What it means to be an American: A Discussion of Social/Political Equality and the Democracy - Essay Example

Section/# What it means to be an American: A Discussion of Social/Political Equality and the Democracy Social inequality is much like many of the more nebulous terms that are used with respect to governance and society. Essentially, even though citizens of the United States like to trumpet the fact that they live in a free and democratic society; these elements are ultimately exaggerated and do not fully fulfill the meaning of the words that they actually represents. In much the same way, the existence of social equality is an idealistic goal towards which democracy has been striving since its very inception. In short, it is the interpretation of this particular student that social equality is an unattainable goal towards which democracy must necessarily strive; but at which it is likely to never arrived. In terms of answering the question of whether or not we currently experience social equality within the United States, it is clear and apparent that we do not. Moreover, in terms of whether or not the United States government is in fact the true democracy, the answer to this question is well must be provided the caveat that in certain elements United States is most necessarily not a true democracy. Yet, even though this particular point of view might necessarily be one which is unwelcome or one that stirs the emotions of others within society will be for democracy and exhibit social equality, the goal of this particular analysis will be to provide concrete understandings for why such a belief is in fact true. In something of a Marxist point of view, Smith’s article provides the understanding that American society is essentially non-representative of social inequality; due in part to the fact that hierarchical groups exhibit different levels of power as compared to others. Exemplification’s of this can of course be seen with respect to economics and the way in which powerful individuals or wealthy individuals can have the impact of swaying elections one way or another. An additional understanding can of course be had with regard to the way in which the needs and interests of the lower class are oftentimes heralded and trumpeted during campaign season; however, when it comes time to enact legislation were actively anticipate and solutions to the problems that were discussed during the campaign season, very little forward had way is derived. Lastly, the hierarchy exists within society and the overall level of social equality that is exhibited throughout the United States cannot be fully understood without briefly discussing the issue of race. Essentially, Smith relate the fact that up until just a few decades ago, the United States was deeply segregated scars and wounds of this continue to be represented with respect to the way in which social equality is represented throughout the system. In terms of the overall relationship that this has two Eric Liu’s article, entitled “Sworn Again Americans” the author discusses in-depth the difficulty of establishing cultural meaning in terms of governance. This difficulty is represented specifically with respect to the fact that the United States has always and perennially been a nation that is founded upon immigration. As a direct result of this, disparate groups of individuals from various geographic locations, cultures, religions, and ethnic backgrounds necessarily comprise the social space. As such, this relates to the norming process and the means by which identity and “Americanism” is defined. With each and every individual having a unique background, at least at the point in which they immigrate to the United States, the hardship of governance has been how to represent a culture of American democracy that is attractive and partly immutable. Naturally, the pressures and changes that the United States has undergone over the past centuries have contributed to the way in which democracy is understood and the manner by which it is ultimately practiced. With these changes, the author argues that certain elements of the United States Democratic process remain unchanged and will likely continue into the perceivable future. It is this very “norming” process that so many other scholars refer to as the rational for why the United States is no longer representative but merely catering to the individual interests of specific groups as compared to seeking out the individual interests of a larger majority (Ginsberg et al. 10). As a point of reference, outside the readings, the reader can consider the way in which campaigns are financing by wealthy corporate conglomerates; seemingly at the expense of the individual; whose interests and stake in the future of the nation are no less important or profound. Conversely, a more conservative view of what it “means” to be an American is represented within Warshawsky’s article (Warshawsky 39). Although the debate between whether or not an individual should blend into a cultural melting pot and that the norms of the culture of governance or whether or not they should attempt to retain elements of their own conscience and self belief as a means of shifting it will likely continue in perpetuity. Nevertheless, it is the understanding of this particular student that Liu’s argument is better constructed and more effective towards answering the issues of the modern era (Liu 14). In terms of the arguments put forward by the authors that have been discussed thus far, it is the firm belief of this particular student that the United States does not represent social equality nor does it represent a true democracy. Essentially, the manner by which the Electoral College operates is fundamentally different than the way in which a true democracy would operate. Furthermore, scholars and researchers that have utilized different levels of understanding and theories as a means of defining the United States system of governance invariably referred to it as a Republic (Smith 23). In such a manner, a direct level of democracy is oftentimes derided as a negative aspect that would ultimately lead to anarchy. Although this particular response might be nothing more than a way of disparaging complete and total democracy, it has nonetheless been the one that has been utilized the United States and teachings on governance over the past centuries. In terms of seeking to answer the question of whether or not the United States represents social equality, the answer is also a distinct and definitive no. Social equality would necessarily promote the understanding that individuals would be free and able to pursue the same “happiness” that is guaranteed within the Declaration of Independence. However, the fact of the matter is that the United States is, and has historically, been extraordinarily corrupt. Individuals within positions of power are able to utilize this power as a means of putting for their own interests and individuals that are of a lower class, or hierarchy as this might find them, do not have the same resources as a means of putting for their own interests. Essentially, the argument then becomes whether or not an alternative form of governance could more effectively promote social equality and the needs of individuals throughout the United States. As such, it is the understanding of this student that even though the exhibition of governance, nature of democracy, and level of social equality are all fundamentally skewed within the United States, there still remains no viable option for how these issues could be addressed more effectively. As has been seen over the past several decades, totalitarianism, communism, and other alternative forms of approach to governance ultimately fail in the fact that they are too centralized and do not allow the power of the people to decide their own fate. Although these forms of governance are oftentimes trumpeted as being “for the people” the ultimate exhibition that is related is one in which the people have very little if any say with regard to their own lives, the pursuit of their own happiness, and what will ultimately the patient. Whereas it might be understood that the information that has thus far been represented is somehow patriotic in nature, it should not be understood in that manner. Ultimately, it is the view of this student that the United States government needs continual correction and is, at least in some respects, hopelessly corrupt. Further, rather than determining that the situation is beyond repair and that the current levels of social inequality and the lack of the existence of a direct democracy demand that the current system should be dismantled, it is the view of this analyst that the current system has built within it, avenues that can be pursued as a function of at least improving upon the situations that have thus far been denoted. Likewise, Smith, Warshawsky, and Liu would all agree that there remain fundamental shortcomings that the democracy of the United States exhibits. Whereas disagreement between these individual as to the direct cause for this would likely be up for debate, this tacit level of agreement is enough to encourage other stakeholders to what the main argument and potential courses of action should necessarily be. Works Cited Ginsberg, Benjamin, et al. We the people : an introduction to American politics. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2013. Print. Liu, Eric. "Sworn-Again Americans | Eric Liu." The Huffington Post. N.p., 16 Mar. 2012. Web. 25 Sept. 2014. Smith, Rogers. "Beyond Tocqueville, Myrdal, and Hartz: The Multiple Traditions in America." American Political Science Review 87.03 (1993): 549-566. Warshawsky, Steven M. "Articles: What Does It Mean To Be An American?" American Thinker. N.p., 2 June 2007. Web. 25 Sept. 2014. Read More