Democracy in the Second Great Awakening

George W Bush in his second inaugural address claimed: "the best way to ensure America's security is to spread democracy throughout the world. The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom."
This makes it seem that today's idea of democracy is the idea of spreading it, and that idea seems prominent in the Second Great Awakening. This was an era all about spreading religion, and in Hatch's excerpt we read, it talks about how the church was the first thing to motivate the people, even more so than politics. The American ideal of spreading democracy today seems to come from the same things that propelled the spread of religion.

my idea of democracy

Democracy is, by definition, “a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state typically through elected representatives,” as well as “the practice or principles for social equality.” The actual practice of democracy – its advantages, its limitations, how it is incorporated into today’s America and even all over the world – is hardly agreed upon. There are some that believe democracy is fair, free, open, honest elections – and others believe it is much, much more than that; that democracy is the institution of a government for the people, by the people, and employed for the benefit and safety of the citizens.

The philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued, “nothing could be worse than life without the protection of the state, and therefore strong government is essential to ensure that we do not lapse into the war of all against all.” This concept is very similar to Abraham Lincoln’s ideals expressed in his Gettysburg Address and second inaugural speech: that the country is better united than it is divided; that a unified government would prevent the continuation of the Civil War and internal conflict. Hobbes also emphasized the Laws of Nature; basically the Golden Rule of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” The opposite of this, what he refers to as the natural state where there is no unified government, there is no law to protect citizens from crime, and so everyone is violently defensive and relies on their instincts to survive at all costs, even when it puts others in harm. He writes that the best advantage of a unified government is that it creates conditions under which people can live safely without a constant guard up and follow the Laws of Nature.

This ideology is relevant even today, as shown in President Obama’s State of the Union Address: “We are part of the American family. We believe that in a country where every race and faith and point of view can be found, we are still bound together as one people; that we share common hopes and a common creed…. What comes of this moment will be determined not by whether we can sit together tonight, but whether we can work together tomorrow. I believe we can. And I believe we must. That's what the people who sent us here expect of us. With their votes, they've determined that governing will now be a shared responsibility between parties. New laws will only pass with support from Democrats and Republicans. We will move forward together, or not at all -- for the challenges we face are bigger than party, and bigger than politics.” He emphasizes that there should be no disparity between political parties, race, or any other cultural divider; that the dissension between fellow American citizens makes the country weak. He also speaks of the voters as being the reason for improvement, the reason for an expectation of unity, strength, and harmony within the nation – the epitome of democracy to a contemporary American voter.

To me, pure democracy is the practice of giving citizens the importance of expressing their opinions and the guarantee that their voice makes an impact in their society. It is the promise of security and comfort of knowing that their hopes and needs will be heard and that they will make a difference. The perfect illustration of democracy has yet to be found, though. There are always faults within the establishment, whether it is not representative enough that one political leader gets too much power over his or her constituents, or it is too representative that uneducated persons can have too much influence, such as with a referendum system.

However, the idea of democracy shapes the everyday actions of those who believe in its worth. Those who support its ideals may go as far to implement the same values in other countries, such as the case in Egypt today. It may cause some cultural differences between citizens of democratic nations and citizens of countries with dictatorships, as if the democratic citizens cannot even comprehend the restrictions of living with a dictator while those under dictatorships appreciate the easiness of never having to choose. It is quite effortless for the citizens of a democratic nation to proudly hold up their flag in other nations, waving their influence and freedom seemingly in their faces, as they have that sort of power in their own country and believe in the right to social equality for everyone.

the modern american dream

"...I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together - unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction - towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren." - Barack Obama

 To me, these words exemplify perfectly what it means to be a modern American. Even though slavery was abolished over 200 years ago, and the Civil Rights movement ended a little over 30 years ago, racism and prejudice are still present in today's society. However, modern America is trying as a whole to eliminate these prejudices and move forward as a group. What makes us truly American is accepting that we are all different - except for our ideals for the future.

Frederick Douglass

I was surprised when reading The Narrative of Frederick Douglass to find that it is just as much of a public argument as it is a private account. Douglass introduces the reader to his own situation—his birthplace and the fact that he does not know his own age, then generalizes from his own experience, explaining that almost no slaves know their true ages. Next, Douglass takes this detail of his experience and analyzes it. He points out that slave owners deliberately keep their slaves ignorant, and that this is a tactic whites use to gain power over slaves. This structure recurs throughout his Narrative: he presents his personal experience as a typical slave experience, and then usually makes an analytical point about the experience and what it tells us about how slavery works and why it is wrong. The main tactic of Douglass’s antislavery argument is to analyze the institution of slavery and show how and why it works. The analysis would then demystify slavery and reveal its brutality and wrongness, leaving the readers with no choice but to want to remove the institution. This seems to be an excellent tactic of argumentation, stating facts and analyses that no one can really doubt, and then planting seeds of thought in their mind on how wrong the other side is.

conversations on freedom

Some notes Erik and I took today:

How do we make people free?

Jefferson—free-est when ruled by wisest, free from obligations

Zinn—focuses on how Americans treated other people, freedom is not oppression

Anne Hutchinson—come to America to be free, oppressed anyway

Zinn and Anne Hutchinson talk about non-oppression as freedom, Jefferson justifies

+/- freedom

AH part of white settlement, Jeff mad about provlamation line, Zinn oppressing NA

Jefferson: The common man can be freed by being ruled by the wise.

Zinn: Oh yeah? What makes a man wise? Being white? Rich? A male?

Jefferson: Yes, all of those. Wealth makes him free from financial obligations; wage slaves could never be free. White race makes him free from slavery.

Anne Hutchinson: Males shouldn’t rule society. John Winthrop was not wise, but jealous of my influence. Freedom means living a morally good life. You must be free to determine what a morally good life is based on your own religious views. Religion shouldn’t be hierarchical and rule based.

Jefferson: Women are tied down with children and domestic duties. You cannot truly be free, and will impede the progress of a democracy.

Zinn: Women are only unfree because men enslaved them. Indentured servant women were frequently raped by their owners. Say, Jefferson, didn’t you have an affair with a slave girl?

Jefferson: I’m free to do what I choose because I’m a rich white male!

Zinn: You were also oppressing Native Americans by taking their land to progress your white western democracy. Part of your justification for revolution was wanting to cross the proclamation line. And Anne Hutchinson, were did the land for the Puritan settlements come from?

Anne Hutchinson: The settlements were necessary to provide a place were people could be free to live a morally good life free from the corruption of the Anglican church. Freedom is not the absence of oppression, but the presence of pressures to keep you on the path to holiness.

Jefferson: Yes, society can be improved by having the wise rule and requiring the uneducated to live well.

what constitutes a good conversation?

Throughout the day, we have many different conversations with people. But how many of them are actually good conversation? I think a good conversation is one where everyone involved is able to listen and feel free to ask questions or disagree; where not everyone has to have the same opinion. A good conversation influences the thoughts of the participants, even after the conversation is over, encouraging them to reflect on it and let it impact the rest of their day because it was that meaningful or interesting. People should be open minded and willing to accept new ideas, instead of insisting that only their own are right. On the other hand, people should not be afraid to speak up and voice their own opinions. The best way for a conversation to be good is to have different opinions and ideas come out into the open and be able to float around for others to hear out, whether it's to agree or disagree.

white is might?

Not the best picture, but it's the "Magic is Might" statue from the Ministry of Magic in HP7: an elevated witch and wizard sitting on a throne, crushing naked Muggles (non-witch/wizards). Interesting how status and racism comes across in many cultures - even those that are mythical. The statue is supposed to represent that pure-blood witches and wizards are superior to Muggles or half-bloods, and the other creatures like House Elves, goblins, giants, etc. It's similar to the idea that whites felt superior to black slaves, or the Native Americans in early colonization, and how Hitler felt the Aryan race was superior to pretty much everyone. These "superior" groups wanted to oppress the "inferior" and elevate themselves to be more important and have more power and control. Our reading last night and discussion in class today were interesting, realizing that slavery wasn't always about racial superiority, but more about economic reasons that then turned into prejudice and racism.