Fellow bloggers: I absolutely, positively must get your input on this.
When we think of the ultimate American ideal, we think of freedom, yes?
No matter what our partisan view, it is agreed that freedom is our core value. It is something worth pursuing at all costs, and as history has proved, worth shedding much blood over. How our freedom should be applied is widely disputed:
Should a person be free to stand on a street corner and recite litanies of hatred? Yes.
Should two gay men be free to show their love through conventional marriage? Apparently not.
Should the press be free to disseminate information that could be harmful to the general public? Hmmm…depends.
Debate over interpretation is good because it shows we treasure our freedom. But blatant indifference is not good.
Now, this particular election has definitely boosted an overall interest in domestic politics. But there are still those who consider politics about as interesting as watching grass grow. Fair enough.
Recently I asked an acquaintance if she planned on voting in November. She replied she was not. I asked her if she was aware of the impact of this election, at most its effect on our nation’s foreign and domestic affairs and at minimum its barrier-breaking implications (McCain’s age, Palin’s gender, Obama’s race). She said she did not care.
She asserted that politics were “nasty” and politicians were “liars” and she felt it “wouldn’t make a difference anyway” if she voted. I tried to coax her into taking a part in the process. I explained that if everyone felt the way she did most definitely we wouldn’t make a difference. That this was an important privilege that Americans, not to mention women, have fought for and earned.
This was when she turned to me and said, “Ebony, if that is true, then I have the freedom NOT to vote.”
I couldn’t dispute this. I couldn’t say anything, actually. She rendered me speechless, which is a difficult thing to do. I’ve been thinking about this for days afterward. I discussed it with my husband and he agreed she was absolutely right. Of course she was right, I argued, but did that imply that we were free to choose to ignore our responsibility? What about accountability? Where does it end? Where do we draw the line on how freedom should be applied?
It is a paradox, really. We can say that we are free not to vote, not to take part in our country’s political process, not to volunteer, not to educate ourselves, etc.. To say we are free not to partake in those very things that make our nation the envy of the world is almost…sacrilegious to me.
This spin on freedom seems to warp the very purpose of the ideal.
We are free not to do these things and yet there are individuals in other parts of the world that would give absolutely anything to be able to trade places with us. They would give anything to be free to participate in those things we Americans sometimes take for granted.
So my question is: Can the integrity of freedom be upheld if we take it for granted? When it is taken for granted, how can we truly be free? I would really like to hear your thoughts…this has been nagging at me for some time…I almost started smoking again...
That's a lot of worry for a lot of nothing, she obviously threw that in your face, because people are LAZY. A common excuse people throw out is that all politcians are corrupt and so on (if this were true we would be better off with Caligula as a president). What this just says is that they are too lazy to take the time out of their day to try and determine which politicians are concerned about which issue and whats their past and yadda yadda.
However she does have the right to choose not to vote, which stems from the right of not being pressured on WHO to vote for.
Now yes she is being a negligent citizen and a disgrace to the people who died to allow us to have our freedoms, but, the world is full of foolish people so don't get to bent out of shape about it.
Anyway have a good night. and don't lose anymore sleep over such silly people
LOL - I'll try. But for goodness sakes...there's so many of them out there!!!
Goodnight.
I wouldn't necessarily call what she did a slap in the face. It's still freedom to choose not to vote. The most necessary part of freedom is the right to choose. Even if we think it's foolish not to vote, and I am in complete agreement that it is, it's still your friends right as an American not to. It's when we can't accept that choice and try to force them into something they don't want to do that we start down the road to something that isn't America.
So, yes, talk to your friends about the importance of voting, but don't force them to take part if they really don't feel anything for they candidates running. When that happens then voting loses all of it's importance.
I don't know about other people, but voting isn't about politics, it is about government.
Whenever I hear people saying that they don't care to vote, that they are not interested, I applaud them. Not only for expressing the freedom that we do have, but do you want to see interested people voting based on values, beliefs, and knowledge, or indifferent people who couldn't care less? Honestly, if you care enough to vote, that is great. But if you don't care, don't vote. Just don't complain about it when the decision is made.
The paradox you've offered up is perpaps our country's single greatest societal problem. Apathy in the American people is the root of most of the issues we deal with today. The problem goes beyond just taking our freedom for granted. It's true that countless people around the world would give anything to be able to exercise the first amendment rights that Americans don't even think twice about. However, if our society continues down this path of apathetic ignorance, those freedoms will soon be gone. Think about it - already the Bush administration has called all of those rights into question with the Patriot Act. If the public chooses to neglect their responsibilities as citizens, then who is left to hold the government responsible for protecting our freedoms? Control through ignorance and fear is much simpler, and certainly more profitable, than virtuously upholding democratic ideals for the people running our country. Perhaps if people understood what is at stack they would be more motivated to do their part in taking responsibility for the condition of our country. Until then, though, that responsibility lands squarely on the shoulders of the individuals that can see beyond the illusion of "inaliable" rights and understand what is happening in America.
If your interested I have a blog that talks about this more...
http://www.progressiveu.org/modern-day-heroes-responsibility-intellectua...
Americans are, in general, uninterested in intellectualism. As long as they can continue with their day-to-day lives, public policy and school budgets are an afterthought. It's only when a disaster, like 9/11 or Katrina occurs that more people pay attention. Predictably, they complain about the incompetence and lack of preparation of the government. But is the government solely to blame? After all, America is a democracy: we were the ones who elected the public officials.
So what do we do? It would be unthinkable to turn America into a dictatorship (although some argue that we are moving in that direction), and we have seen how liberty can create bigotry. I cannot think of a simple solution. It is useless to force education on to people - quite often, they prefer ignorance. We cannot expect officials to reform themselves. Perhaps there is no solution. Like allergies that develop from growing up in an antiseptic, sterilized environment, voter apathy may just be something we have to live with.
Of course the integrity of freedom can be upheld if we take it for granted, because we have the freedom to take it for granted, as your friend suggested about voting. However, the safety of our freedom can not be upheld if we sit idly, and do not exercise our rights. It's much like the idea that if you have something in place that's not being used, why have it around at all. That's how forests are cut down, businesses are bought out and closed down, and many things of that nature work. So not voting and being inactive in community creates a sense of that right being unwanted. And as history and logic suggest, when people are idle, and satisfied, the government can take complete control of them. Without this election, or politicians getting people involved, we could wind up with a system of group voting, where a person of a given district decides who that group's vote goes to. It seems far fetched, but I'm sure you get the gist. Being passive about your rights most likely leads to those rights being stripped in some form.
The idea of American freedom is a funny thing, I like this post.
This election is our chance to show that we, as the younger voting generation, DO care. Voting fever has been amped up more this year than previous years, in my opinion. I will try to vote, but I'm still indecisive at this point. Do I just give up and not vote at all?
No, I don't think so. I have an opportunity to try to make a difference. Now, if one person doesn't vote, it doesn't make much of a difference. But if there's one person who feels so negatively about corrupt politicians, there's 50 more. That does make a difference.
~ *~
This is a signature, an automated thingy that pops up when I comment, not a demand to see my blog!
Mind Control is Easier Than You Think
is it freedom that we are really trying to uphold ? I doubt that freedom is our core value. i think you assume too much on the weight of freedom. freedom is so abstract and abstruse that it would be nearly impossible to define it in terms of gay marriage, or the right the to vote. Your idea of freedom is confined to terms of nationlism. something that has been fed to you all your life on through history books, television screens, and printed paper.
i think everyone should vote if they can, but it doesn't have anything to do with freedom. It has to do with our country, and what the majority of our country wants.
freedom is something that never will exist or has always existed in tthe depths of an individual's mind, but it is confined to the mind only not in a nation state
Than how would you explain the chase for the American dream? The freedom to have opportunity, and the freedom to succeed.
As you said freedom is abstract, but that doesn't mean that is doesn't exist. Freedom is abstract, because as a society, it doesn't have time to take mold because everything is subject to change. Our desires as a people change, our interests change, and our lifestyles change, thus our liberties are adjusted to the change. Our government cannot let the country run rampant and do as it please, because chaos would ensue. People would want to murder, and claim it as their right.
Freedom is not an idea that has been fed to us. Our ever changing idea of freedom is a method of how to govern ourselves in order to maintain the stability of our government. We have the freedom to collectively choose our leader, thus collectively, our ideas of freedom are elected into office. With this election, we have two very opposite major party candidates, and the one who will win, will represent the majority of the country, and what the country believes is best for governance. It's a process, and since freedom is ever changing, we can't follow it everywhere it goes, we have to take the time to make responsible decisions.
When your ball rolls in the street, are you going to chase right after it without looking both way?
That is a very interesting view.
"freedom is something that never will exist or has always existed in tthe depths of an individual's mind..."
Do you believe the former, that freedom never will exist? What about those natural human rights that have been recognized and described by several prominent philosphers throughout the ages, including those who shaped our fledgling government (John Locke in particular).
When I spoke of freedom being taken for granted in this society, I guess I meant those natural human rights that enable us to further ourselves individually and as a society. I thought protecting those fundamental rights would be our core value; our number one cause.
What you said at the end of your post does ring trues, though. That freedom may only exist in the depths of an individual's mind. So broad was the scope of natural human right and freedom, that James Madison was adverse to listing them in the Bill of Rights - he felt that by specifying them he would unintentionally leave out those not implied. So even then individual freedom was something arbitrary and obsure.
Good reply, it really got me thinking. I enjoy your view!
As you mentioned, John Locke was a major force in forming the ideas we have today concerning innate human freedoms. He also described something called the state of nature where people are completely free and equal to do whatever they please. However, this uncontrolled freedom would inevitably result in inequalitly, and chaos would ensue.
If this is the case, it it the government's sole responsibility not to limit freedoms, but to protect the rights of its citizens from being trespassed against by their fellow countrymen. For example, in a state of nature, Person A has the right to kill Person B if he so chooses. A government, though, would take away Person A's right to murder to protect Person B's right to live their life fully.
Unfortunately in the case of the US government, it is not always in our leaders best interest to abide by this philosophy. According to Locke's social contract, the people have the right to reform or dissolve the government if it neglects or infringes upon their natural born rights. However, in order for that to be effective, the citizenry has to be coherent enough to recognize their rights are being taken away in the first place.
I wouldn't label chasing the "American Dream" as chasing the idea of freedom. One must think what is the actual underlining instinct and emotions behind such ideologies such as the americn dream. one could perhaps define the american dream as perhaps selfish,greedy, and even pugnacious e.g how would you define the imperialistic movement during the Teddy Roosevelt era? was it really necessary for american citizens to expand our markets and exploit other peoples' cultures and way of life for the betterment of our own. is that freedom or is that the taking away of freedom?
is that what you would call freedom of success and opportunity?
i didn't say that freedom doesnt exist. what i did say was that freedom may not exist or does exist according to the indivdual.
the idea and connotations behind that word freedom has been structured and contured according to how our nation-state wants it to mean i.e. your example of the american dream is how the american media feds the public ideas of how freedom should be viewed. People from different countries( Phillipines) would disagree with idea of the american dream?
this goes back to the original thought.
is freedom really our core value?
If you click "reply" at the bottom of the comment to which you are replying, the flow of conversation will be maintained.
Just a little tool to keep the site organized.
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman