De Tocqueville and American Democracy

I didn't get the chance to post anything about de Tocqueville last week. One thing that I wanted to bring up was that it seemed to me that de Tocqueville never really directly argues why freedom and democracy are necessary and what they really are like I thought the book was going to be.There are way too many people talking about their notion about freedom, equality, and democracy right now. De Tocqueville's freedom is is more of a “local" freedom. I tried to find a more appropriate word than local. local is the opposite of an abstract, big, universal, and hard to manage freedom. After reading Enich's blog about press
http://enichamcon.blogspot.com/2011/02/scale-of-press.html

I agree with him deeply that the bloom of press and media don't really add much to the overall quality. One thing I notice about newspaper and media is that in countries that doesn't have a "democracy" the newspapers talk about how happy and safe people are living under the directing of the government, and in countries like the Unites States I feel that the newspapers talk about both good and bad, and maybe more of the bad. I don't just want to read about how great the government is all the time in China. I want to know what is really happening right now.

I wrote several paragraphs as an response to de Tocqueville, but it was in Chinese! Enich said that I should post it but I think I will do that later after translating so it makes more sense :)

Sentence + Democracy

The sentence I picked was from pp100 of Cullen:

In the decades that followed, countless admirers proclaimed themselves disciples of the Dream, spreading the Good News to anyone who would listen: that in America, it was possible to make your own destiny.

My rewrite:
After a heavy snowfall, countless skiers gathered on the top of the Lusten mountain, enjoying the last chance of a joyous run: that in Minnesota, everyone should have fun in this winter wonderland.

Democracy in 25 words:
 A political system with active participation from the whole population in electing government and voicing opinions in political, social and economic life.

Jasmine Revolution

As I was going on Renren, a Chinese social network exactly like Facebook, to get in touch with my friends in China as usual, I noticed some weird statuses posted by a couple friends. And within seconds, those statuses disappeared instantly and the status update feature was unavailable. Those statuses I saw all had some of the same words- translated to English, "jasmine club" "government" "police". I was curious what exactly happened so I googled it, hoping that I could get something. The Chinese key words I typed in didn't really have relating results, and the English key words I typed in brought me to the Tunisian revolution, and jasmine revolution refers to the protest in changing the government. I googled again today and I found two articles that sort of summarized what happened :

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/world/asia/21china.html?ref=china
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-02-20/china-blocks-coverage-of-jasmine-revolution-protests.html   


Even though I don't completely believe in everything the articles say. I mean I believe in what happened but sometimes I feel that the western media always exaggerate details to reach the effect of making people angry, and blaming the Chinese's social, political, and economic system. But anyway, since we are talking about democracy and politics in class right now, I think this "revolution" that did not happen does plays some role in understanding democracy not only in America but also in the world. China saw what happened in Egypt that an authoritative government was overthrown. China has to make sure that it wouldn't happen in China, and of course the situation in Egypt was way worse. My opinion on this event is that I think everyone gets a say in what the government should do. And people should have the right to protest and show opposition instead of being arrested for using the "freedom of speech." There isn't really any freedom of speech if you can't say anything except praising the government and the communist party. I could understand why China blocked Twitter, Facebook and youtube since these are all American social networks. And I even in some ways support this action. American values, thoughts, ideas, and cultures are extremely different from those of the Chineses'. By over exposing these ideas to a newly developing country where people are not as educated and extremely patriotic is dangerous in many ways. But I can't believe the government even blocked some function of its own social network and even stopped the phone service. This has gone too far. I feel that the human rights and privacy are hugely invaded. Who would like to live in a place where if you wear a jasmine flower on your clothes you would be arrested and be convicted of treason. Under this system, people are afraid of saying anything that seems to object what the government is doing. It is just really depressing.

Pietism and the American Character

"American pietism is the belief that every individual is himself responsible for deciding the rightness or wrongness of every issue in terms of a higher moral law; that he must make this decision the moment he is confronted with any question in order to prevent any complicity with evil; and having made his decision, he must commit every possible method to implement his decision not only for himself and in his own home or community, but throughout the nation and the world." (pp173)

I think this sentence not only defines what American pietism is but also summarizes the moral code for American. We, as individuals, are the moral judges for ourselves. Any decision we make will have an impact not only on ourselves but also through out the nation and world. I relate this to what Paige said in class today. America as a whole right now are placing too much orders to try to "make America a better country", or even force the American ideology to other countries to try to "make the world a better world". I agree that certain orders or laws have to be enforced, but the decisions should be on individuals, and at the same time other countries have a say on their own problems and America shouldn't be the authority for other countries business. I was trouble to know that here in America there is a legal drinking age when I first came. We are adult once we turn 18, and we can't even make a smart decision on drinking but have to have a law to restrict us? I am not saying that there shouldn't be a law, but I feel that we be responsible for the decision we make. And the decision of drinking or not  drinking should be made based on our intelligence and moral code rather than a law.   

Hatch

Nathan Hatch's post-revolution and post Second Great Awakening account on the democracy of American is an interesting one - The way he describes it in his opening paragraph suggests that the religious movements during the Second Great Awakening bound the marginal people, common people, as we talked in class, a majority, without authority, and the most influential people, together in a supportive community, and democracy emerges through these movements throughout the nation. Whitman believes that if we want a democracy in America, we have to have people who are mentally capable of conducting democratic behaviors and reactions, and the importance of a national literature gives people this capability. I found the difference between the two is that Hatch emphasizes more on the the religious movements as a whole and how they affected the common Americans, and how America benefited from them. Whitman on the other hand, focuses more on a certain group of people, including himself, should preserve the culture and help the others. I don't think they contradict each other, but in a way they complement each other, just like democracy and government or authority do not contradict each other.

Monday, Feb 14.

According to our guest lecturer Amy Frykholm, the Evangelicals believe that the true believers will, at some point, be raptured in heaven. For those we are left behind have to fight between good and evil. It really surprise me that people, from the story of William Miller, were anxious and excited to see the failure of the world. I think one of the reasons why people like to predict the end of the world, and talk about 2012 constantly and search for evidence that an apocalypse, a disclosure, a revelation will be reveal is that the having a set date for a tragic event like this fill in the space for uncertainty. We don't know when the rapture will come, and no one likes to work and live an purposeless and unprepared life. I agree with the postmilleanialist view that the kingdom of God can be achieve by our work (at least the optimistic idea since I do not believe in God). In class we also talked about whether America nowadays are leaning towards premillieanialist more or postmilleanialist. I just think it is very interesting how these two endtime theologies still applies to today's religious view, especially right now we are paying much more attention to the world, the environment, revelation, and beliefs. 

Walt Whitman and David Brooks

Now it is finally the time to catch up all my posts for last week- the first week is always a struggle: New schedules, classes, professors, and classmates. Luckily Amcon is still Amcon from last semester, and I like it.

We read the famous Democratic Vistas from Walt Whitman and an essay by David Brooks flattering everything Whitman had said last Wednesday. In class we discussed we debated about whether, according to Brooks, Democratic Vistas should be considered as the most important political sermon about democracy in America. I did not have the courage to sit in one those chairs but I did have an opinion arguing against Brooks. Just like some of our classmates pointed out in class, I haven't read enough political sermons to make the assumption, but I believe that I have somewhat read, hear and seen enough to form a solid point. Despite the inconsistent and confusing writing style he has, I agree with Whitman on some of the points he has suggested, for example how democracy should rise from the characteristics of cultures, and individualism should be the basics of all democracy. But when I was reading Whitman, I also found him really hard to understand and self-contradicting. Firstly, the part where he was talking about how he wants to become "the American poet" who brings out the importance of literature. It seems that he, the individual, has the ego to become the authority of all the nation's literature, which to his extend, the culture as well. Isn't the so called authority contracting to democracy that men are all equal and no one should command/rule over other people?
Secondly, Whitman recognizes that he is contradicting himself, and Brooks notices it too. I still find it extremely hard to grasp why he keeps criticizing the Americans and praising them at the same time. Maybe he is arguing both the good side and bad side of human nature, and thus saying that democracy is both good and bad because humans are behind the idea? I really don't know.

Democracy

 I don’t think I have the privilege to say anything about democracy in our America: I am not one of the people in “the government of the people, by the people, for the people” by law. I don’t get to vote, even though I have my own clear idea who to vote for that will benefit the United States most. Majority rules doesn’t make sense at all if you are among either the majority nor minority. However, just like the point mentioned by Chris in class Monday, when you are in the mist of everything that is going on around you, it is hard to notice some simple aspects that are obvious to an outsider. I am that outsider.

Whitman said that he would “use the words America and democracy as convertible terms”(758). I agree that America is probably the freest and the most democratic country in the world, and it is true that the democracy Whitman was talking about changed over last century. I am just not sure if America has reached the state of democracy that America is democracy. The democracy America has is American democracy, not just democracy. And of course China has its so-called Chinese democracy. I think the difference between the American democracy and an ideal democracy is that democracy should be universal. This democracy should be applicable in the world of the people, by the people, for the people. Americans, born with democracy and freedom implanted deeply in their souls, assume that other countries should embrace this American democracy too. But look at the Philippines, Taiwan, Chile, and Thailand. They all try to follow the steps of American democracy, but does it really work? I don’t think so. The American democracy makes America the number one country in the world, but some of those countries who are practicing/have practiced American democracy cannot even produce a car or cannot defend their own land and benefits when the more powerful countries invade. A democratic political system is extremely inefficient. Just imagine a country that is suffering from starvation and poverty, freedom and democracy seem to be less important than survival and living a basic life. I am not saying that democracy is inefficient so it is bad. There is a cost of democracy, and not everyone can afford it right now.

Then what and where is that universal democracy? I still need more time to think about it, but as of right now, I believe that one day the human race will all come together as a whole on earth, that there no longer exists the benefits and lost of different countries. And people are all educated and independent. This might sound way too idealistic but I don’t think it is impossible. During the election a couple months ago, I really wished that I could vote. I could tell you I would vote for so and so because of so and so, and a lot of people would buy it not because of the person I wanted to vote for but because of the reason. Erik raised a question Monday about whether or not a Mexican gets to vote right when he is crossing the boarder. And I heard some “No”s in unison. But is it reasonable for me, a fairly smart (at least personally I think I have the ability to make a logical decision after thinking critically) college student that have lived in America for about three years but not a US citizen, be able to vote if there was no law saying that I was ineligible? I bet some people are going to say yes. Americans have been debating among themselves about where the line should be drawn between educated people and the uneducated, and why are there people who are uneducated. There hasn’t been an answer to this debate, and I don’t think this debate is going to end any time soon. And even if magically in my case I did get the chance to vote, then where the line should be drawn between me and any other Chinese?