Creepy New World.

In class, we played the devil's advocate and asked why the world in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World was not, in fact, more free than ours. Is it not the ultimate liberation to have no responsibility towards free thought or creativity, or making life choices? In this imaginary world, Henry Ford is revered as a god because he was the genius who conceptualized the assembly line, this efficient, uniform system of creating. For this efficiency and perceived freedom, the people of Brave New World sacrificed all art, science and religion. Anything that connotes creativity and expression instead of practicality and efficiency is seen as irrelevant.

This is not freedom. I see freedom as the right of a person to think and act the way they are inclined. People are not inclined towards uniformity; if they were, the human race would have died out thousands of years ago. People are inclined towards individuality, and it is in this individuality that we find freedom. In a world where no one is dissatisfied because they are programmed not to be, the people are not free. In a world where no one can express their feelings, in a world where people are robbed of their feelings, the people are not free.

The Patriot Act

As much controversy as the Patriot Act has caused, reading the excerpt of USA Patriot Act: How to be Response Ready by Nicole Rivard and The Patriot Act Under Fire by John Yoo and Eric Posner made me realize how little I actually understood the logistics of the Act. First of all, I had no idea that USA Patriot Act is in fact an acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. The title is disturbing to me on two levels: first, it asserts that one is not a patriot if one does not support the Act; secondly, the acronym itself is reminiscent of the words of the government in V for Vendetta. It cites Unity and Strength as the two main goals of the document, and employs the concept of "rule by fear" by reminding the public of the threat of terrorism.
I was very interested in the class discussion because it embodied my own inner conflicts about the Patriot Act. While I am usually very in favor of supporting the principles of freedom and that the purpose of government is to safeguard the rights of individuals, for whatever reason I did not find this anger in my gut that is so often associated with the Patriot Act. I did not find myself deeply offended by this concept of our government's practically unlimited access to our personal information. In theory, I am strongly opposed to this Act yet my emotional reaction was not as strong as I had anticipated. I am not a terrorist. I do not care if a suited man in Washington knows what brand of shampoo I buy or what movies I rent from Netflix. I do not support terrorism. In theory I am willing to help protect this nation from it by any means necessary.
^ There it is. That's when I realized what I find wrong with the Patriot Act. "By any means necessary." If we allow our government to use the threat of terrorism as a justification for limiting our individual liberties, what will be the next excuse? We need to be worried about this Act because it is a significant step in the wrong direction. This government was created with the expressed purpose of protecting our rights as individuals, and this Act is in blatant opposition to that goal.

V for Vendetta

Even though I had already seen V for Vendetta a few times before this week, it was great to revisit it after having gone through a course on ideology. The story takes place in the future, and one of the most disconcerting aspects of the film was that most of the events are entirely plausible. Chancellor Sutler was not just a raving lunatic, he was intelligent, manipulative and charismatic. The scenes depicting Sutler's ride to power and his speeches in front of thousands of followers, the movie seemed to be making a reference to Hitler's rise to totalitarian power and the creation of the Third Reich. It was a reminder of the power of the "cult of personality," that someone who is confident and strong can overcome the sometimes feebler power of logical thought. The government in V for Vendetta's England is one based on the politics of fear. After the outbreak of the virus, Sutler offered stability and security to people who were in a state of chaos. He carefully manipulated the situation (one that, as it turns out, he played a hand in creating) to construct himself an image as a hero.

The character V was particularly interesting because he is the protagonist of the story, and yet he is a terrorist. Especially in American culture, to see a terrorist as our hero is very uncommon. This raises the timeless question of whether or not the ends always justify the means. Was V justified in killing the "Finger Men" because they were following orders from the fascist regime? Did he have the right to have the Chancellor killed? Was it reasonable to blow up Parliament? I think that, in the film world of V for Vendetta, this terrorism was justified because it was only a reaction to the institutionalized terrorism of the government. As V says in the film, people should not be afraid of their government; the government should be afraid of its people.

"This is What Democracy Looks Like."

Watching the documentary about the anti-globalization protests in Seattle reminded me that civil disobedience is still very much alive. There is a tendency to think that protests and sit-ins stopped with the Civil Rights Movement, but that is not remotely the case. It also made me look back on my own involvement in the world around me. I remember in middle school, there was a walk-out organized to protest the war in Iraq, and I remember that I was too afraid to go. I was in Ms. Quilty's environmental science class when the walk-out was supposed to take place, and she told us that as Americans, we had a right to protest, as long as we were willing to accept the consequences. She told us that if the protest was something we believed in, then we should get up and leave. At that point, I did not understand the concept of civil disobedience or what it could achieve; I think I have a much better understanding of it now. I completely disagree with those who call protests pointless and futile, who say that you have to be in a position of political power to make a difference. The protestors in Seattle may not have stopped NATO or its actions, but they did make a difference. Martin Luther King, Jr. has said that "Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open where it can be seen and dealth with." This is what civil disobedience is about; to remind the government that its purpose is to serve the will of the people, and to let them know when they are not.

It's Anarchy!

Reading Emma Goldman’s essay “Anarchism: What it Really Stands For,” truly intrigued me. I had never really thought of Anarchism as an actual ideology or school of thought, I only associated it with a complete lack of authority. The kids in my town who called themselves “Anarchists” are certainly not people with strong political views; they were just kids who hated being told what to do. Goldman’s essay called out the public for just that reason: she dispelled the notion that Anarchy is nothing but an ideology of rule-breakers. After reading the essay, though, I was still not completely sure about what exactly Anarchy does stand for. I was interested in the “three evils” that Goldman listed (religion, property and state), and actually agreed with some of her arguments about these evils. As a matter of fact, I found myself excited as I read through the essay, and felt a sense of pride and respect for the Anarchists’ theories on the individual. In my “teen” years, I was aways interested in anything that went against the grain or against peoples’ expectations, and I still have serious problems with religion and property because of the way it belittles the power and importance of individuals. At the same time, Anarchism is based on the theory that a person can only be free when that person is completely free from all constraints of a society. I completely disagree. In fact, this is the basis for my problem with Anarchism: humans are social creatures. I think it is our natural inclination to organize ourselves and form societies. This is one of the great strengths of humanity, that we naturally strive to work together. Individuality is key, yet I don’t think that individuality and society are mutually exclusive. I think a successful society is one that allows humans to work together for the benefit of everyone involved while maintaing their individuality. I think Anarchism offers an unrealistic and undesirable approach to preserving the individual; it maintains that any “state” whatsoever makes this preservation impossible. It is on this basis that I have such a huge problem with the idea of Anarchism. Anarchists do not seek a balance of individualism and society, they seek an abolition of one in order to promote the other.

Soviet Propaganda.

"The easy worker is on the hot seat. Fear has occupied his soul: he would have looked good otherwise, but next to him is a perfect worker!" -Soviet propaganda poster

I was completely intrigued by the posters and artwork in the gallery of Soviet Propaganda. First of all, I had a hard time grasping that this movement took place so recently; that my parents and grandparents were alive while this was going on really put things in perspective. It is also made me realize how any ideology, no matter how noble its intentions, has the potential to be used to devastating effect. In theory, Communism is ideal and if such a society could exist, I would love to be a part of it. However, like many ideologies, Communism has given birth to countless sects and sub-sects and his been used to legitimize and facilitate the much less noble conquests of leaders like Lenin and Stalin.

It disturbed me that there was such a correlation between the depiction of members of the Communist party and religious icons. The gallery had multiple Soviet images presented side by side with a religious painting with an undeniable resemblance. It is understandable, albeit unsettling, that they took this approach because Lenin and Stalin wanted there cause to feel comfortable and familiar, so they used iconography that the public would be used to. It brings about the startling idea that members of the Party were trying to put themselves on par with gods and saints. The uniformity and blind obedience that Stalin and Lenin strove to create made me realize how close we really were to a third World War; if this movement had not been diffused, I'd rather not think of where we might all be today.

Revolution and Conservatism.

I think my biggest problem with Burke's idea of conservatism (and conservatism in general) is its relationship with the past. According to Burke, retrospection should be used to maintain the status quo rather than as a way to study and build upon the past. While I absolutely agree that you can't move forward without having first looked back, I absolutely disagree that the reason we look back to the past is to imitate it. The idea that backwards is the way to look is just that: backwards. Moving forward needs to be about moving forward, not about dragging outdated policies and ideologies along with us.

Burke says that people "should not think it amongst their rights to cut off the entail, or to commit waste on the inheritance, by destroying at their pleasure the whole original fabric of their society." He claims that, if we had this right, "the whole chain and community of the commonwealth would be broken." But what if it needs to be broken? I wonder how much suffering and oppression Burke would be willing to allow at the expense of keeping alive this "original fabric." The very nature of humans it trial and error; to touch fire and realize that it hurts and not touch it again. If a society is functioning properly, there won't be an issue of rebellion. If a society fails to serve its people, however, than no ancient order should prevent them from changing it.

Getting Schooled.

I have never really been to aware of issue about schooling, mostly because I have always taken schooling for granted. The concept that education is a right guarenteed to everyone as opposed to a privilege reserved for the wealthy is one of the greatest successes that can be achieved by a cooperative society. While I agreed with aspects of Andrew Coulson's argument for the privatization of education and of John Covaleskie's counterargument, I left the articles with a respect for public education, and a distaste for the idea of its privatization.

More than anything, my problem with the idea of privatizing funds for schooling has to do with the idea of making education into a business, and knowledge into a product. While Coulson notes that competition is the basis for a capitalist market (which it is), I would hate to think that schools would to behave themselves like a Tanning Salon or a car company in order to be successful. Maybe I'm just skeptical of Coulson's discussion of "advertising"--fairly or not, I have always associated with advertising with old men in suits sitting around a boardroom table trying to make their [possibly useless] product seem enticing. I would hate to think that school principals would resort to the tactics or advertising executives; namely, that they would learn what the public wants to hear and start saying it. The introduction of advertising into the education system could also lead to buzz-words that really offer no indication of the quality of a school. Signs like "HIGH SAT SCORES GUARENTEED!" and "HIGHEST MATH SCORES ON THE EAST COAST!" say nothing about a school's commitment to the personal development of its students or its concentration on teaching students to critically think for themselves. In short, advertising schools would cheapen education into a product that seeks to please its consumers

I also had a serious problem with Coulson's proposed voucher system. As a college student, I couldn't help but be reminded of the days of filling out my FAFSA and applying for Financial Aid. A voucher system would have the same shortcomings of our Financial Aid system: it does not make it financially possible for any student of any background to attend any school. Yes, vouchers are helpful and would be a commendable practice, as is Financial Aid. However, they are too far from perfect to achieve what they should be achieving. If the government assesses the financial situation of the Jones family, and determines that they will receive a voucher for one eighth of the school's tuition, this does not guarantee that any of the Jones' children will actually attend that school. If the Jones have a choice between attending a high quality school whose tuition is high even with a voucher and a school whose quality may be less but has a more affordable tuition, the Jones may well choose the latter. Instead of a voucher system, government should concentrate its funds on ensuring that all public schools are of high quality--this is a much more worthy use of money.

I am in full support of the public schooling system. It has its shortcomings, obviously, in that not every school is of the same quality and not everyone can agree on what should be included in the curriculum. Still, I think that public schools are one of the finer examples of the imperfect yet commendable successes of democracy.

Taking Over the World.

Albert Beveridge's 1898 speech "The March of the Flag" is nothing short of terrifying. In this address, Beveridge became the ultimate American stereotype, the kind of American whose existence we all would like to deny. "The March of the Flag" could easily serve as a master list of the evils of imperialism, yet it was written and meant to be read as a glowing admiration. Beveridge campaigns for slavery, he establishes Americans as people with "the most masterful blood in history," and he names God as the reason behind his advocacy for militaristic imperialism. If I were to close my eyes while listening to the speech, my mind could not help itself from conjuring up an image of a loud, moustached man with an arm band, gesturing angrily into a crowd of thousands; in this speech, Beveridge turned himself into Hitler and a young America into the Third Reich.

Part of the absurdity of the speech comes from the fact that it was a campaign speech: this is what Beveridge spewed out to the public in hopes of proving that he is ready to serve. The fact that he was elected, and served as Senator of Indiana from 1899-1911, is a sad testament to the mindset of his peers. To be patriotic is one thing; to refer to America as "His chosen people" is another. To support economic growth is one thing; to claim that our people must be "revitalized by the virile, manproducing workingfolk of all earth" is another. To share knowledge across the globe is one thing; to assert that most parts of the globe are not "capable of self-government" is another.

The Platform of the American Anti-Imperialism, published in 1899, points out the irony of our nation's obsession with Imperialism. Had a mere century of freedom made Americans forget why we fought for independence in the first place? When did stop becoming the child who was oppressed by its parent and start claiming our superiority over the entire globe? As pointed out in an ancient American document called The Declaration of Independence, governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. Just as England tried to rule the American Colonies without consent, Albert Beveridge is suggesting that we take control of independent countries across the globe. The irony of the whole thing is, Beveridge still had the audacity to refer to America as "the sovereign factor of the peace of the world."

Declaration of [White, male, land-owning] Independence

"To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony." -Frederick Douglass

Frederick Douglass' speech "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July" made me think back to elementary school when I first studied the Declaration of Independence, memorizing the preamble set to music and even learning a choreographed dance to "I'm Just a Bill." I remember how excited we were made to feel about the document, how impressed we were supposed to be with the persistence of American colonists in an epic battle against the evil and formidable King George. When I thought of our independence, I thought of fireworks and freedom, barbeques and the national anthem. Frederick Douglass' words bring to mind the truth about our nation's birth: that it was founded upon hypocrisy.

I just read an article called "The Afrocentric Idea in Education" by Molefi Kete Asante for my African Diaspora class which has a lot to say about this hypocrisy. Asante speaks out against our Eurocentric educational system, pointing out American students grow up learning half-truths about the country in which they live. We spend months commending the brave frontiersmen who headed west and risked their lives to improve our country, but we tend to stear away from too intense of a focus on the hundreds of thousands of Native Americans who our government killed along the way. We are quick to applaud the spine and ingenuity of our founding fathers, but we never discuss the fact that most of them owned slaves. Students in the United States are taught that this government was born after freeing itself from a tyrant, but they are not taught that our government was, itself, a tyrant. I am not saying that our educational system does not touch upon slavery or injustice, but I am saying that the study of these ideas in comparison to the more attractive aspects of our history is extremely disproportionate.

J.S. Mill: A Hardcore Liberal

"Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest." -John Stuart Mill

Reading J.S. Mill was refreshing because he focused so heavily on an idea that is often forgotten in ideologies: the individual. In On Liberty, he lays out the groundwork for any society that wishes to be truly free and he starts and ends with individual sovereignty. Mill debunks any formerly accepted notion of the derivation of an authority's right to rule: it does not come from some unearthly force or superior intellect or bloodline--the only justification for holding power over others is to protect them. This is a strange and radical idea, and my first thoughts were of concern about how authoritarians could use it to their advantage. Who decides if a people needs protection? Who decides how best to go about protecting them? A religious leader might think he is offering God's protection by mandating an acceptance of Christianity, but would the Muslims agree? Hitler used propaganda to give off the message that he had the best interests of humanity at heart--would we not all be safer and happier in a world inhabited solely by a superior race? Offering a people protection involves something of a judgment call; it involves identifying one group as the helpless, and the other as the helper. In fact, Mill goes so far as the say that "despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians." I was turned off by this statement because it seemed as though Mill was falling into the idealist's trap of dictating the path to Eutopia while simultaneously mandating the destruction of all those who think differently. In actuality, Mill goes on to define a barbarian society as one in which "mankind have become [incapable] of being improved by free and equal discussion." This statement seemed amost impossibly liberal; instead of perscribing the name 'barbarian' to any society that has not seen the light of the Only Religion or any society that has not embraced the power of Technology, Mill's 'barbarian' is a society in which people do not have the right to disagree.

While he discusses the policies of punishment for those who impede the rights and freedom of others, I was most interested in the fact that Mill does not write about any regulations of non-disruptive individualism. He establishes the "region of human liberty" as the "absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment" (with which he includes "the liberty of expressing and publishing opinions"), "liberty of tastes and pursuits," and the "freedom to unite." As an American, these concepts strike a familiar tone: Mill has just outlined the concept of the natural rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and shared in the sentiment of freedom of speech. "No society," he says, "in which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected, is free."