Democracy and Liberty as the Most Crucial Values of the Political Stability - Essay Example

The United States is faced by numerous challenges and opportunities in the new century that the framers have not imagined will be present. Some of the challenges that the American people have survived include politically-instigated assassinations, civil war, the great depression, struggle for the civil rights and impeachment attempts. The force behind the successful survival is the common values that people share as Americans. The values are contained in the presidential doctrine e.g. the National Security Strategy of 2006 and in the documents of the founding fathers i.e. Pilgrim and the Plymouth Rock. The concept of “American Exceptionalism” forms the basis for the application of these values in the US. This concept stipulates that the American values are distinct and exceptional than those of the other developed democracies. Balancing the concept of liberty and security in times of war or national unrest has been the greatest challenge facing the American people overtime. Such a scenario was witnessed during the 9/11 terrorist attack on the United States. The United States government was forced to undertake sustainable value-trade-offs in favour of improved security. This essay will focus on the mode of understanding the core values among the American people and how the adoption of these values has been influenced by the September 11 terrorist attacks. The paper will first focus on the core values, as stated by founding fathers of the nation and vested in the American creed. The core values are vested in the American creed. The values are strongly attached to the American history and its description cannot be complete without their inclusion. The paper will first revisit democracy, followed by equality, liberty and democracy. The description of each of the indicated value will be accompanied by the argument that the Americans have not lived up to the values stipulated in the creed. Secondly, the paper will also focus on the different perspectives in proving that the values i.e. democracy, equality, liberty and nationalism contradict each other. Thirdly, the paper will critically analyse how the terrorism threat emanating form the aftermath of 9/11 attacks have played a significant role in re-asserting the American core values. In conclusion, the paper will focus on how the individual core values have re-asserted themselves since 9/11. The Core American values are contained in the American Creed that was composed in 1918 by New York State Commissioner of Education Henry Sterling Chapin. The American Creed refers to the belief that the government constitutes of and owned by the people, with the powers being derived from those that are governed. According to Ellis (1993), the creed is composed of the “American Dream” and the principles such as democracy, freedom and self reliance. The most crucial values are democracy, liberty and equality. Commitment to democracy and liberty is the cited as the pilllar for the success of the political stability and the primary ingredient for the realisation of the principle of the government of the people, for the people, as Abraham Lincoln describes a civil society. Democracy is defined by Abraham as the government formed, constituted and administered by the people. The concept of democracy is not stipulated in the US constitution. Instead, the framers opted for concept of republic in describing the type of the state they wish to form. Its strong association with direct democracy was compromised by the association with factors such as demagogues, the mob and the mass rule. The nation’s founding fathers had the idea of framing a representative nation governed by the democratically elected leaders that respects the opinion and the will of the people. This goal has been retained by the current leadership whereby every free adult is allowed to vote in democratic elections. This allows for indirect participation of the public in decision making selecting their representatives democratically. Representative democracy has advanced to be accepted as the only form of democracy in many states such as the US. However, some writers have posited that the American democracy has shown many signs of being flawed contrary to most of the states in the Eastern Europe that are currently strengthening their democratic governance. Although the concept of democracy is seen as a pre-eminent American value, the US government has not always acknowledged the democratic rights of all its citizens, with some of the 1920 developments casting doubts on America’s commitment to democracy. Any democratic state provides its citizens with the right to vote. Therefore, if a section or group of voters are denied their rights to vote, then this compromises the genuinty of the democratic rights being practised. For instance, the political history of the United States indicates that men obtained the voting rights earlier than their women counterparts. This implies that men started exercising democracy earlier than their female counterparts. Additionally, the men slaves were not allowed to exercise their democratic rights through voting, with the vice continuing to be practised in the Southern states even with the end of slavery. According to Watts (2010), it was not until 1950s that all blacks were allowed to practise their voting rights freely. Americans tend to believe than the protection of their rights and freedoms (liberty) is crucial than enhancement of the national security. This is affirmed by Turner (2002:519) who asserts that liberty is a vital aspect in a free society that is civilised, where people are required to make informed choices from the available choices. The difference between the negative and the positive liberty was first discussed by Isaiah Berlin in "Two Concepts of Liberty" in 1958. Negative liberty is described as the freedom from the external obstacles that eliminates all forms of constraints i.e. a person is free so long as any external barriers do not restrict his/her actions. Negative freedom is therefore defined as the freedom to choose among many available opportunities. Less coercion creates many opportunities; leading to more freedom. Positive liberty is defined as the freedom to act and is contained in the real actions of free agents i.e. an agent is free to exercise his/her capabilities provided they fall upon personal choices. Lack of freedom under the positive liberty perspective is viewed as the failure to achieve the stipulated goals. Realisation of the set goals can be prevented by internal obstacles, provision of inadequate resources and social institutions and norms. This creates a state of slavery, either to the society or circumstance. The concept of positive liberty considers a person who cannot achieve his/her life goals not at liberty even if there is no external force inhibiting them. This is different from the concept of negative liberty that dwells mainly on external obstacles when describing the presence or absence of liberty. Freedom of expression is not an absolutely practised value with the historical allusion citing situation where the Americans have reacted unwelcomingly to inadequate freedom. For example, McKay (2009) relates the opposition of the people to inadequate freedom to the anti-communist hysteria that followed the occurrence of the first and second world wars among the American public. Equality is a diverse term that describes factors such as political equality, social equality, equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson decreed that ‘all men were created equally’. This does not imply that human beings are not different. For instance, those with racialist tendencies believe that the white people are superior to the black people. Jefferson posits that all human beings should have unalienable rights i.e. should have equal chance to opportunities. The struggle for equality has been rallying point for all groups demanding the rallying an end to discrimination against them and the attainment of their full civil rights. Some of the discriminated groups include among them African Americans, women and others, such as gays and lesbians, the disabled, people with AIDS, and the homeless. Immediately after the September eleven attacks in the United States, the government waged war of terrorism and protection of its citizens. The American government vowed to go against all odds in ensuring its citizens were protected from any activities that jeopardised their peaceful living. Though the government was to protect the citizens, they also had to focus on their need to execute the rights of all Americans (Lewis, 2005:19). These rights were strongly inclined to the core values of the American society, where the government was not to tamper with democracy, liberty and equality (Edensor, 2002:33). As such, there was to be a balance between security and liberty, where all Americans would not feel infringed by the new laws that were set to reduce terrorism. To begin with, the United Kingdom terrorism act 2000 explained in detail a number of activities that were considered unacceptable (Murphy, Woodhull, Post, Murphy-Post, Teeple and Anderson, 2006:406). These behaviours were explicitly stated to ensure the people in this region were free from terrorism. Though this act was incepted before the September attacks, it was geared towards avoiding any other attacks that were in the offing. However, this was in connection to the terrorist attacks that had been executed on the United States embassies in Africa in 1998. In these measures, the tougher rules that were instilled on terrorism increased the potential of jeopardising the balance in liberty and security. In some instances, the government would be forced to extend exclusions while in other instances there would be forced deportation. This was a move that would jeopardise the liberty of the citizens as they were forced out of these countries. Though the measure was geared towards protecting the American society, some people felt it was inappropriate to be deported. In such a case, the government was both protecting the American society, but on the other hand infringing the rights of the citizens. After the terrorist attacks of September eleven, there was an increased threat of terrorism. Since the terrorists had succeeded in the first time, the United States was vulnerable to other tacks. Therefore, the American society would not take chances and wait for another occurrence. In ensuring other attacks did not follow this, they had to tighten the loopholes that encouraged terrorism. In fact, after the terror attacks, the perceived threats were building up. This was a situation where the America society felt that its security was undermined. With the emergence of terror attacks, there were other components that were cropping up (Hutcheson, Domke, Billeaudeaux and Garland, 2004:28). First, there were massive emotional reactions from the American society. Some of these emotional reactions included concern, people getting worried and increased fear of other attacks. This destabilised the American societies’ trust where the people have the fear of other successive attacks. Similarly, the American society was affected with cognitive reactions. This was directly concerned with the risk beliefs to danger. As a fact, the September terror attacks increased the threat to personal life, family life and the stability of the nations as a whole. It is an admissible fact that after the September eleven terror attacks, the American society made unanimous decisions to fight terror to core. This was a collective decision that was acceptable to all the Americans. In making this happen, the American society was seen to bond together (van de Donk, Loader, Nixon and Rucht, 2004:54). Most of the American families and the entire population pulled together to make a solid bond in fighting terrorism. Therefore, the Americans were compelled to make a unanimous decision in protecting their society, which was under threat. In many instances, the Americans were seen to embrace unity after the September attacks. This is partially explained with the perceived notion that they were both target groups. Therefore, to make the enemy weaker, they had to ensure the Americans spoke in one voice. This is one instance that showed America has solidarity in making decisions, especially when their security is threatened (American Council of Trustees and Alumni, 2001:23). In this instance, security was a core aspect that should be protected. Therefore, in making a positive approach, there was to be instances of solidarity and making unanimous decisions in the society. The Federal Bureau of Investigation investigated ninety hate crimes committed against Arab Americans and Muslims in the days following 11 September. Representative John Cooksey, a Louisiana Republican seeking to oppose Democratic senator Mary Landrieu in the upcoming 2002 elections, said, ‘If I see someone come in that’s got a diaper in his head and a fan belt wrapped around it’, that guy needs to be pulled over and checked.’’ Several Muslim women who remained faithful to their religious tradition by wearing the traditional hijab became objects of public abuse. An Arab-American Secret Service agent traveling from Baltimore to Texas during the Christmas holiday to protect President Bush was removed from a commercial airplane and detained for several hours. Pollster Richard Wirthlin found that an astonishing 40 percent of survey respondents believe that Islam advocates murder and terrorism, while 44 percent say that the September 11th attacks represent the feeling of Muslim Americans toward the United States. Correspondingly, John Zogby discovered that 55 percent were willing to restrict the immigration of certain ethnic or religious groups. Therefore, to achieve the American dream, all the people had to indulge in decision making and avert any instances of terrorism. Instantaneously after the September eleven attacks, the then incumbent of the United States had to make bold steps in protecting the Americans from subsequent attacks. To preserve and protect the liberties of all Americans, president bush had to indulge policymakers to struggle and make a better act that would protect the Americans. Since the Americans were in unison at this time, it would not be a hard task to make a policy that would enhance their protection from terrorist attacks. Through the attorney general John Ashcroft, the president introduced the USA patriot act. To show solidarity and involvement in democracy, liberty and equality, the USA patriot Act passed through the senate by 98 votes. In a subsequent ascend to make the Act; the house approved the Act by 357 votes against 66 (Abramowitz, 2002:73). This was a majority vote that ensured the Act was made law. Thought the bill was incepted to protect the Americans from terrorism, it has received criticism from human rights activists and other ordinary people. Since then, there has been a drift between the previous liberties and tights of the Americans. Americans feel that some of their rights were traded to increase their security. For this reasons, many researchers have conducted surveys to make a solid representation of the American society. In most of their responses, it is explicitly seen that there was a great change in the liberties of the Americans since the Act was passed. The Americans were deeply affected by the civil liberty tradeoffs and security tradeoffs. The people had to forego some of their liberties to ensure the protection was top notch. However, during the inception of these laws, the public was less concerned with the decisions by the government. As such, they let the government make the decisions. They only experienced the outcome of these laws after they realised that their civil liberties had been traded to pave way for stringent security measures. References Abramowitz, D. (2002) ‘The President, the Congress, and Use of Force: Legal and Political Considerations in Authorising Use of Force against International Terrorism,’ Harvard, Harvard International Law Journal, vol. 43. American Council of Trustees and Alumni (2001) Defending civilisation: how our universities are failing America and what can be done about it, Washington DC, Author. Crossley, N. & Roberts, J.M. (2004) After Habermas: new perspectives on the public sphere, Oxford. Edensor, T. (2002) National identity, popular culture and everyday life. Oxford, Berg. Ellis, R. J. (1993) American Political Cultures.New York: Oxford University Press. Green, B.R. (2010) Two concepts of liberty: America’s Cold War grand strategies and the liberal tradition, American Political Science Association Conference, Washington D.C. Greenhouse, L. (Sept. 29, 2001) In New York Visit, O’Connor foresees limits on freedom, New York, N.Y. Times. Hutcheson, J., Domke, D., Billeaudeaux, A. & Garland, P. (2004) U.S. national identity, political elites, and a patriotic press following September 11, New York, Taylor & Francis Inc. Lewis, C.W. (2005) The clash between security and liberty in the U.S., UK, Blackwell. Lewis, N. (2001) The senate hearing; Ashcroft defends anti-terror plan; says criticism may aid U.S. foes, New York, New York Times. Lobel, J. (2000) The war on terrorism and civil liberties, New York, Wiley. Maney, G.M., Woehrle, L.M. & Coy, P.G. (2005) Harnessing and challenging hegemony: Response to Terror, New York, Wiley. Murphy, E.F., Woodhull, M.D., Post, B., Murphy-Post, C., Teeple, W. & Anderson, K. (2006) 9/11 impact on teenage values, New York, Springer. Rheingold, H. (2002) Smart mobs: the next social revolution, Cambridge, Perseus. Rohlinger, D.A. & Brown, J. (2009) Democracy, action, and the internet after 9/11, Florida, Florida State University. Schonberg, K.K. (2004) Global security and legal restraint: reconsidering war powers after September 11, New York, St. Lawrence University in Canton. Turner, R. (2002) ‘The War on terrorism and the modern relevance of the congressional power to 'declare war,’ Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, vol. 25. van de Donk, W., Loader, B., Nixon, P. & Rucht, D. (2004) Cyberprotest: new media, citizens and social movements, New York, Routledge. Watts, D. (2010) Dictionary of Ameican government and politics.Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Woods, J. (2009) The 9/11 effect: toward a social science of the terrorist threat, Virginia, West Virginia University. Zedner, L. (2005) Securing liberty in the face of terror: reflections from criminal justice, New York:,Wiley. Read More