acquire followers and people that hold them in high esteem so it is important that the warrior lead them down the right path and monitor their progress. A warrior must also fulfill their obligations to themselves and give themselves time to pursue things that are important for their personal well being, so as to build a resentment to the people they serve. This allows the warrior to remain on their path. A warrior must also remain loyal to the path they have chosen if it is a virtuous one. Society has lost many great leaders because their loyalty to virtue was misplaced or developed far enough to keep them on the path once it became difficult.

Courage: Is training the spirit to face danger and fear. A warrior is courageous because they know that their path is a path of death. Marcus Aurelius shows this well. Marcus Aurelius was a Roman Emperor and was one of the few philosopher kings. Like many ancient kings Marcus Aurelius great at making war, however he was also a great warrior in the terms discussed above. Marcus Aurelius spent a large amount of time meditating on what it meant to be a warrior and the purpose of death. While his conclusions about death were far from profound, he believed that it was a natural part of life that he did not understand; he had great insight on how to build courage and release the fear of death. Marcus Aurelius states that since death is a natural part of life it should not be feared but he continues to say that a warrior must live life in the present. If a warrior has no attachment to the past then people cannot use it to harm them and if a warrior has no attachment to the future then no one can take it from them. By living in the present the warrior is released from all attachment and if one has been trained and tested in the correct manner then the action will benefit the greater good of which they serve.

In looking at the path of the warrior from a primarily Western viewpoint it is important to show the foundations of this belief in Western culture. One of the first to realize the importance of the warrior soul and how to cultivate it was Socrates. While Socrates used the term guardians instead of warrior the path was the same. In one of his most famous discussions Socrates talks about the Allegory of the Cave.

Socrates begins by stating that all people are chained from birth to a wall looking into a cave. Behind the people is a light and above them on a ledge is someone holding images in front of the light casting shadows on to the wall. This is realm where most people live looking at, discussing and arguing about shadows of imperfect images on the wall of a cave. At times a select few are released from bondage and allowed to turn around and see what is actually being projected onto the cave. At this point many look into the light and it hurts so they sit back down and stare at the wall with slightly more knowledge than the rest. The warrior however fights through the pain and fear and moves toward the light. As time passes the sting from the light eases and the warrior makes the trip outside to see the sun as it actually is and all the images in there natural form. At this moment the warrior has great knowledge and insight far beyond any in cave could imagine. The warrior now has true knowledge of what is, not shadows of imperfect images. However this is only the beginning of the warrior’s path.

The non-warrior is captivated by the beauty and looks at the people in the cave like they are fools. They realize that all the arguments in the cave were meaningless and outside of the cave, is where life is at, outside life can be full with infinite pleasure. The warrior on the other hand looks at the people in the cave with pity and they want all to see the beauty life has to offer. So the warrior makes the dissent back into the darkness of the cave. When they descend back down into the cave they will be able to see the shadows more clearly than anyone in the cave. They will be able to see the truth behind the shadows. Upon returning to the darkness the warrior is no longer concerned with any rewards or false honor the people of the cave can bestow upon them because they have seen truth, prestige is no longer an issue. The warrior returns to the cave out of love for the people and the return to darkness is where the true test of the warrior happens.

When a warrior returns to darkness they will face ridicule and many forms of violence. The people sitting in darkness do not want believe they are living a lie and will often go to extreme measures to silence the voice of the warrior. However the warriors experience with the true nature of things and the knowledge of the greater good drives them. They will use all the tools in there possession to bring the people out of the darkness and into the light even if they die in the process.

The American Constitution as a Model For Democracy

2007-11-13T21:14:00.000-08:00

The American Constitution is the central document in American government. Since it has been ratified it has been a topic of debate among scholars and common people alike. Although the Constitution provides a functional outline for American democracy by explicitly stating what the government can do. More importantly by ensuring individual rights makes it the ideological document that defines America’s political culture. The Constitution divides the powers of government into three separate branches, the congress, the executive, and the judiciary. Each branch is able to check the powers of the other to prevent one of the branches from becoming too powerful. Also included in the constitution is a list of rights that guarantee individuals certain freedoms from governmental interference. This is based on fundamental democratic principles such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and suffrage. However many new democracies have not been so fortunate to enjoy a stable democratic system. Such as, Latin America and Eastern Europe which have based their constitutions on the American model and have failed miserably. The reason new democracies fail is that, as a structural document the Constitution may seem undemocratic. How ever, the democratic ideology of the Constitution and its constant reinterpretation makes it work for America. While hazardous for new democracies that do not share the same ideals as America.

According to John C. Calhoun in, A Disquisition on Government, (version 1995, 29) the law regulating governmental power is most important regardless of the governmental system, “and hence the great and broad distinction between governments is not that of the one, the few, or the many but of the constitutional and the absolute.” The Constitution limits the power of the government by defining and separating the powers of government into three distinct branches, the congress, the executive, and the judiciary. With each branch holding certain checks over the other two branches to prevent them from gaining too much power and becoming tyrannical. For example, the Congress is charged with making laws but congressional power is checked by the executive which has the power to veto laws. The judiciary is able to declare laws unconstitutional placing another check on congressional power. Calhoun thinks the best way to limit government power is by a written constitution explicitly stating and limiting the powers of government. Calhoun also refers to this as the negative power of the constitution, which is “the power of preventing or arresting the action of government.”(Calhoun, version 1995, 28) Essential to this negative power in a democracy is suffrage. In a democracy the power of the majority must be restrained to prevent it from tyrannizing the minority because the will of the majority is not necessarily the will of the people. The system of federalism set up by the Constitution gives most of the powers relevant to the common person to state and local governments that are often times more democratic and more responsive to the public will.

However when the Constitution is the basis for new democracies that have no real history of democratic ideals, often times what happens is it creates a power struggle at the top with policy makers. These policy makers are more concerned about advancing their own needs rather than promoting the public good. Many countries have used the American model by copying the federal system and separation of powers. When looking at the practices of these governments one sees that the central government has taken power away from the provincial and local governments. The executive branch has also wrestled power away from the legislative and judicial branches. By focusing power at the head of the government, the constitution ceases to advance the interests of all citizens and is doomed to fail. (Mueller, 1999, 119)

Nevertheless many people have said that this is happening in America the elites that are running the country are focused more on personal gain than the good of all citizens. This can be seen in the manipulation of voting districts for seats in the House of Representatives. After each ten year census each state redraws its congressional district boundaries in the US this has become a highly political practice. By redrawing the boundaries one party can maintain a certain structural advantage over the other party making it easier for them to pass legislation. The redistricting also makes it easier for incumbents to be re-elected because they redraw the congressional boundaries in the way that will benefit themselves or their party the best. As Thomas E. Mann (2003, 4) writes “The freshman class in the new 108th Congress was unusually small. Fewer than four dozen… leading to a huge increase in the number of incumbents (338) who won handily.” By manipulating electoral rules politicians are more interested in maintaining their status and power rather providing for the best public good.

Manipulation of electoral rules can also be seen in presidential elections. The question of how democratic is the Electoral College was recently raised in the 2000 presidential race between Al Gore and George W. Bush, where Bush won the presidency with fewer popular votes than Gore. However this is not the first time the Electoral College failed to uphold democratic principles. According to Robert A. Dahl (2002, D1) “The Electoral College would result in 18 elections - one in three - that would be won by a candidate who had gained less than a majority of popular votes. In four elections, including that of 2000, the winner gained fewer popular votes than his main opponent.” This is a serious threat to democratic ideals where suffrage is an indispensable and primary right given to the citizens to make their leaders accountable and responsive to the people they serve. With suffrage taken away the people loose the greatest power they have over governmental abuses of power and oppression. The seemingly flawed voting system in American government makes it less than ideal for new democracies to base their governments on that do not have deep rooted democratic tradition.

In spite of these abuses of democratic ideals the America still remains a functional democracy. This is because the Constitution even with its structural defects is an ideological document that embraces and explicitly protects democratic ideals in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is fundamental in defining American political culture it explicitly states what the government cannot do, and gives people fundamental freedoms that make democracy a way of life in America. Looking at democracy as way of life is essential to understanding the individual’s relationship to the larger society. Even though democracy produces a strong sense of individualism it can still serve the greater good of society. It does by the individualistic pursuit of experience adds to the integrity of the larger group. Democracy also makes the individual a part of the whole by the daily cooperation with each other which creates shared experience which also broadens the moral base that democracy stands. When democracy is viewed as a way of life, a person’s own selfish goals can be seen in terms of the common good. Jane Adams (version 2001, 100) demonstrates this point best when she writes “in certain stages of moral evolution, a man is incapable of action unless the results will benefit himself…it is along step in moral progress to set the good of the many before the interest of the few.” However, if the aims of individuals cease to be moral and exist only for individual gain, democracy can become corrupted and immoral.

Given that the democratic ideology of the Constitution is fundamental to American political activity, however, if the democratic ideal cannot be transferred to developing democracies there is likelihood they will become corrupt and immoral. As Peter C. Ordeshook asserts new democratic societies are trying to reach a new social equilibrium. Therefore the new constitution must speak directly to the culture, norms, and common knowledge of the society that it is intended to govern. If the new constitution does not speak to the widely shared principles of society or is inconsistent with its shared principles then the constitution will be doomed to failure. (Ordeshook, 2002, 9-10) However the risk here is that the new constitution will become petty and to specific by including widely realized social norms and customs. When a constitution becomes to specific in regulating individual rights and obligations it then starts to dictate the societies behaviour rather than guide it. Another reason the American Constitution has endured for so long is its ability to be constantly reinterpreted and reinvented with each new generation.
The way the Constitution is continually reinvented is through the Supreme Court. Even though the words of the Constitution have not changed in over two hundred years the meaning of the Constitution dramatically. Through the process of judicial review the Supreme Court makes decisions on the constitutionality of certain laws. Many times this furthers the ideals of democracy, as was the case in Brown v. The Board of Education that removed institutional segregation in the South and the prevalent doctrine of “separate but equal.” By ending segregation in the South African-Americans now had institutional backing to fight for the basic civil rights that had been denied them previously.

On the other hand the Supreme Court has also been viewed as the least democratic institutions in the American government and have been accused of making decisions on a political basis rather than on a constitutional one. The democratic ideal is challenged in the judicial branch of American government due mainly in part because the judges are appointed rather than elected. Also the judges are appointed for life and can only be removed through impeachment or they can retire. Again the controversy surrounding the 2000 presidential election provides a good example. The absence of a Constitutional provision on what to in the case of a close election the matter was turned over to the Supreme Court where a five to four decision in the conservative court declared George W. Bush the winner over Al Gore. (Mann, 2003, 4) Even though at times the Supreme Court may make decisions based on a political agenda this is an exception to the rule rather than the norm. An independent judiciary free from the political dealings of the legislature and the executive gives the Constitution life and allow it to change and adapt with society. In this sense the judiciary is the agent of the citizenry charged with protecting individuals constitutional rights form the abuses of the executive and legislative branches of government. (Mueller, 1999, 125)

The American Constitution is the central document in American political life. Not only does it provide the structural framework that carries out the function of government it also provides the ideological framework that shapes American political culture. In judging the relevance for the Constitution as a model for developing democracies both structural and ideological aspects must be considered. If a new democracy bases its new constitution strictly on the structural aspects of the Constitution then the antidemocratic trends present in it will allow corrupt leaders to wrestle power away form the people. The same is also true a new constitution is based solely on the ideological aspects of the Constitution because the ideals that formed American society may not transfer well into another culture. So when using the Constitution as model for new democracies a balance must met between the structural and ideological. In order for a democracy to work there must be limits placed on the majority and governmental control to protect the rights and liberties of minorities, as William Graham Sumner (version 2003, 30) writes, “all institutions are to be tested by the degree to which they guarantee liberty.”

What does it mean to be an American?

2007-11-13T21:11:00.000-08:00

The meaning of American citizenship is different for many people and its meaning has been debated since America was formed. In looking at Michael Walzer’s “What does it Mean to be an American?” and Malcolm X’s “The Ballot or the Bullet” one can see two different interpretations of American citizenship. While Malcolm X and Michael Walzer agree on many aspects of what American citizenship should be they differ on how it really is.

In Walzer’s view the term American is primarily political and many Americans are somewhere else culturally. Since America is separated culturally and politically, it has a certain aspect of anonymity in politics, and even though many Americans identify with some other place culturally they need to balance that with their public life. Walzer uses the examples of hyphenated Americans to illustrate this point; Walzer uses the example of Irish-Americans who are culturally Irish and American politically. However, according to Walzer, this is not entirely true because both sides of the hyphen influence each other. “Rather they are culturally Irish-American and politically Irish- American.” (46) This duality in American citizenship makes it more anonymous and all a person needs to do in order to participate in American political life is to commit themselves to the ideas of liberty and equality. (30) The duality and anonymity in American citizenship also makes society more tolerant of culturally different people. This can be seen when Walzer writes, “tolerance is a way of thought when any alternative policy would be violent and dangerous.” (44-45) Tolerance is what allows Americans to bond together as a union of ethnic, racial, and religious groups.

Although Malcolm X would agree that Walzer’s view is the way citizenship should be, the reality of the situation is different. This is especially true for black people who no matter how committed they are to American ideals of liberty and equality remain persecuted and overlooked in the system. This can be seen when Malcolm X writes “No I’m not an American. I’m one of the 22 million black people who are the victims of Americanism. One of the 22 million black people who are victims of democracy, nothing but disguised hypocrisy.” (127) Malcolm X also addresses the issue of the hyphenated Americans. “African-Americans – that’s what we are – Africans who are in America.” (128) Malcolm X believes, unlike Walzer, that the two sides of the hyphen are independent of each other. “In fact, you’d get farther calling yourself Africans instead of a Negro. Africans don’t catch hell.” (128) This shows the reality of the situation, but the ideal Malcolm X is striving for is like Walzer’s.

Furthermore, the view that Malcolm X is arguing for, in Black Nationalism, is similar to Walzer’s in that the cultural side of the hyphen influences the political side of the hyphen and vise versa. “It’s true we’re Muslims and our religion is Islam, but we don’t mix our religion with our politics…After our religious services are over, then as Muslims we become involved in political action.” (129) Malcolm X’s view of Black Nationalism follows closely Walzer’s view that Americans divide themselves up into cultural groups, but racially different groups are suppressed.

However, Malcolm X feels that racial, ethnic or cultural tolerance is not practiced toward African-Americans like it is towards other groups that are white. Malcolm X begins “The Ballot or the Bullet” showing this separation when he writes, “I don’t even consider myself an American. If you and I were Americans then there would be no problem. Those Hunkies that just got off the boat, they’re already Americans … Everything that came out of Europe… is already American. And as long as you and I have been here, we aren’t Americans yet.” (126) Malcolm X feels that African-Americans need to join together so that they can support themselves and once the black community is strong the rest of America will be forced to recognize it politically, economically, and socially. Malcolm X believes that the idea of Black Nationalism does not only apply to African-Americans, it is also relevant to all non-white people that are politically suppressed in the system.

Malcolm X would agree with Walzer’s view of American citizenship, such as America is a dualistic society. Malcolm X would believe that Walzer’s argument was ideological and not reality because Walzer fails to address the issue of race sufficiently. While both see America divide along racial, ethnic, or religious lines, Walzer believes that the anonymous political environment in America promotes tolerance and is a unifying factor for groups that would have nothing in common. Yet again, Malcolm X would not support this view of the way things are but as the ideal he is striving for.

The issue of what it means to be an American is something that will be debated for many more years because America is such a diverse country. Michael Walzer sums it best when he writes, “America is still a radically unfinished society… The country has a political center, but remains in every other sense decentered.” This shows that even though America can be divided culturally, politics can be a unifying factor.

Inividuals Role in Democracy

2007-11-13T21:10:00.000-08:00

The Individual’s Role in Democratic Society

In comparing Jane Adams and John Dewey the idea of democracy as a way of life is fundamental to the relationship of the individual to society. Once an individual chooses to undertake democracy as a way of life, their own self-interested goals and morality can be converted into broader social values used to promote the common good. Dewey supports this when he writes, “democracy is a personal way of individual life; that it signifies the possession and continual use of certain attitudes, forming personal character and determining desire and purpose in all the relations of life.”(241) However the freedom that democracy offers can easily become corrupted when society ceases to reap the benefits of individual morality.
When democracy is viewed as a way of life, a person’s own selfish goals can also be seen in terms of the common good. Adams demonstrates this point best when she writes “in certain stages of moral evolution, a man is incapable of action unless the results will benefit himself…it is along step in moral progress to set the good of the many before the interest of the few.”(100) It is human nature to help ones self first and what is leftover can be used for the benefit of society. The difference is in a democracy the leftovers will eventually trickle down the masses because the leaders are intimately linked to the people. Therefore they will not be reelected if the people do not feel they are getting any thing in return. This can be done either by way of corruption or of a more enlightened form but no matter the form it takes it the price a society must pay in democracy, which Adams points out when she writes, “the penalty of democracy is that we are bound to move forward or retrograde together.”(112) This also supports Dewey’s view that democratic life is governed by people’s day-to-day cooperation even though the needs of each individual are different. By being able to cooperate with many people with varying needs democracy gives people moral experience expanding social values and contributing to the common good.
In this manner, Adams and Dewey think that personal experience shapes a person’s moral character and the attainment of experience is inherent in a democracy. As Dewey shows when he states, “the task of democracy is forever that of creation of a freer and more humane experience in which all share and to which all contribute.”(245) Similarly Adams believes that a person’s experience shapes the moral framework of their life, thus this experience will be transferred into that person’s view of democracy. According to Adams people’s common experience is the source of social morality, so if experience is limited then morality is limited. This is illustrated when she writes, “Already there is a conviction that we are under a moral obligation in choosing our experiences, since the result of those experiences must ultimately determine our understanding of life.”(8) Therefore if the role of democracy is to create a more humane environment for people to gain experience the selfish acquisition of personal experience will only advance social morality working toward a greater common good.
However, if the aims of individuals cease to be moral and exist only for individual gain, democracy can become corrupted and immoral. Dewey argues that when democracy becomes sentimental and ceases to be practiced every day is when the greatest damage is done. Dewey makes note of the anti-democratic view of American slavery in the United States and how it “has left us with habits of intolerance toward the colored race.”(208) Also according to Dewey identifying democracy with economic individualism has hurt democracy and will do further damage if not contained. (209)
On the other hand, Adams would disagree and say that the few immoral individuals that abuse democracy will bring the masses together and create a platform further the spread of democracy. As long as the immoral individual is working within the moral framework of their community then the social values are still upheld, and the greater good still benefits. Even though corrupt leaders are in place, the community as whole still reaps the benefits of democracy even though they came through unscrupulous means. In looking at democracy at a local level Adams shows how the immoral self interest of one person can still democratic because the community at large is still benefiting from it. In focusing on the local character of democracy and how corruption fits into the moral framework of particular community is detrimental to the idea of democracy. If democracy is to be set up as an ideal and a moral way of life it must flow from the top down. Therefore even at the local level it must reflect the ideals of the larger society.
Looking at democracy as way of life is essential to understanding the individual’s relationship to the larger society. Even though democracy produces a strong sense of individualism it can still serve the greater good of society. It does because the individualistic pursuit of experience adds to the morality of a group. Democracy also make the individual a part of the whole by the daily cooperation with each other which creates shared experience which also broadens the moral base that democracy stands. However this can all fall apart if the ideals of democracy cease to be practiced and become sentimental.

Views of Democracy

2007-11-13T21:06:00.000-08:00

In reading John C. Calhoun’s A Disquisition on Government and William Graham Sumner’s What Social Classes Owe to Each Other one finds that both hold in many respects a very similar view of democracy on one level while completely different on another. For example both hold the same fear, as Calhoun would put it, of the tyranny of the majority leading to abuses of power in the government. For this reason, they both argue, in order for a democracy to work its powers must be limited. However, upon further examination both also hold very different views of what democracy should and should not do in the issues of individual freedom preserving liberty and popular sovereignty.

Sumner and Calhoun both share similar views of democracy. Both see it as a good system but at the same time realize that if it is not regulated then it can be very corrupt and dangerous. According to Calhoun the law regulating governmental power is most important regardless of the governmental system, “and hence the great and broad distinction between governments is not that of the one, the few, or the many but of the constitutional and the absolute.”(29) This is important because both fear the majority terrorizing the minority so a constitution limiting the power of government and protecting the rights and interests of the minority is important. Sumner relates a similar message when he states, “The only thing that can restrain these vices of human nature in those who had political power is law sustained by impersonal institutions.”(28) Both Calhoun and Sumner see the potential abuses of power in a democracy therefore its power must be restrained. However unlike like Calhoun, Sumner places more emphasis on the institutions of government that enforce the law rather than the law itself.
As illustrated earlier Calhoun thinks the best way to limit government power is by a written constitution explicitly stating and limiting the powers of government. Calhoun refers to this as the negative power of the constitution, which is “the power of preventing or arresting the action of government.”(28) Essential to this negative power in a democracy is suffrage. In a democracy the power of the majority must be restrained to prevent it from tyrannizing the minority because the will of the majority is not necessarily the will of the people. Calhoun’s answer to this is his theory of the concurrent majority. In the theory of the concurrent majority each person within a community or interest group gets a vote, which determines the community’s position. Then all the communities vote and try to reach a consensus between the communities; when a consensus is reached the law is passed, however if a complete consensus is not reached then a law is not passed. Calhoun’s theory of the concurrent majority emphasizes compromise between different communities, or interest groups, which is the best way to promote the common good because all levels of society are being represented.

While Sumner would agree with Calhoun that the power of government must be restrained to prevent the tyranny of the majority Sumner places his faith in the institutions that are government forms to preserve and promote liberty. Sumner states “functions of the State lie entirely in the conditions or chances under which the pursuit of happiness is carried on, so far as those conditions or chances can be affected by civil organization. Hence, liberty for labor and security for earnings are the ends for which civil institutions exist, not means which may be employed for ulterior motives.”(31) While Calhoun and Sumner would agree that government power must be limited; Sumner would disagree with Calhoun’s theory of the concurrent majority because Sumner believes that individual responsibility is the key component in democracy. Furthermore, according to Sumner in a democracy each man is a sovereign ruler beholden to no man. (34) This clashes with Calhoun’s view of increased community control.

Both Sumner and Calhoun agree that the threat of absolutism in government is dangerous and must guarded against no matter what form of government it is. Therefore in a democracy the tyranny of the majority must be prevented, and Sumner sums up both authors’ fears when he writes, “the real danger of democracy is that the classes which have all the power under it will assume all the rights and reject all the duties.”(32)

Even though Calhoun and Sumner share the same fears of democracy both have very different ideas on what democracy is. On the one hand Calhoun is arguing for states’ rights and less federal control while Sumner is arguing more for individual freedom and protection of wealth. Calhoun’s fight for states’ rights is best seen in his support of nullification which says that if a state deems a law unconstitutional then it can nullify that law which places the state as the ultimate interpreter of the constitution. This along with Calhoun’s concurrent majority shows his belief that democracy is rooted in community control and compromise. On the other hand Sumner is concerned primarily with individual freedom and each person being able to pursue their own happiness. So Sumner’s view of democracy is individualistic and selfish.
Another area where the two authors differ is on the topic of suffrage. According to Calhoun the idea of suffrage is “indispensable and primary.”(11) To Calhoun suffrage is the best way for the people to peacefully control governmental abuses of power and oppression. As Calhoun states “the right of suffrage can do no more than give complete control to those who elect over the conduct of those they have elected.” (12) Also in Calhoun’s view the rich, educated and well-off will take up positions of leadership and help lead the less fortunate. To Sumner this could not be more appalling because it would place an undue burden on society by having the fortunate lead the unfortunate. To Sumner the idea of suffrage is a necessary evil in democracy and should be extended to everyone to ensure all have equal political right but should go no further. “Having obtained his chances, he must take upon himself the responsibility of his own success and failure.” (36)

By writing on the dangers of democracy and what needs to be done to make it work both authors feel that democracy is the best system for promoting liberty despite the dangers. After reading the two authors Calhoun seems to be the more democratic. With his ideas of community and compromise he attempts to provide for the common good of all people, which is a fundamental principle of democracy. Where as Sumner’s selfish and individualistic view of democracy will benefit a smaller portion of the community and to Sumner the idea of a common good for all people is not as important as individual rights. To Sumner democracy is just another thing to be manipulated to provide for his security.

Both authors agree that in order for a democracy to work there must be limits placed on the majority and governmental control to protect the rights and liberties of minorities, as Sumner writes, “all institutions are to be tested by the degree to which they guarantee liberty.” (30) However, their similarities do not go much farther because the reasoning behind protecting liberty and the means by which it is to be protected often differ drastically.

Remember Doug Frost?

2007-04-10T01:06:00.001-07:00

Remember Doug Frost

I remember I was a young man of about 17 or 18 and my friends and I used to hang out at this old abandoned warehouse. It was perfect for us out in the middle of nowhere far from the prying eyes of people we would rather not deal with. One day we were out there doing what we did and off in the distance we saw what looked to be a van coming our way. At first we were a little unnerved because there was a car way out here but we shrugged it off as a coincidence and went back to what we were doing which was smashing a TV I think. A few minutes later we noticed the very same van turning down our road coming straight for us and an uneasy feeling came over us.

You see this was not just any abandoned warehouse. This particular warehouse was a part of local legend. No one really knew what it was but there were many theories, which I’m not going to get into now. But I will say that a different group of wayward youth and budding Satanists used this place for crazy rituals and the like. The walls and ground were littered with drawings and remains documenting their saga. Which is how the place got its name. Satan’s Place. The whole area gave off an unnatural felling a little spooky yet very intriguing. Now there was a van screaming down the road coming towards us followed by a thick cloud of dust and smoke.

As the van pulled up to our group, at least those of us who didn’t run and hide, we were greeted by an old man with long gray hair and a thick mangy beard. He acknowledged us with a crooked grin and craggy voice “how are you all doing today? Would you have an extra beer for a tired old man?”

Rebekah gave him her beer that she had just opened. She was by far the nicest person in our group of friends and always willing to lend a helping hand to those in need. He quickly took the tasty beverage and after a long swig introduced himself. “My names Doug Frost, hope I didn’t scare you kids but I like to come out here occasionally because it’s amazing what people throw away.” With that he climbed out of his van and started rummaging through pile of debris as we completed our introductions.

After listening to a few stories of the treasures he had found out here in the past we shared a couple more beers he started talking to more and more. I can’t remember all of the things Doug Frost told us but one thing stuck with me in particular. We were all leaning against my car and Doug Frost was leaning on the side of his van and he looked right at me and said, “you look like a good kid, if I had kids I’d want one like you, maybe with a different hair cut though. And I want to tell you something. I’m an old man now and I have had many regrets in my life until I figured out the secret to being happy.”

“What’s that a cold beer on a sunny day?” I asked.

“Close but not quite,” he replied. “The secret to being happy is not having any regrets. Like I said I’m an old man and I have many regrets and I was never truly happy until I stopped regretting. For the longest time I carried around many regrets, I regretted moving away from here, I regretted coming back, I regretted never starting a family, I regret not getting out here sooner before someone smashed up that old TV, I have a lot of regrets.”

“How do you stop regretting?” Rebekah asked him.

“I’m not too sure but I can tell what works for me most of the time, if you can spare another beer.” I reached into the case of beer on my hood and handed him one. As he grabbed it he continued to talk. “First you have to realize what it is you are going to regret then don’t. Now hear me out before you start asking questions. Throughout your life your are going answer many questions and think about lots of different things and most of it is going to be all be bullshit. Of all the questions you answer there is only one important question to answer and of all the things you think about there is only one that matters.”

“How can there only be one question to answer I can think of hundreds right now?” I asked him.

“I’m sure you can,” he told me, “but there is only one that needs be answered to happy, and that’s, What if? If you can answer that question and be happy with the outcome then you are half way there. However “What If?” has a friend that you need to come to terms with and that’s “If Only” if you can get “what if?” and “if only” to agree then life is easy, no regrets.”

“How do you get them to agree?” some one asked.

“Hell I don’t know that’s the part that makes life tricky but at least it’s something to think about. Well I’m sure you kids have better things to do than listen to an old man talk your ear off. Thanks for the beer I’ll be seeing you later.” With that he climbed into his van and drove off.

As Doug Frost drove off I was trying to reconcile a few questions myself like “What the Fuck?” and “Did that just happen?” Like all things I took the experience with a grain of salt and Doug Frost was pushed almost entirely out of memory until a few months later when Rebekah showed up at my door holding the news paper crying she handed the paper which was opened to the Obituaries section and pointed to a name towards the bottom of the page, Doug Frost had died in sleep due to natural causes. At first I didn’t know what to say or how to feel. On the one hand I had just found out that a complete stranger had died. While on the other Doug Frost had died a different old man that sat outside and had a few beers with a group of punk kids but talked to us like people and without judgment.

This was my first chance to put what he had said to the test so I asked myself What if I had never met Doug Frost? I don’t know is the only answer I could come up with and that was the perfect answer, because it reconciled the If only very well at the time. A few months later Rebekah and I went to a few of the local cemeteries to see if we could find Doug Frost and thank him personally for whatever it was that he did because for what ever reason he made quite an impression on the both us. However we never did find his grave but I don’t think it really mattered.

I filed the memory of Doug Frost away for a few years. I was lying in bed reading a book one morning and I came across a passage that was very familiar to me. I remember it was a science fiction book of some sort and the main character was talking about magic and he said “I know of only two types of magic in the world “What if?” and “If only” and both can crush a man’s soul.” As I read this I immediately thought of Doug Frost he had said the exact same thing six years earlier and all I could think of at that time was Doug Frost liked science fiction too.

untitled

2006-11-19T21:06:00.000-08:00

I woke early on the morning of April 24^th; I remember the crisp spring air was refreshing. It left a clean feeling in nose, which was a welcome reprieve from the constant smell of blood, which had plagued me since returning home from the war many years ago. That morning in April I quietly gathered a few of my most precious belongings for my journey that lay ahead. I worked quickly and quietly as to not arose the other people in the house, my wife Rebecca, my precious daughter Katherine, and my strong and noble new born son William. I had managed to save a few dollars to get them by until I could find more suitable work out West to give them the life they deserved. Before I left I penned a quick letter telling them not to worry that I was going out West to see about work and I would send for them shortly. My departure would come as no surprise to my loving wife as it had been the discussion on many sleepless nights. I wrapped the money I had managed to save up in the letter and placed it carefully on the table where it was sure to be found and quietly made way out of the house.

I left from Avery, Iowa that morning of April 24^th for the golden shores of California. With little money and food I decided to try my hand at the open road, people in these parts were friendly and getting a ride west should not be a problem. The many hours wandering the highway gave me ample time reflect, too much time perhaps, on what my life had become and where it was going. My time spent as a soldier seemed to occupy most of my thoughts. I was a young then as most soldiers were I thought about my purpose in the war. I was not involved in politics or other matters of the country; my only answer was to kill whom I was told. Looking back it seems a bleak and meaningless existence but I thought I was doing the right thing for the country that I loved so much.

I was a young lad even at twenty I excelled in boot camp and was as brave if not braver than any man there. I remember being anxious to graduate and shoot “bad guys”, who the “bad guys” were or why they were bad was irrelevant to me at the time they were the enemy and they had to die, or so I told. Everything had been going smoothly until that fateful Friday, June 13^th,which happened to also be my birthday. It was a day that will never be erased from my memory. The morning began with tremendous firing and it was at that moment I realized I was the enemy and I had to die. This started my mind racing as to why I was here. Why was it me that was called to duty to stand on the open ground and be the target? Is this really to save my country from evil, is this for freedom, and was I not free before I agreed to come to this dismal place? It was at that moment that I felt for the first time in my life I did not feel like a free man. So be it, it was my fate to see this thing through or die a slave.

I served my country for three years and served it well, or so I was told. Many good men fell in front of my sights and beneath my blade. For some men the screams of the dying haunt them for years, in this respect I suppose I am lucky, but I carry the smell of battle with me to this day. The pungent smell of gunpowder, the acrid smell of burning flesh, and perhaps the worse the heavy metallic smell blood always lingering in the background. I was a young boy when I entered into service for my country and quickly became a slave. Oh my country what I would not do save thee! I have become a slave for you; I have walked over the rocky ground until my feet bled, and I have climbed the highest mountains and traversed the lowest valleys for you. All this so you could hold your torch of freedom high and keep me a slave.

Today I sit on a mountainside called the Rattlesnake Ridge thousands of miles from my beloved family. Driven here for a decent days pay to keep my wife and children from starvation. I was driven from the land of plenty to this desolate place past millions of dollars in land and provisions of all kinds. Here I sit like thousands of other poor soldiers struggling to buy a loaf of bread. Now where is the free country I fought so diligently for? It seems I have made the country free for the scheming men who hold in their grasp the power to overcome the mass of people and draw them into the belief that they were the right ones to have office and would benefit the condition of the country. They made fair promises to do what is right and just for the American people, but they have been making it worse for years. They have been working diligently to refine the vast moneymaking machine that this country has become, leaving poor soldiers like myself to fight and die and remain a slave to their meager wages.

Large salaries are pouring into Washington to satisfy the greed of these responsible holders of great offices. Are we not all slaves subject to do the bidding of these mongrels by the laws they put forth? However we are not called slaves we are free men and women. Free to travel the great lengths of this magnificent country and work for table scraps with the hope that today will not be the day that I starve. With every passing day I realize I am not working to save myself and my family but I am working for the wealthy, the ones with the controlling interests that will befit no one but themselves.

How long can this last? There must be a change something to relieve the suffering this is not the country the fought so diligently for. If the masses of people are not in a deplorable condition then maybe I will give up. At the present time I will continue to fight not with force of arms, for I am too old and broken for that now. My weapon will be my voice and perhaps enough people will realize that things must change. I say to the people of America if there is any among you that will do any good for yourself and your country bring down the scheming money hungry mongrel dogs that rule your lives and keep you in slavery.

Many months have passed since revelation on Rattlesnake Ridge I have passed the time working for a logging company in the Sierra-Nevada Mountains. The golden coast of California was nothing but a myth. I have made enough money to pay back what I borrowed to get this far and have just enough to pay my way back home. If I am going to die a poor, hungry slave of society I do not want to die here in this vast faceless land. So today I return to the loving embrace of my beautiful wife and my flawless children a broken man. However this is not entirely accurate I was broken long ago and now I am just trying to leave the demons of the past behind me with the only thing in this world I can bring myself to love.

When my country called me to service I was but young man of twenty years full of vitality and ideas. The image of America handed down to me by my ancestors was one of opportunity and at this young age I believed the image was true with enough determination and hard work I could pull myself out of the low wage servitude that has cursed my family for generations. However my country had other plans for me and a better life would have to wait. I kept my hopes high about my coming service maybe the Army would be my ticket to a better life. Yet again my country had other plans for me, and from that first day in boot camp my life would be forever changed. The downward spiral that was to become life had begun.

The army preys on the young and naive with only ideology to base their life on they are easily manipulated which is perfect for acquiring souls to die for the American Empire. The American empire is one like no other in history because it was not looking to acquire lands but to dominate ideals. Little did I know that I was to be used as a pawn in this new type of world domination. At the time boot camp was exhilarating while the physical training was hard it but it built camaraderie among the men that I had never known before. These are men I was going to trust with my life and I couldn’t think of any others that were more suited for the task. Looking back at the things I was told boot camp was the perfect brainwashing tool. I was told that I was a warrior for democracy and it was my duty to enlighten the world to our perfect way of life. But if our way of life was so perfect how come those we chose to force it upon did not readily embrace it? Like so many other things involving the state of this union we call America it has fallen into the murky abyss to be surrounded by nothing but gray.

The most influential thing I learned in boot camp was how to kill, to take the instruments of warfare, my riffle and bayonet, and to kill without hesitation or remorse. This is a dangerous thing to teach a young man who is not sure of his role in society and has not been thoroughly brainwashed as seems to be the case with me. The days spent on the riffle range were the best the feeling of power that I had was overwhelming. But the training in hand to hand combat is where I truly excelled combat seemed make sense to me and the knife felt natural in my hands even though I had never held one before.

At the time my time in boot camp seemed to pass by seemingly uneventful. It felt nice to finally have a purpose in life something to draw me away from the mundane life in my sleepy little town. The days were spent training and exercising for the soul purpose of turning young boys into gods, at least that’s how it seemed in our minds. There was nothing that could stop us we were convinced the enemy bullets would bounce off of us. We were the great democratic messengers of death out to liberate the world from tyranny according to Gods plan.

Finally the day came when the training ended and it was time to put my newly developed skills to use. I boarded a ship on January 14 headed for the frontlines. The next few weeks passed without incident. However by the beginning of February I had seen my fill of death to last ten thousand life times. Along with this came the horrific realization that I was only a man. I was not a god or a divine messenger of death. It was this point my slavery became fully apparent. Like any man who newly discovers he has unwillingly pledged himself to bondage I became angry and saddened at the same time. I spent the next few days crying until all that was left was the hate and anger that became my fuel and strength to fight my way to freedom.

I used all of my meager resources to kill the enemy thinking that if killed enough of them I would earn my ticket home. I thought the blood of my enemy would be my payment for freedom. But they kept coming and I kept killing and my bondage still lasted. Many nights I laid in my trench staring up the sky wondering what the future holds for me, what sort of magnificent plan did God have for my meager life? At times I just lay there begging God to free me from my prison and take my soul but he never listened. This was the beginning of my deteriorating relationship with God.
When faith in God is lost nothing is sacred anymore it was like a switch was flipped inside of me and everything I learned about right and wrong were turned off. At that moment the shackles that bound my soul fell off. My spirit was free. No longer was bound to live by the rules that your society set up for me, my life was now my own to live as I saw fit. That night I wept.