Each of my last three posts connect to one big theme: American ideology. Each post presented a specific question, and I believe all three are very difficult to answer; meaning, really understanding and agreeing with one political side is going to be hard if you're going to be honest.
In the first of my posts, I suggested that we assess all of American politics not only based on the numbers but also based on the deeper assumptions and beliefs. For example, some republicans believe that survival motivates hard work. This belief motivates their politics (cutting funding on programs which allow people to survive without hard work). I also suggested that in their extreme forms, the democrats' worldview will lead to utopianism because they want to rid the country of some kinds of suffering for all, and republicans' worldview leads to social darwinism, because they're willing to let the weak suffer. Realistically, nobody wants either of those.
Question: Where on the spectrum should we stand between the two worldviews and why?
Second, I explored how democrats and republicans view rights, both the positive kind and negative kind. Both like negative rights; only democrats like positive rights. I also mentioned in passing that republicans want rights that benefit all, and negative rights such as life and liberty do. Positive rights usually make no difference to the well off or make their lives worse because, practically, the well off have the money that the democrats want to tax. So, positive rights don't benefit everybody. This connected to the prior post because democrats, with their utopian leaning, try to expand the scope of rights, while republicans want that scope limited.
Question: Are rights only negative? Are there positive rights, things Americans should be given by the government? If so, what?
Last, I delved into the topic of the American Dream. Ultimately, through the post and conversation below, I came to the conclusion that people who believe in the American Dream either admit that it was never made for all Americans (defined as people on American land, which means the Constitution protects their rights since it is "the law of the land"), or admit that it has failed for a significant group of people because there has always been someone hindered by social barriers. It's always been the case that someone on American land has not been given the boundless society within which to create a great future: Native Americans, Africans and African-Americans, and women (who couldn't vote until less than 100 years ago and still are paid 77 cents per dollar earned by a man for the same job) are a few examples. I'm not saying upward mobility is impossible, only that important parts of the American Dream belief system don't seem to be true or right. (I'll sneak this in here: social darwinism and utopianism are front and center on this debate on who should have access).
Question: The American Dream could exist if every person on this land was of a certain profile, but what if the population was diverse?
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
Friday, February 6, 2015
The American Dream and Diversity
I have thought a lot about this, and I'm in a series on American politics and beliefs, so it makes sense to say something about it.
Point 1: What is the American Dream? Wikipedia actually has a solid definition.
"The American Dream is a national ethos of the United States, a set of ideals in which freedom includes the opportunity for prosperity and success, and an upward social mobility for the family and children, achieved through hard work in a society with few social barriers."
People who believe in this believe that America should be the country that never stops any person from doing exactly what they want to do so long as it is legal. They are also often, but not always, people who are on the Right side of politics because they think society has few barriers...
Point 2: Loyalty to America as a nation is one kind of the American Dream
...They are proud of America; you know it when they call it the "greatest country in the world." They are the folks who are loyal, patriotic, at least moderately nationalistic. My impression is that, at least the nationalistic kind of the American Dream is largely fading.
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/28/140869378/americas-love-affair-with-nationalism
Point 3: American population is becoming more diverse and therefore, less loyal to America
I have lived in New York City for a long time. I went to high school here, college here, and now teach high school here. It is incredibly diverse. In the mid-West, diversity doesn't exist as it does in places like New York City and Los Angeles. These cities have become hubs for those who identify strongly with cultures, values and nations that are different, and sometimes even in conflict, with the American ethos...and they are also among the largest cities in the country. There is, in other words, a globalization effect on cultures in America. This article helps explain why.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/13/18934111-census-white-majority-in-us-gone-by-2043
According to Kaplan multiculturalism is “…a system of beliefs and behaviors that recognizes and respects the presence of all diverse groups in an organization or society, acknowledges and values their socio-cultural differences, and encourages and enables their continued contribution within an inclusive cultural context which empowers all within the organization or society."
Point 4: Is there another kind of American Dream other than Loyalty to America? (Can the American Dream coexist with diversity?)
In other words (and this is my big point) while the American Dream seems to encourage people being able to live out their dreams and make a better life for their children, it crumbles when the very people in that nation doubt the American Dream, or believe in things that are in conflict with it. America begins to represent, as a culture, a lot of different worldviews that are native to places outside America where opportunity, freedom, prosperity and a better future are not necessarily valued or sought for because societal limitations are too great of a barrier.
Point 5: Some believe the American Dream needs diversity, and some strongly disagree
What consequences does our answer to the question of Point 4 have for our political ideals?
There are two ways to interpret this trend, and how you do it lands you somewhere on the spectrum we've already been talking about, the one that should indicate your own political assumptions.
1. America has been allowing its true dream to die out by letting too much diversity flourish.
2. The American Dream has never really existed because it's been guarded from the marginalized through societal barriers, and it won't exist, until it's free for everybody (AKA, until it allows for diversity).
P.S. Please don't argue with me about whether Loyalty to America, the American Dream, nationalism and other things I mention in here are good or bad. What I really want to know is whether you think diversity and the American Dream can coexist. If you do, you'll probably lean to answer 2. If not, you'll probably lean to answer 1.
Point 1: What is the American Dream? Wikipedia actually has a solid definition.
"The American Dream is a national ethos of the United States, a set of ideals in which freedom includes the opportunity for prosperity and success, and an upward social mobility for the family and children, achieved through hard work in a society with few social barriers."
People who believe in this believe that America should be the country that never stops any person from doing exactly what they want to do so long as it is legal. They are also often, but not always, people who are on the Right side of politics because they think society has few barriers...
Point 2: Loyalty to America as a nation is one kind of the American Dream
...They are proud of America; you know it when they call it the "greatest country in the world." They are the folks who are loyal, patriotic, at least moderately nationalistic. My impression is that, at least the nationalistic kind of the American Dream is largely fading.
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/28/140869378/americas-love-affair-with-nationalism
Point 3: American population is becoming more diverse and therefore, less loyal to America
I have lived in New York City for a long time. I went to high school here, college here, and now teach high school here. It is incredibly diverse. In the mid-West, diversity doesn't exist as it does in places like New York City and Los Angeles. These cities have become hubs for those who identify strongly with cultures, values and nations that are different, and sometimes even in conflict, with the American ethos...and they are also among the largest cities in the country. There is, in other words, a globalization effect on cultures in America. This article helps explain why.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/13/18934111-census-white-majority-in-us-gone-by-2043
According to Kaplan multiculturalism is “…a system of beliefs and behaviors that recognizes and respects the presence of all diverse groups in an organization or society, acknowledges and values their socio-cultural differences, and encourages and enables their continued contribution within an inclusive cultural context which empowers all within the organization or society."
Point 4: Is there another kind of American Dream other than Loyalty to America? (Can the American Dream coexist with diversity?)
In other words (and this is my big point) while the American Dream seems to encourage people being able to live out their dreams and make a better life for their children, it crumbles when the very people in that nation doubt the American Dream, or believe in things that are in conflict with it. America begins to represent, as a culture, a lot of different worldviews that are native to places outside America where opportunity, freedom, prosperity and a better future are not necessarily valued or sought for because societal limitations are too great of a barrier.
Point 5: Some believe the American Dream needs diversity, and some strongly disagree
What consequences does our answer to the question of Point 4 have for our political ideals?
There are two ways to interpret this trend, and how you do it lands you somewhere on the spectrum we've already been talking about, the one that should indicate your own political assumptions.
1. America has been allowing its true dream to die out by letting too much diversity flourish.
2. The American Dream has never really existed because it's been guarded from the marginalized through societal barriers, and it won't exist, until it's free for everybody (AKA, until it allows for diversity).
P.S. Please don't argue with me about whether Loyalty to America, the American Dream, nationalism and other things I mention in here are good or bad. What I really want to know is whether you think diversity and the American Dream can coexist. If you do, you'll probably lean to answer 2. If not, you'll probably lean to answer 1.
Friday, January 30, 2015
It's My Right?
Let's keep the conversation going. In my post on Obama's 2015 State of the Union, I suggested that democrats try to prevent certain kinds of suffering for all Americans, and use the ideas of rights to get people on board. After all, if something is a right, it pretty much becomes the government's job to provide it for all Americans. Obama called healthcare a right and now it is universal. Maybe you agree with this idea, maybe you don't, or maybe it depends on what kind of rights we're talking about.
Here's a way to see it. All rights can be put under one of two headings: negative rights and positive rights. Negative here doesn't mean bad, it means an American is entitled to not have something bad.
For example, the right to life is a negative right because it's something that the government has to make sure won't be taken away. It doesn't give life. A barrier to life probably implies death and we have police and the military to make sure that's prevented. Both republicans and democrats are totally on board with this. Other negative rights are liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Sound familiar?
Positive rights are different. They are things actually given to you, either products or services. For example, you may not have known this but NYC and NYS have "right-to-shelter" policies, which means that at least in theory, everyone in the entire state should be sleeping under a roof every night. Here, republicans and democrats can be on opposite ends. Why, though?
Here's the biggest reason why: positive rights cost money. A lot of money. See for yourself.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/01/19/us/budget-proposal.html?smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0
Notice some of the costliest expenses.
- Social Security: $848 billion
- Medicare: $505 billion
- Military: $572 billion
- Vet compensation; $85 billion
- Food Stamps: $82 billion
Because military is required for any country to secure its own people, no side is really going to make a major dent in that budget. Because its dishonorable to both sides to not pay the people who've put their lives on the line, vet comp won't change much. But, you will often see Social Security, Medicare and Food Stamps in the center of budget debates. One reason is that they cost so much. A second reason is that republicans have a much more limited view of positive rights, of rights that are going to benefit SOME. Obviously the military will benefit everyone.
Where do you stand, given that our country is around $17 trillion in debt? Are rights only negative? Are there positive rights, things Americans should be given by the government? If so, what?
Here's a way to see it. All rights can be put under one of two headings: negative rights and positive rights. Negative here doesn't mean bad, it means an American is entitled to not have something bad.
For example, the right to life is a negative right because it's something that the government has to make sure won't be taken away. It doesn't give life. A barrier to life probably implies death and we have police and the military to make sure that's prevented. Both republicans and democrats are totally on board with this. Other negative rights are liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Sound familiar?
Positive rights are different. They are things actually given to you, either products or services. For example, you may not have known this but NYC and NYS have "right-to-shelter" policies, which means that at least in theory, everyone in the entire state should be sleeping under a roof every night. Here, republicans and democrats can be on opposite ends. Why, though?
Here's the biggest reason why: positive rights cost money. A lot of money. See for yourself.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/01/19/us/budget-proposal.html?smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0
Notice some of the costliest expenses.
- Social Security: $848 billion
- Medicare: $505 billion
- Military: $572 billion
- Vet compensation; $85 billion
- Food Stamps: $82 billion
Because military is required for any country to secure its own people, no side is really going to make a major dent in that budget. Because its dishonorable to both sides to not pay the people who've put their lives on the line, vet comp won't change much. But, you will often see Social Security, Medicare and Food Stamps in the center of budget debates. One reason is that they cost so much. A second reason is that republicans have a much more limited view of positive rights, of rights that are going to benefit SOME. Obviously the military will benefit everyone.
Where do you stand, given that our country is around $17 trillion in debt? Are rights only negative? Are there positive rights, things Americans should be given by the government? If so, what?
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
The 2015 State of the Union: A Perspective on Worldview
Obama just delivered his 2015 State of the Union. In it, he painted an entire picture of what has happened during his presidency. Graduation rates are at all-time highs. Solar power is being utilized more than ever. The stock market has reached record highs. But how should we really assess the speech?
You'll often hear republicans say, "At the end of the day, someone will end up poor. Somebody is going to live the hard life and that's fine. It's not the government's job to solve all of those people's problems." Whether they want to admit it or not, that really is a reflection of a kind of social darwinism.
President Obama's rhetoric ("a fair shot for everybody") and policies (executive decisions on immigration, Obamacare, free community colleges) is a reflection of another kind of worldview: utopianism.
Both of those are the extremes, for sure. But, we can see how the ideas from the fringes seep into the moderate forms, because as a democrat who holds to this ideology, Obama is going to try to abolish certain hardships and suffering from America, like the kind of suffering caused by not having health insurance when you fall ill. That's why he calls healthcare a right, because he believes Americans should not have to suffer in that kind of situation.
So how you assess Obama's speech, and even his presidency, will often boil down to where you lie on the spectrum. At the one extreme is total social darwinism, survival of the fittest and total neglect of the needs of the struggling people. On the other hand is an attempt to create a society free of all suffering and hardship, in other words, a utopia. Now, that may sound nice, but books like Divergent and The Giver show us how severely freedoms can be trampled upon for the sake of everybody's welfare. If you fall on the middle, then which sufferings should be abolished from America? As examples, at least with regard to what the government supports or condemns, we've abolished murder and slavery.
So, where do you stand on the spectrum?
You'll often hear republicans say, "At the end of the day, someone will end up poor. Somebody is going to live the hard life and that's fine. It's not the government's job to solve all of those people's problems." Whether they want to admit it or not, that really is a reflection of a kind of social darwinism.
President Obama's rhetoric ("a fair shot for everybody") and policies (executive decisions on immigration, Obamacare, free community colleges) is a reflection of another kind of worldview: utopianism.
Both of those are the extremes, for sure. But, we can see how the ideas from the fringes seep into the moderate forms, because as a democrat who holds to this ideology, Obama is going to try to abolish certain hardships and suffering from America, like the kind of suffering caused by not having health insurance when you fall ill. That's why he calls healthcare a right, because he believes Americans should not have to suffer in that kind of situation.
So how you assess Obama's speech, and even his presidency, will often boil down to where you lie on the spectrum. At the one extreme is total social darwinism, survival of the fittest and total neglect of the needs of the struggling people. On the other hand is an attempt to create a society free of all suffering and hardship, in other words, a utopia. Now, that may sound nice, but books like Divergent and The Giver show us how severely freedoms can be trampled upon for the sake of everybody's welfare. If you fall on the middle, then which sufferings should be abolished from America? As examples, at least with regard to what the government supports or condemns, we've abolished murder and slavery.
So, where do you stand on the spectrum?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)