The Roman Market Economy Book Review

The wealth and power of the Roman empire exceeded anything that the world had ever seen, or would see again for a thousand years. As stated by Kyle Harper in the Princeton History of the Ancient World “The making of Rome's Empire was not quite like anything that happened before. Suddenly, levels of wealth and development lunged toward modernity, surpassing anything previously witnessed in the existence of our species” (Harper, pp. 7, 2017). Peter Temin in his book the Roman market economy attempts to answer the question that has long perplexed academics and scholars: How did Rome become so developed? Temin crafts an argument through the use of ancient data on wheat prices and other goods to argue that much of the wealth and power of Rome came from its “market economy”. Temin argues that prices of goods, labor, land, and credit were relatively liberalized and were allowed to reflect market supply and demand. He develops these four aspects of a liberalized economy as the evidence for a Roman market economy. His logic then concludes that free markets lead to wealth and prosperity and that a great deal of the success and extremely high levels of development that Rome experienced can be attributed to its liberalized markets. Though there is a great deal of merit to his argument, he focuses too heavily on economics and does not spend enough time emphasizing the impact of Rome's strong political institutions on development. Had Temin taken this class and read the works of scholars such as Acemoglu and Robinson, DeSoto, and Ali he would have further emphasized the strength of Rome’s institutions such as property rights and strong state capacity as a leading cause of its development, not only its free market.

In order to understand the importance of Roman institutions' impact on development it is crucial to understand where these institutions came from. As we know from Mushtak Khan, institutions do not fall out of the sky. Strong institutions come from powerful interest groups that demand the creation of institutions to protect their assets, create order, and maintain political stability (Khan, 2009). An example of this can be seen in Botswana where cattle herders, a powerful interest group, demanded institutions to protect their property rights. Though Temin fails to demonstrate where the institutions that laid the foundation for Roman development came from, work by Michael Mann provides crucial insights. The Roman context is slightly more complex as Mann explains, there is no clear consensus for Roman dominance on the Italian Peninsula. However, “ [Rome] developed the authoritative power of class culture to the point where all conquered elites could be absorbed into the Roman ruling class” (Mann, 1986, 250). That is to say that as Rome grew the conquered elites became a part of the ruling class. Similar to Botswana the wealth of this interest group increased, as did the demand for protection of property. It is no surprise that as the empire grew and so did its wealth, interest groups, most likely wealthy elites, lobbied the Roman government for legal institutions, civil rights, and property rights. This allowed citizens to feel secure in their property, take out loans, and invest efficiently in the economy. Achieving this dynamic is difficult in poor countries.        

In poor and underdeveloped countries there is a general inability to lend. Though there are many explanations for this, one advanced by DeSoto in The Mystery of Capital is that of formal titled property. DeSoto argues that in underdeveloped countries people own a great deal of wealth through their property. However, it is not formally titled, in other words it is not legally recognized by the state. This hampers the ability of banks and financial institutions to lend to underdeveloped areas. If the borrower is unable to pay back the loan there is no legal collateral that the bank can take ownership of to recoup its losses as the ownership of the property is informal. This is evidenced by DeSoto “Indeed, the problem is that ownership may be too secure. For land to be used as collateral, either for a loan or in support of a business transaction, the land must be subject to seizure by the bank. Where ownership is secured by informal means, such seizure is difficult'' (Woodruff, pp. 1216, 2001). The inability to facilitate lending in poor countries leads to a lack of investment and limited development. DeSoto argues “The lack of formal titling prevents them [citizens in underdeveloped countries] from using the land as collateral, and prevents the unlocking of capital from the asset” (Woodruff, pp. 1216, 2001). Though a formal titling process can cause conflict and disputes over land ownership it is still necessary if a country wants to unlock capital for its citizens and reap the benefits of greater investment in the economy. It is important to note however, there is no benefit to formal titling of property without strong institutions such as legitimate courts and police to enforce property rights. 

With this understanding of formal property rights and titling we turn to the Roman example. As Temin states in his book “the market for land in the Roman Empire worked approximately like the land market today… records indicate a thriving land market, since land served as collateral for mortgage loans” (Temin, pp. 140, 2012). This indicates that not only were land rights respected and formal they were also used as collateral in loans. Temin goes on to note the importance of two terms used in the Roman land market “ dominium, ownership conveyed certain rights; namely the right to receive damages from a theft, and most importantly vindicatio, which was a legal action taken by the rightful owner of a piece of property to recover his property from the current possessor” (Temin, pp. 147). This quote provides us with evidence that Rome had overcome the problems of development illustrated by DeSoto. Rome had formal titling of property, the ability of lenders to seize collateral and strong institutions such as courts to settle disputes and enforce decisions (Temin, 2012). Had Temin taken this class he would have placed greater emphasis on the incredible strength of property rights and formal titling in the Roman economy, the basis of investment, economic growth, and development. 

 The work of Temin and that of Michael H. Crawford in his work in the Economic History review provides evidence that Rome had a strong entrepreneurial society with sophisticated labor, commodity, and credit markets that responded to changes in supply and demand (Crawford, 1977). Nonetheless, neither author explored in depth where these sophisticated aspects of a free market economy that brought huge amounts of development to Rome appeared to come from. An answer to the question comes from the work of Acemoglu, Daron, Simon Johnson, and James A. Robinson. In their study of the success of the country of Botswana they indicate that its economic success came from “Its institutions of private property.” Such institutions protect the property rights of actual and potential investors, provide political stability, and ensure that the political elites are constrained by the political system and the participation of a broad cross-section of the society” (Acemoglu, pp. 84, 2003). In Temin’s book he indicates that Rome had many aspects identified by Acemoglu that led to the economic success of Botswana. Rome had strong protection of private property, it also had strong institutions to protect the rights of investors. Roman companies functioned similar to that of joint stock companies. Investors would fund expeditions or projects and in return obtain a right to the future profits generated. Investment in Rome flourished not simply because Roman society was entrepreneurial or they had a free market economy, but rather Roman law put constraints on political leaders, making citizens feel secure in their assets. A strong court system enforced contracts, settled private disputes, and protected investors rights. As stated by Harper “Roman law helped to birth norms of governance, by which even masters of the empire might be held to account” (Harper, pp. 7,  2017). 

These “Institutions of Private Property”, as described by Acemoglu, are the bedrock of development and given the great wealth and power obtained by Rome it is no surprise that they were interwoven into Roman society. These institutions aided development in three distinct ways. First, property rights were protected so citizens could borrow against their assets and invest in the economy. Secondly, investors rights were protected through strong courts and contract enforcement which allowed investors to feel secure in their investments. Finally, Roman law birthed new norms of governance that put limits on the power of leaders, something rarely seen throughout human history. These three things created a culture of trust and led to free markets and economic growth. However, it was not the fact that Roman people were superior to other civilizations, rather Rome’s strong state protected and enforced the institutions that fostered economic development. 

A strong Roman state allowed strong institutions to develop and in turn free markets and economic development. Research done by Herbst demonstrates how strong state capacity is built. Herbst identifies an overall process for a state to develop strong capacity. The process follows as such. There must be high population density, this leads to competition for resources, which makes less land available, and finally the creation of states capable of asserting Infrastructural power, the power of the state to penetrate society and implement its will (Herbst, 2014). Infrastructural power is crucial in the development of institutions capable of enabling economic development as well as creating legitimacy for the state. Rome had a population at its height estimated around 1 million, thus creating the foundations for the development of strong state capacity as described by Herbst (Temin, 2012).       

      Research Ali reveals the importance of state capacity when it comes to development, specifically infrastructural power. In order for strong institutions to develop and economic growth to flourish the state must have both legitimacy and strong capacity. Based on research from Ali in Bangladesh “the popular legitimacy of the Bangladeshi state remains closely dependent on its policy performance, notably its ability to protect its millions of precarious and vulnerable citizens from the crises of subsistence and survival to which they are frequently exposed” (Ali, pp. 2, 2021). In other words the legitimacy of the state comes from how it intervenes in the economy and society to protect its citizens from crisis. In Rome this was common “The forms of these interventions—setting maximum prices, searching for more supplies, subsidizing purchasing—show that they were attempts to control a free market” (Temin, pp 101, 2012). Temin is describing how Rome's strong state would often intervene into the wheat market in order to address market failures and imbalances in supply and demand. He uses this evidence to show that a free market was present. Though this is important he misses a crucial point, Rome had a strong and legitimate state, capable of addressing market failures to protect its citizens from crisis and fostering development. 

In his work Temin brilliantly analyzes 1000s year old data to provide evidence for a Roman Market Economy. He provides evidence for a market for land, labor, commodities, and credit whose prices fluctuated based on market factors such as supply and demand. He uses this as his hypothesis for why Rome accumulated such a profound amount of wealth and reached a level of development not seen before in human history. However, as a political scientist it was my responsibility to put the “Political” in the Political Economy of development. As we know markets alone do not foster development but rather institutions that protect markets. Temin concludes his reasoning without delving into why Rome had such a dynamic free market, he simply finds evidence that it existed and uses that as an explanation for Rome's wealth. It was not the free market that created Roman wealth but rather its rule of law, contract rights, protection of property, and strong state that created the environment for a dynamic and flourishing free market.                   

References:

Harper, K. (2017). The Fate of Rome: Climate, Disease, and the End of an Empire. In JSTOR (Vol. 2). Princeton University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv9b2txr.6?seq=2

Crawford, M. H. (1977). Rome and the Greek World: Economic Relationships. The Economic History Review, 30(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.2307/2595497

Woodruff, C. (2001). Review of de Soto’s “The Mystery of Capital.” Journal of Economic Literature, 39(4), 1215–1223. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2698525?sid=primo&seq=2

Acemoglu, Daron, Simon Johnson, and James A. Robinson. 2003. “An African Success Story: 

Botswana.” In In Search of Prosperity: Analytic Narratives on Economic Growth, ed. 

Dani Rodrik. Princeton University Press.

Herbst, J. (2014). States and Power in Africa: Comparative Lessons in Authority and Control. In ACLS Humanities EBook. Princeton University Press. https://www.fulcrum.org/concern/monographs/pk02cc280

Ali, T. O., Hassan, M., & Hossain, N. (2021). The moral and political economy of the pandemic 

in Bangladesh: Weak states and strong societies during Covid-19. World Development, 

137, 105216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105216

Temin, P. (2017). The Roman market economy. Princeton, Nj Oxfordshire Princeton University Press.

Professor Mushtaq Khan’s lecture on Governance Reform and Economic Growth. (2009, March 30). Governance in Africa Lecture Series. https://governanceinafrica.wordpress.com/2009/03/30/professor-mushtaq-khans-lecture-on-governance-reform-and-economic-growth/

 Mann, M. (1986). The sources of social power 1, A history of power from the beginning to A.D. 

1760 Mann. Cambridge University Press.

Credit to Professor Barry Driscoll, Grinnell College, for teaching this class, Political Economy of Development, and providing me with ideas and inspiration in writing this paper.

Japanese Imperialism 1895-1910

In the year 1850, Japan was an economically backward country. They had isolated themselves from the rest of the world for the past two hundred years. There was very little economic development, industrialization, and modernization. Along with this, Japan’s inefficient feudal based society made it an easy target for imperialist Western countries such as Britain and the U.S. to exploit. Though these western countries never attempted to fully colonize Japan, they took a more semi-colonial approach. For example, Captain Perry, a U.S Navy captain, made Japan open its ports to foreign trade and residence under unfair conditions through gunboat diplomacy. On top of this, country's such as France, the Dutch, Britain, and even the U.S were very active in the Asia pacific region during the late 19th and early 20th century. These countries had been establishing colonies in the regions for many years. Japan viewed western imperialism in Asia as a direct threat to their sovereignty. It was these actions by Western nations that set the groundwork for Japanese Imperialism. The actions of Western nations in Japan sparked a significant reaction, the Meiji restoration. This movement saw a group of leaders such as Ito Hirobumi and Matsukata Masayoshi rise to power. These leaders were determined to strengthen Japan’s role and prestige in the world within a generation. Their accomplishments included a modern Army and Navy, the beginnings of industrialization, and the creation of an elaborate state bureaucracy centered around the emperor. Only a few decades after Japan’s reopening to the world, the country’s leaders embarked on a policy of aggressive territorial expansion. How did Japan go from a self-isolating country to an imperialist world superpower within a matter of decades? Though many argue that Japanese imperialism stemmed from the need for raw materials, foreign markets, and economic reasons the answer is much more complicated. The motivation behind Japanese imperialism, in the late nineteenth and early 20th century, was not economic as many believe, but rather based in Japanese nationalism, specifically national defense, emulation of western countries, and personal characteristics of the Japanese people centered around the belief they were a superior people.  

When discussing what led Japan to become an imperialist nation, we must first define what leads any nation to become imperialist. There are four main theories on what leads a country to become imperialistic. J.A Hobson an English economcist, who lived in the late 19th and early to mid 20th century, “identified the taproot of imperialism to be surplus capital in the home country in search of profitable investments in foreign markets” (Gordon, 1). In other words, the profits earned by a few wealthy capitalists lead to chronic over-saving in the home country. This capital is in search of return or yield which cannot be found in the domestic market. The search for yield pushes that capital into newer foreign markets, thus leading to imperialism. However, imperialism is not practical for a government’s national business policy, as the vast military and administrative expenses are too costly. Nonetheless, well organized business interests that stand to gain from imperialism will lobby the government to put the cost onto the general public through borrowing and taxes.  

The cornerstone of Hobson’s theory is that the existence of excess capital in a home country leads to profit seeking overseas. However, during the period from 1894 to 1910 Japan forcefully acquired three territories overseas: Taiwan in 1895 as a result of the Sino Japanese war, Korea in 1905 as a result of the Russo Japanese War and parts of Manchuria in 1905. During this period Japan had essentially no excess capital. They relied mainly on loans from Britain and the United States to finance their rapid industrial expansion and their imperialist wars with Russia and China. Foreign holding of government debt accounted for 60% of Japan's 2.6-billion-yen national debt (Gordon, 2). On top of this, imports and exports between Japan and its colonies accounted for a very small amount of total economic activity during this period. Thus, Hobson’s theory does not hold water when looked at in the context of Japan. Given that there was no excess capital in Japan at the time and minimal trade between the homeland and colonies, it cannot be argued that Japan engaged in imperialist expansion due to economic reasons.  

The second theory for why nations engage in imperialism comes from Lenin. Lenin believed that capitalists wanted to employ surplus capital abroad to achieve higher profits than they could in the domestic market. He also believed that imperialism required the existence of large-scale firms or monopolies, the merging of industrial companies with banks, industrialization, and the need for raw materials. There were privately owned conglomerates in Japan during this period, known as the Zaibatsu, and often these conglomerates did own banks. However, their share of loans in the Japanese market was only 17% in 1910 (Gordon, 2). This figure shows no support for Lenin’s theory that finance capital monopolies are an essential part of imperialism. Though Japan was in the process of industrializing it was still by all metrics considered to be a developing country. As Bill Gordan states in Explanations of Japan’s 
Imperialistic Expansion, 1894-1910 “Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries accounted for 33% of economic output and 67% of employment in 1910.  Manufacturing and construction contributed only 23% to economic output, and over half of manufacturing production came from cottage industries employing less than five people.  Manufacturing consisted mainly of food products and textiles at 34% each, whereas heavy industry made up only 21%” (Gordon, 3). Finally, Lenin believed that imperialism occurs when the home country needs raw materials. However, as previously stated there was very little trade and economic activity between Japan and her colonies during the time period. Thus, Lenin’s theory of imperialism cannot be applied to Japan in its early imperialist years.  

Another theory proposed for Japanese expansion is the existence of older social structures within a capitalist system. Japan had a feudalistic social structure with a warrior class until the fall of the Shogunate in 1868. Many leaders in this social structure, such as the former military aristocracy, took leadership positions in the new government. These leaders quickly argued for military action and imperialism, most notably Saigo Takamori’s call for the conquest of Korea in the 1870s, however, this did not immediately occur (Lecture, Smith). This theory holds some water as it is plausible that older societal structures can harness and capture a capitalist system and turn it into one of imperialism. The reason for this is that capitalists have no incentives for imperialism while older societal structures such as a warrior class have a nationalistic desire for imperialism. Japan's colonies did not provide profits for the country as a whole; thus, capitalism could not be a reason for imperialism. As stated in The Economic Development of Japan: Growth and Structural Change:  

“But it is certain that colonial enterprise occupied a subordinate place in Japanese economic development during the first three decades of the twentieth century. And it is likely that whatever contributions were made to Japan's national income and industrial development by political control over these areas were more than offset, even at the time, by the costs of the military outlays, developmental subsidies, and tariff preferences through which she acquired and developed her empire” (Lockwood, 52).  

This quote reveals that economics was not a reason for Japanese imperialism and was a result of nationalistic pride of older societal structures in Japan. What this theory fails to explain is how Japan quickly became an aggressive conqueror of foreign nations after two centuries of peace and self-imposed isolation to the outside world. 

The failure of these three theories to explain the rapid rise in Japanese imperialism leaves us with the question, what was the major reason for Japanese imperialism? The answer to this question is simple; nationalism. This theory best explains Japan’s rapid ascent in foreign expansion and imperialism. There are a few main reasons that best provide evidence for nationalism as the primary motivating force for Japanese imperialism in the late 19th and early 20th century. Japan held deep concerns for its national security, it wanted to emulate Western imperialist countries to become a major player on the world stage, and finally widely held beliefs, ideals and personal characteristics of the Japanese people that they were a divine a superior people. All three of these factors were strongly based on the nationalistic ideology that was extremely prevalent in this time period.   

First, Japan was concerned about growing Western imperialism and influence in the Asia Pacific region. They felt that they need to expand their borders not only to protect themselves, but also, fellow Asian peoples from western colonialist nations. This desire of Japan to protect other Asian nations came from how they were treated by western countries. The United States forcibly opened Japan to the outside world in 1853. Japan was then pressured by Western nations to sign unequal treaties and trade deals. The leaders of the Meiji government, that was formulated in the year 1868 after the fall of the Tokugawa Shogunate, felt that national defense and security was of the utmost importance. They believed that a strong national defense and military was crucial to preventing Japanese subjugation to Imperial Western powers, as well as a matter of nationalistic pride. In order to become an economic superpower in the new modern world, Japan first needed to become a military superpower to protect its economic interests. As stated by Gordon “The nationalistic policy of fukoku kyōhei (rich country, strong military) emphasized Japan's goals to develop the country economically to catch up with the Western powers and to increase its military strength to ensure its existence as an independent country” (Gordon, 5). The leaders of the Meiji government saw the existence of a strong imperialistic military as crucial to Japan's self-defense and its ability to rise as an economic superpower. 

One of these leaders in Japanese society was the thinker and author Tokutomi Soho. He was responsible for publishing and editing the Meiji period’s most significant journal, Kokumin no tomo (The Nation’s Friends). Tokutomi was responsible for introducing a young Japanese population to Western political and economic ideas, specifically those of the likes of John Stuart Mill. In general, he and other Meiji supporters at the time such as Fukuzawa Yukichi, saw the Meiji reformation as a break with the past and a liberating event for Japan. Even though he espoused liberal ideas he also was a nationalist. To him the preservation of national sovereignty was his ultimate goal. He felt that pushing Japan toward modernization would allow it to protect itself from outside threats. Though he never advocated for military imperialism he, along with a growing number of Japanese citizens, understood the dangers that western imperialism posed to Japan. Tokutomi stated the following in one of his papers during the Meiji period:  

The present-day world is one in which civilized people tyrannically destroy primitive people .... The European countries stand at the very pinnacle of violence and base themselves on the doctrine of force .... India, alas, has been destroyed, Annam has been destroyed, Burma will be next. The remaining countries will be independent in name only .... What is the outlook for Persia? For China? Korea? And even Japan? The future will be extremely critical. This, I feel, is unbearable. (DeBary, 545) 

This attitude and belief was very common in Japan in the late 19th century. The idea that Japan was under threat from imperial Western nations was widespread. Some argue that the Japanese people were paranoid. However, based on Western actions around the region their concerns over threats to their national security were reasonable. These concerns led to a growing rise in nationalism and the need for Japan to engage in imperialism for self-defense reasons. Tokutomi reveals that Japanese imperialism in the late 19th and early 20th century was centered not around economic reasons, but rather nationalistic ambitions under the guise of national security.             

Since the beginning of the Meiji era, Japan held deep imperialist ambitions over Korea. Though many arguments can be made for the reasons why Japan invaded Korea, the most convincing one was the Japanese leaders viewed it as a matter of self-defense. In fact, the primary motivation behind many of the imperialistic wars fought during the early 1900s can be traced back to national defense and security. As Gordan states in his paper “Japan fought the later wars against China and Russia in 1894-5 and 1904-5, respectively, to ensure that Korea would not be used by another imperialist power to threaten Japan's security” (Gordon, 6). Japan knew the dangers of being subjugated to Western dominance. They experienced this firsthand in the mid 19th century. Thus, they would take many imperialistic actions in the name of national defense and nationalism to ensure this would never occur again. As we can see by Gordon’s quote the threat of Western dominance was the primary driver of two wars. Thus, leading to the view, in the eyes of many Japanese citizens and leaders that Japan was already at war with the west. One of the thinkers and generals who espoused these ideas during the late 19th century was the immensely powerful and influential general in the Japanese imperial army, Ishihara Kanji. He was a prominent right winger in the military and strongly believed in the imperialist ambitions of Japan. With respect to the matters of Japanese imperialism in Korea as well as Manchuria, Kanji is quoted as saying:  

The Manchuria-Mongolia region is of enormous strategic importance with respect to the destiny and development of our country. If the Manchuria-Mongolia region is brought under our influence, then our control over Korea will be stabilized. If our country shows firm determination by resolving the Manchuria Mongolia problem through force, it can assume a position of leadership toward Cina; it can promote China's unity and stability; and it can guarantee peace in the East” (DeBary, 619).    

Kanji in this quote and many of his other writings is clear in his belief that Japan should impose its will on other Asian countries to ensure peace in the “East.” He justified Japanese imperialism through nationalism, as Japan was a superior nation, as a matter of self-defense from Western imperialism, and finally through the idea that Japan was already at war with the West and a unified Asia, with Japan at the head, was needed to win.   

This idea of a battle between the East, Japan, and the West, the United States, was a major cause of the growing nationalism we see in Japan during this time period. There was the belief many in Japan held at the time that whoever would win the East vs West battle would decide who would control the world. Would it be the great industrial powers of Europe emerging from World War I or would it be the younger less developed Asian countries with Japan at the center? Kanji, here reveals his views on the matter “A world dominated by the five superpowers that emerged from the Great War in Europe will eventually be united into one system. A struggle for supremacy between the United States, as the representative of the West, and Japan, as the Champion of the East, will decide who will control it...” (DeBary, 619). Here Kanji emphaszizes the extent to which Japanese imperialism was fueled by, nationalism, and the necessity of the Japanese to dominate East Asian as a matter of self-defense. The actions Japan would take during this time period, in the name of national security, would closely replicate that of a Western nation during the time period.  

Another driving force for Japanese nationalism fueled expansion and imperialism during this era was its desire to emulate the behaviors of other Western nations. As early as 1871 government officials, as part of the Iwakura mission, travelled to the United States and Europe in order to observe Western societies directly. These government officials were specifically interested in studying Western legal and political institutions. Their goal was to create a modern nation built on the bedrock of Western administrative institutions. As Japan emerged from its peaceful self-isolation it saw itself in the midst of a competitive imperialistic global environment, specifically in the Asia pacific region. Japan had no choice but to copy the behavior it saw occurring around them “the Meiji rulers accepted a geopolitical logic that led inexorably toward either empire or subordination, with no middle ground possible. They saw the nonwestern world being carved up into colonial possessions by the strong states of the West. They decided that Japan had no choice but to secure its independence by emulating the imperialists” (Gordon, 121). Japan realized it had to eat or be eaten, there was no other option. Japan took the Western imperialist threat to heart and rose in power and prestige at a rate rarely seen in human history.   

Many in the West believed that Japan would never become a truly global imperial power. It had taken European countries centuries to achieve the level of imperial prestige they had. However, after several successful imperialist actions by Japan in Korea and China, Western minds began to change. After, Japan's victory in the First Sino Japanese war, those in the west were shocked and began to view Japan with more prestige and as the model of a non-western imperialist nation. One example of the astonishment of the West was in a news article written in 1895 in England “Japan has within 40 years gone through the various administrative phases that occupied England about 800 years and Rome about 600, and I am loath to say that anything is impossible with her” (Gordon, 116). The speed at which Japan went from a self-isolated and economically undeveloped nation with a weak military, to an Imperial superpower was astonishing. The reason for this was again based in Japanese nationalism, their desire to emulate western powers, and their belief they were a chosen people. Japan, due to its nationalistic beliefs, felt that they could copy the western countries' model for imperialism, and in fact do it better.  

The Japanese people have a long history of taking new ideas and successfully assimilating them well into Japanese culture and society. The same goes for Japan with imperialism. As stated by G.C. Allen in A Short Economic History of Modern Japan “Throughout their history they have shown a gift for rapidly assimilating new ideas and practices, a boldness in executing large projects and, above all, a trained and frequently exercised capacity for organization” (Allen, 15). These characteristics of the Japanese people supported their imperialistic military expansion in the early 20th century and eventually their rapid economic expansion in the mid to the late 20th century. It also fueled their nationalistic attitude of the Japanese people and nation as fundamentally superior to other nations. This theory of the Japanese people as the center of the Asian world sprung out of the intellectual wing of Japanese society. In A Modern History of Japan Andrew Gordon states “indigenous intellectual traditions developed by scholars of National Learning or those of the Mito domain rejected both Sino-centric and Western models of international relations. They claimed a special place for Japan as a divine realm that "constitutes the head and shoulders of the world and controls all nations” (Gordon, 121). Japan believed that not China or the West should dominate the international world order, but rather Japan itself. Their belief that they were a superior people, with their destiny tied to the god like emperor, was a cause of much of the nationalism felt by the Japanese people and thus the imperialism that followed from that.  

It is very difficult to determine what the exact cause of Japanese imperialism was during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. There are many theories based on social and economic issues that attempt to explain why countries engage in imperialism. However, none of them explain the fascinating and complicated rise in Japanese imperialism we see in this era. The most simple and compelling theory is nationalism. This nationalism was fueled by Japan’s desire to be safe and independent from Western imperialist nations active in the Asia Pacific region. The Japanese leaders believed if they could achieve the status and advantages that came from being an imperialist nation, they would in affect be more protected. On top of this the Japanese people have a history of taking outside ideas, traditions, and practices and assimilating them into their culture. The same goes for what the Japanese did with imperialism. They wanted to emulate the Western nations to increase their prestige in the increasingly competitive and globalized modern era. Finally, the Japanese people had long believed that not the West nor China was the center of the world. Rather, they believed in a world model with Japan at the center, as the leader of the Asian world. When we view Japan with a nationalistic lense in this era, the imperialism they engaged in does not appear surprising at all, in fact it emerges as the driving force of Japanese imperialism.          

Annotated Bibliography: 

Theodore, De Bary Wm. Sources of East Asian Tradition. The Modern Period ed., vol. 2, Columbia University Press, 2008. Ishihara, Kanji. “A Plan to Occupy Korea.” (618-620). Tokutomi, Soho. “A Japanese Nationalists View of the West and Asia.” (543-548) 

The author of Sources of East Asian Tradition Theodore, De Bary was an American Sinologist and scholar of East Asian philosophy who was a professor and administrator at Columbia University for nearly 70 years. He is a very trustworthy source to use, and, in his book, a great deal is talked about Japanese nationalism. Given that this is the center of my thesis on why Japan became an imperialist nation, the bits on nationalism in this source helped me in providing evidence for my thesis. Most importantly the compilation of primary sources from the time period in which I was studying was crucial in providing evidence for the claims I was making. The writings of Ishihara Kanji and Tokutomi Soho are perfect examples of men with viewpoints from the time providing evidence for the claims I was making. Specifically, their writings allowed me to back up my claims on rising nationalism as a major reason for Japanese imperialism in Korea and Manchuria.    

Gordon, Bill. “Explanations of Japan’s Imperialistic Expansion, 1894-1910.” Explanations of Japan’s Imperialistic Expansion, 1894-1910, Dec. 2003 

This paper by Bill Gordon discusses in depth the main causes and theories behind the imperialist actions of Japan in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The author Bill Gordon received an MA in Advanced Japanese Studies from the School of East Asian Studies at the University of Sheffield in the U.K., and he received an MA in Liberal Studies degree from Wesleyan University For a paper on what led Japan to take the imperialist actions they did, no paper is better suited in understanding this phenomenon. The paper perfectly lines up with my thesis on how Japan’s imperialism during this time period was not prompted as much by economics but more so pure nationalism.   

Gordon, Andrew. A Modern History of Japan: From Tokugawa Times to the Present. Oxford University Press, 2020. 

Andrew Gordon is an American Japanologist who is a scholar of modern Japanese history. He is a professor at Harvard University and is widely regarded as one of the greatest expert historians in the field of modern Japanese history. He is the author of the book A Modern History of Japan. This book is well suited in providing textual evidence and facts on the time period that was used to back up my thesis. In this book he provides evidence on how the Japanese people viewed themselves as the center of the Asian world. This point is crucial to how nationalism was fueled by this ideology and in turn led to imperialism. When looking at all the other sources assigned throughout the semester the reading from this book stuck out to me. The evidence used in Gordon’s book perfectly aligned with my thesis and overall theme of my essay.   

Allen, G.C.  1981.  A Short Economic History of Modern Japan.  Fourth edition.  New York: St. Martin's Press. 

A Short Economic History of Modern Japan was written by G.C. Allen in 1981. Discussing the process of economic development in Japan, this book covers the period from when Japan first entered upon her career of Westernization to the beginning of the war with China in 1937. Although to be clear I only use quotes from the era relevant to my essay, around 1895- 1910. The reason that I use this source is to emphasize the personal characteristics of the Japanese people. More specifically how these characteristics fueled nationalism, imperialism, military, and economic success in Japan. I found this source extremely helpful and useful in isolating a crucial part of my thesis, the special nature of the personal characteristics of the Japanese people.    

Smith, Jomo. “Japan’s Meiji Restoration” Grinnell College, Week 2 January 30th- February 1st , 2023.    

Originalism: A Theoretically Legitimate and Democratic Interpretation of the Constitution

All 300 million Americans would likely interpret the Constitution and its intended meaning in slightly different ways. Everyone has unique experiences and perspectives that would impact their view on its original meaning and, more importantly, how to apply that to our world today. Nonetheless, there are two significant ways of interpreting the Constitution that judges and lawyers subscribe to, Originalism and the Common Law approach. Originalism seeks to understand the intent of the founders' writing while simultaneously attempting to understand the meaning of the words at the time. Originalists claim this is the only theoretically legitimate way to interpret the Constitution as it prevents judges from enforcing their view on the population. The common law approach states that judges are meant to solve practical problems in our rapidly changing and complex world. They do not ignore the Constitution but make decisions based on precedent and their view on good social policy and apply it to the current case. Common Law, as the opposing view to Originalism, believes that judges should make decisions based on precedent, fairness, and the Constitution. Originalists are constrained by the Constitution, while common law judges are constrained by precedent. Common Law is an illegitimate way of interpreting the Constitution as it allows judges to force their personal views on various cases. Thus, Originalism is a superior way of interpreting the Constitution as it allows for theoretical legitimacy with the consent of the governed, is fairer by forcing judges to understand our country's history, and allows the people rather than judges to consider changing values and contentious political, social, and economic issues of the day.  

In a democracy, people work out their disputes in courtrooms, not violently on the streets. Thus, when there are disputes, there must be a final say, and both sides of the argument respect the decision and move on. In America, the courts have the final say in disputes between people, states, corporations, and many other groups. It is also important to note that the American court system has no physical way of enforcing its decisions. The Supreme Court has no army or soldiers to go around and force people to comply with their decisions. Why, then, do powerful states and interests follow the decisions of the Supreme Court even when they profoundly disagree? The answer is legitimacy. If people begin to see the court, specifically judges, as political and deciding constitutional issues based on their personal ideas of good "social policy," the court will lose all legitimacy, and disputes will not end peacefully in the courtroom but rather violently in the streets. For this reason, legitimacy is crucial to safeguarding our democracy, and Originalism is the only approach to interpreting and applying the Constitution that is theoretically legitimate.  

The fundamental question in this debate is where does legitimacy come from? Originalists believe that legitimacy comes from Locke's social contract that people must consent to their government. For this social contract to hold, judicial review, the ability for courts to strike down laws, is only legitimate if it upholds the original understanding that the Constitution was agreed to. Common Law proponents believe that legitimacy comes from Law's evolutionary nature and continued relevance to modern life. The disagreement between these two theories lies in a fundamental question. Does the Constitution represent the will of the people? Common Law supporters would argue that the Constitution cannot represent the will of the people as it was written hundreds of years ago. First, this argument is illogical as the people can amend the Constitution today. They are also free to pass any laws that do not violate protected and clear rights. Secondly, if the Constitution was meant to expand rights over time, it was intended in branches other than the courts. Scalia states in his paper, "I take the need for theoretical legitimacy seriously, and even if one assumes (as many Non-originalists do not even bother to do) that the Constitution was originally meant to expound evolving rather than permanent values, as I discussed earlier, I see no basis for believing that supervision of the evolution would have been committed to the courts (Scalia, 211)." When courts expand rights, such as abortion, without those rights being in the Constitution, they do so without the people's consent. Therefore, the common law approach is theoretically illegitimate, as it makes decisions without the consent of the governed.   

When judges rule on a deep understanding of history and apply it to a current case within the bounds of the Constitution, fairer outcomes occur. Common Law supporters claim that their approach is much more workable than an originalist's approach. David Strauss states that "The Common Law approach is more workable. Originalism requires judges and lawyers to be historians. The Common Law approach requires judges and lawyers to be, well, judges and lawyers. Reasoning from precedent with occasional resort to basic notions of fairness and good policy is what judges and lawyers do" (Strauss, 44). Scalia agrees with Strauss and admits that a historian would be more effective at applying originalist standards to court cases than a lawyer or judge. No doubt, Originalism requires more work and study of history than common Law. However, is it not essential to understand our country's unique history when ruling on different cases? An effective judge should be able to comprehend the history behind laws and apply it fairly to a diverse set of cases. As a society we should learn from, understand our history, and not shy away from it. Our founding fathers understood the importance and fragility of liberty, we should embrace their ideals and not believe that simply due to our modern technology we are more intellectually superior than they were.     

One of the most crucial problems with the common Law and living Constitution theories in interpreting the Constitution is that it is fundamentally undemocratic and does not allow the people to have a say in how they view changing values. Professor Tribe is a significant proponent of these two ways of interpreting the Constitution. He states that the constitution "invites us, and our judges, to expand on the . . . freedoms that are uniquely our heritage (Tribe)." Similarly, Anthony Kennedy, in his opinion in (Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015)), a case that asserted the right to marriage equality, stated, "The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution's central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed" (Obergefell). Anthony Kennedy, in this quote, perfectly summarizes the common law approach to cases. He is stating that it is up to current generations to interpret laws and apply them to the current society, not only relying on the founders' original meaning from hundreds of years ago. Originalists agree with this claim and believe that laws should be updated and in line with a society’s current values. The issue here is why should he and his eight other colleagues decide what good policy and current social values are. Do they inherently know more than 300 million Americans and their fellow citizens? Common Law strips the power of applying changing values from the people, while Originalism empowers the people to determine their own destiny.  

Antonin Scalia's dissent in (Obergefell), is a perfect example of why common law judges subvert the will of the people and do not allow them to determine their own changing values. "This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices' "reasoned judgment." A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy." Scalia's main argument here is not an attack on the freedom of people to marry whom they love, which the vast majority of the county now supports. The problem here is the fundamental error in the Common Law approach; nine unelected judges broke Locke's social contract, their theoretical legitimacy, and the ability of the people to decide their own changing values through debate, elections, and amendments. Common law supporters and those that defend the idea of a living constitution do not appear to have a problem with Originalism but rather democracy itself. 

The Fallacy of American Democracy

America has been backsliding into competitive authoritarianism through undemocratic processes for decades. In recent years this backsliding has only accelerated. Unfortunately, our democratic deterioration has turned us into a competitive authoritarian form of government. Since America's founding, some in power have used different tactics to suppress and distort the people's will. These people who distort the Founding Fathers' intentions can be defined as the political elite. They abuse their positions of power in all branches of government: the legislature, executive, judicial, and newly created administrative state. America is a competitive authoritarian system due to the political elites use of gerrymandering of the legislative branch, the use of the electoral college, the undemocratic nature of the judiciary, corporate influence in the electoral process, and the creation of government institutions that serve the interests of the wealthy political class and not the people they were designed to protect, thus creating an illusion of the promise of American Democracy, and a country in which voters have insignificant influence in policy.     

First of all, it is important to define some terms. What is a democracy, illiberal democracy, and competitive authoritarian system? Does America fit any of these definitions? As defined in the paper The Rise in Competitive Authoritarianism, a democracy must meet four basic requirements: “1) Executives and legislatures are chosen through elections that are open, free, and fair; 2) virtually all adults possess the right to vote; 3) political rights and civil liberties, including freedom of the press, freedom of association, and freedom to criticize the government without reprisal, are broadly protected; and 4) elected authorities possess real authority to govern, in that they are not subject to the tutelary control of military or clerical leaders” (Levitsky and Way, 2).  In illiberal democracies, citizens still have majority rule; however, systems are biased in how they treat opposition parties. This bias can come in the form of unfair and packed courts as well as gerrymandered districts that favor the incumbent party. Finally, in a competitive authoritarian system, the majority of the people cannot remove people from power they do not support. Also, if most citizens want a policy to change, it is improbable to happen unless those in power want that change too. In other words, competitive authoritarian regimes still have democratic institutions; however, these institutions are corrupted through biased courts, controlled media such as gatekeeping, agency capture by political loyalists, and gerrymandered districts. Some argue that America is one of the world's most robust democracies, a place where the people vote to decide how their country is governed. In reality, America is a competitive authoritarian system that has faced rapid democratic backsliding in the past few decades. Throughout Americans’ lives, we learn how America is a beacon of Democracy around the world. This paper will explore how the Government and institutions we thought were the pinnacle of Democracy are, in fact, undemocratic.   

One of the most evident reasons America is a competitive authoritarian system can be seen in the legislative branch. The process of gerrymandering corrupts the way Americans choose their representatives. Every ten years voting districts in the United States must be drawn. These are the districts in which voters choose their state and congressional representatives. Those who draw these districts have massive power over who gets actual representation in the political process. Politicians draw these districts in a very partisan manner. They abuse the process to benefit themselves and their political party. Some states have tried to end the practice of gerrymandering by having independent redistricting commissions draw the congressional districts in an attempt to be bipartisan and fair. However, these commissions only submit maps to be reviewed and the legislature has no obligation to accept them. Thus, political motivations get in the way of fair congressional districts even if an independent commission draws the districts.  

The process of gerrymandering is undemocratic and illiberal in nature. One of the most blatant examples of gerrymandering can be seen in North Carolina. North Carolina has been a battleground state for the past few decades. When Republicans drew statewide congressional districts in 2010, they gave themselves a massive advantage through gerrymandering. In statewide elections, the vote is usually even, with one party receiving a couple more percent of the vote than the other. 2020 was no different, Republicans won 49.99% of the popular vote and Democrats won 49.06% of the popular vote. Due to gerrymandering from 2010 Republicans held 69 seats to Democrats 51 seats. If most people in North Carolina want to remove their Republican members from power, they cannot do so. In the paper "The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism," Steven Levitsky and Lucan A. Way state that "the coexistence of democratic rules and autocratic methods aimed at keeping incumbents in power creates an inherent source of instability" (Levitsky, Way, 4). This quote perfectly represents the kind of gerrymandering we see in the U.S. Incumbents corrupt the democratic process of voting and turn it into a tool to keep themselves in power. They cannot steal elections, as that would cause instability. Instead, incumbents allow the existence of democratic processes; however, they subtly diminish the political power of their opponents through gerrymandering. In a liberal democracy, voters pick their representatives. In the U.S, a competitive authoritarian system, politicians pick their voters.   

Not only does America's legislature get picked in an undemocratic form, but also our President is picked undemocratically. In the United States, the President is not chosen by whoever wins the popular vote or whomever the plurality of people support. Instead, the President is chosen by the electoral college, a system in which people in each state vote for the candidate they want to win. Whoever gets the most votes in a given state wins all of the "Electoral Votes" of that state, except for Maine and Nebraska. Thus, this allows for the possibility that someone can win the most electoral votes but lose the popular vote and still become President. Most recently in the 2016 election, Donald Trump became President by winning the electoral college and losing the popular vote. Critics of this argument say that the Electoral College is not undemocratic because misalignment between popular vote and electoral college has rarely ever happened. These critics also say that the Electoral College is important to give small states a say. It is important to have the voices of all people heard, however, with demographic changes over the past decades the Electoral College has become unable to democratically choose presidents. In 2020 Biden won the popular vote by around 7 million votes. This fact is accurate; however, what is often not said is that Trump came within 80,000 votes of winning in several battleground states. (Swasey, 5) If 80,000 people in a few battleground states changed their minds and voted for Trump, he would have become President. If the people want to remove a President, such as Trump from power they need varying majorities to do so. In the case of the 2020 election the opposition candidate needed 7 million votes to barely win the electoral college. No other leading democracy in the world chooses its leader in this way. Competitive authoritarian systems create an illusion of Democracy, and the Electoral College appears to be a massive democratic illusion.       

A country's court system is arguably the most crucial governmental institution. Courts are meant to be impartial, defend the rule of law, and be a check on the power of politically motivated figures in the executive and legislative branches. The Supreme Court, and more broadly the judicial branch of U.S government, has become an undemocratic super-legislature over the last few decades. The executive branch is in charge of appointing judges to serve in courts across the country. The Trump administration was able to appoint many judges in a very brief period of time without the input of the American people. The result of our undemocratic systems has allowed nearly a third of all federal judges to serve lifetime terms and were appointed by a President who lost the popular vote. Those in favor of the current system say that Americans did have a say through the election of their Senators. These senators confirm or reject the presidents court nominations. These judges were confirmed by a Republican controlled Senate that represented 41 million fewer people than the Democratic minority. As stated by Adam Cole in his article The Supreme Court is about to hit an undemocratic milestone, "The imbalanced Senate has created the least democratic Supreme Court in modern history" (Cole, 2). These judges issue rulings that can significantly affect American society and the everyday lives of citizens. Fareed Zakaria states on the American Judicial system “What is distinctive about the American system is not how democratic it is but rather how undemocratic it is, placing as it does multiple constraints on electoral majorities. Of its three branches of government, one—arguably paramount—is headed by nine unelected men and women with life tenure” (Zakaria, 3). A democratic country would not allow judges to be appointed to lifetime positions without the majority of its citizens say. Lifetime appointments for judges do protect the courts from political pressure. However, this can cause an even greater disconnect between the American people and the judicial system. This disconnect is most often found in the cumulative power of life time appointments to The Supreme Court.  

The Supreme Court is the most important court in America and has caused great harm due to its undemocratic nature. Many Americans believe the Supreme Court is meant to uphold the rights of all Americans. Yet, most Americans do not know that the Supreme Court has been a violator of human rights in several cases. For example in thecase Plessy v Fergusson(1896), the Supreme Court found segregation constitutional; in Korematsu v United States(1944) it allowed for the internment of Japanese Americans, and in Buck V Bell(1927), it upheld the forced sterilization of those considered feeble-minded. The Supreme Court has been an interpreter of laws that have allowed for undemocratic outcomes. More recently, the Supreme Court has allowed for the complete destruction of America's Democracy. The Supreme Court has rolled back parts of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v Holder(2013), made it extremely difficult to regulate campaign financing in Citizens United (2010), and has stated that federal courts do not have the right to place limits on partisan Gerrymandering in Rucho v Common Cause Decision(2019) . Nikolas Bowie, in his article "How the Supreme Court Dominates our Democracy," states about the supreme court that "By declining to enforce federal laws because it disagrees with Congress about whether they are constitutionally appropriate, the Supreme Court has functioned as an anti-democratic institution that produces anti-democratic results" (Bowie,4). Not only can the Supreme Court not enforce laws, but it can also strike down laws it deems unconstitutional. This is a process called judicial review. The unelected Supreme court can strike down laws that are passed by an elected legislature. In democracies, courts are independent and protect the rights of society's most vulnerable. In America, the courts have little accountability to the people, are not impartial, and allow undemocratic systems to remain in place.   

Not only are the politicians and judicial systems undemocratic in the U.S , but our government agencies and institutions, which are the foundation of the country, are also captured vessels of different political interests pursuing competitive authoritarianism. Some have referred to these institutions as the administrative state or the fourth branch of government. It has become almost separate from the executive. Large webs of government agencies with enormous amounts of power are run by unelected bureaucrats. Some in Government argue that the administrative state is there to help the people and that these agencies ensure fairness and the rule of law in our society. The good-natured idea of an administrative state that makes government more efficient and equitable has turned into an undemocratic fourth branch of Government that has little accountability to the citizens it governs. John Tierney writes in his article The Tyranny of the Administrative State that "Unelected bureaucrats not only write their own laws, they also interpret these laws and enforce them in their own courts with their own judges. All this is in blatant violation of the Constitution" (Tierney, 2). The so-called administrative state consists of 450 agencies and 2.7 million workers (Cooper, 1). The domain in which the administrative state operates is vast and far-reaching across all parts of American life and society. Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court went as far to state that "The Framers could hardly have envisioned... the authority administrative agencies now hold over our economic, social, and political activities." The founders understood that all the branches of government would try and draw "all power into its impetuous vortex" (Federalist 48). This concentration of power by the executive and specifically the administrative state has accelerated in recent decades.    

The administrative state usually consists of unelected "experts" and career bureaucrats who govern similar to that of royalty in Europe. Due to contracts and unions it is hard to remove them these people from power. Agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Environmental Protection Agency are considered by some to be necessary to regulate the fast-moving and complex world we live in. Though this might be true, it is not a reason for the American people to allow a few experts to decide extremely complex matters on their own. These agencies often act undemocratically and are causing democratic backsliding. In fact, the creators of these agencies, that make up the administrative state, admitted they were undemocratic. President Woodrow Wilson was responsible for creating a large amount of the administrative state we know today. In his essay The Study of Administration He stated, "The bulk of mankind is rigidly unphilosophical, and nowadays the bulk of mankind votes..." He was specifically talking about new immigrants arriving in the country and African American voters. His answer to too much democracy was to create executive agencies that had tremendous amounts of power over the government and, to this day, are greatly shielded from democratic backlash (Wilson, I). The power these agencies have is similar to the issuing of royal decrees, instead unelected "experts" issue guidance letters and orders. In Christopher DeMuth's' paper, "Can the administrative state be tamed?" he states, in reference to the executive branch and its different agencies, that:   

Executive Government began to change in fundamental respects in the early 2000s. It became more "unilateralist"—acting independently of Congress's laws and even budget appropriations. It also became more "fusionist"—combining regulation of private firms with government operations that competed or collaborated with those firms. These changes moved American Government further from traditional legal and constitutional norms (DeMuth).  

These agencies are often used by the executive branch and different corporate interests to get around the legislature. Some might argue that Congress can take away the power of an administrative agency at any moment although true, it rarely happens. Many congressmen like the power that comes with the administrative state when it is under the control of their political party. Often times policies and bills are deadlocked and cannot get through Congress. Therefore, those in office that support the bill allow the executive to subvert the will of the people and use the administrative state to achieve their goals. For example, President Obama wanted to regulate Carbon Dioxide in 2009. His own party controlled the legislature, and even then, he did not have the support in Congress to regulate Carbon Dioxide. When asked he said, "I've got a pen, and I've got a phone” and proceeded to order the EPA to declare it a pollutant so that it could then be regulated. Whether or not CO2 is a pollutant is not the issue here. Instead, it is evidence of how the executive branch uses the administrative state to issue "decrees" and subvert the will of Congress and the people in an undemocratic way. Though the policy was upheld by the Supreme Court it could not get through a democratically elected Congress. It is likely that the EPA was correct in what they did, however, it is a slippery slope of evidence of the administrative state implementing policies that do not have the democratic support of the people.   

The Undemocratic and illiberal nature of America's three, and newer fourth branch of government, has contributed to the disenfranchisement of the vast majority of Americans. The data described here show just how much the U.S has become a competitive authoritarian country. Through undemocratic systems in the four branches of government, wealthy and political elites have been able to take almost complete control over the government's power structure. Americans can indeed vote and replace Republicans with Democrats and vice versa. However, this ability to vote often has essentially no impact on policy. A study released in 2014 called Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens stated that 90 percent of voters' opinions have zero impact on policy. Professor Martin Giles and Benjamin Page looked at data from around 200 public opinion surveys and compared this data with policies that became laws. A quote from their study sums up their findings, "The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy" (Gillens and Page 6). Those who do influence policy are wealthy and well-connected Americans and corporations.  

The only difference between America and an undemocratic oligarchy is that America has institutions and branches of government that give an illusion of democratic rule. American pharmaceutical companies, defense contractors, and energy companies spend billions of dollars a year lobbying Congress. In return, they receive trillions in taxpayer support. (Gillens and Page, 4). These entities and corporations have benefited and supported America's slide to democratic authoritarianism. When people say that America is still a democracy, ask them how that can be when large companies dictate policy that average citizens have no say in. This power structure all raises the question: How can a country in which 90 percent of its citizens have no say in how the government runs and the wealthy get trillions of dollars in taxpayer money every year be called a democracy?     

Elected officials spend 30- 70 percent of their time in office fundraising. This is only more evidence of how beholden America's representatives are too special interests and the wealthy. Running campaigns is expensive, and only those who fundraise can win. Over the last century, the cost of campaigning has exploded. More specifically, the cost of campaigning has risen sharply from around 2 million dollars in 1908 to 2 billion dollars in 2012 (Gillens and Page 5). Convincing evidence can be seen in one of our most essential branches of government. In the legislature, more specifically, the U.S Senate, the amount of money that a candidate needs to raise has risen to around $14,531 every single day as of 2014. Only 0.05 percent of Americans can donate more than $10,000 in any election cycle (Gillens and Page 3). In a democracy, every person has one vote and the same political power and say in how a country should be managed. However, in the United States, corporate interference in political campaigns has made it so those with money and influence have outsized amounts of control and influence over policy that becomes law.             

The power that the four branches of government have over the American people has grown drastically over the last few decades. This has led to America becoming an undemocratic competitive authoritarian country. The effects of America's undemocratic government have had a devastating effect on the political power of the bottom 90 percent of the country. The power of the administrative state, executive branch, judiciary, and legislature has expanded to such a point that it has the power to dictate how Americans run their everyday lives. This enormous amount of government power and the use of undemocratic institutions and systems have driven the United States toward competitive authoritarianism. Many Americans might be surprised to hear this; however, this slide toward authoritarianism in other countries and throughout history is rarely ever sudden or seen in one exact moment. Instead, as Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt state in their book How Democracies Die, "The erosion of Democracy takes place piecemeal, often in baby steps. Each individual step seems minor – none appears to truly threaten Democracy. Indeed, Government moves to subvert Democracy frequently enjoy a veneer of legality: They are approved by parliament or ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court. Many of them are adopted on the guise of pursuing some legitimate- even laudable- public objective" (Levitsky and Ziblatt, 6). America is still a country where people vote and freely debate political elections. Many voters have no idea that they live in a competitive authoritarian system, and the vast majority of voters have no say in how the country is run.   

The best way to solve America's slide to authoritarianism is to remove the mechanisms that allow the political elite to use undemocratic institutions to benefit their interests. The power of the administrative state, the corporate interests in the legislature, the executive branch, and the judiciary has become so large that it would be difficult to reform from the inside. These institutions need to be protectors of freedom and defend the will of all people. One reason for Democratic backsliding in the United States is that America's branches of Government are naturally undemocratic and have, at times, encouraged authoritarian systems to gain power. This authoritarianism has infected, influenced, and corrupted the government and institutions that Americans and the world has placed its trust in. Thus, America will remain a competitive authoritarian system until the government's trust and transparency are restored. This trust can only be restored when there is less government to enforce undemocratic systems and institutions. It is unlikely that the Congresspeople, judges, and experts who benefit from the system will give up their power. The only way to reign in the power of these institutions is through mechanisms given to the people in the constitution. One example of this could be a Convention of States. States would come together to amend the constitution and take a metaphorical ax to the administrative state and undemocratic systems, such as the electoral college, Gerrymandering, and undemocratic courts that are highly prevalent in American society today. Amendments such as term limits in government positions, limits on corporate influence in policy making, and banning partisan gerrymandering have the ability to stop Americas slide to authoritarianism. The U.S still has the power to change the course of our slide into authoritarianism by using the strengths and flexibilities of the U.S Constitution, Bill of Rights, and America’s freedom loving people. Democracy can still be saved by Americans past, present, and future, who believe that progress is the essence of our democracy even when we fall short of our own vision of the American dream. 

Works Cited:

Levitsky, Steven, and Lucan A. Way. “Elections without Democracy: The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism.” Journal of Democracy, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1 Apr. 2002, https://muse.jhu.edu/article/17196. 

DeMuth, Christopher. “Can the Administrative State Be Tamed?” OUP Academic, Oxford University Press, 29 Feb. 2016, https://academic.oup.com/jla/article/8/1/121/1751551?login=true. 

Gillens , Martin, and Benjamin I Page . “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest ...” Perspectives on Politics , American Political Science Association , Sept. 2014, https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf. 

Bowie, Nikolas. “Perspective | How the Supreme Court Dominates Our Democracy.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 16 July 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/07/16/supreme-court-anti-democracy/. 

Levitsky, Steven, and Daniel Ziblatt. How Democracies Die. Broadway Books, 2019. 

Swasey, Benjamin, and Connie Hanzhang Jin. “Narrow Wins in These Key States Powered Biden to the Presidency.” NPR, NPR, 2 Dec. 2020, https://www.npr.org/2020/12/02/940689086/narrow-wins-in-these-key-states-powered-biden-to-the-presidency. 

Cole, Adam. “The Supreme Court Is about to Hit an Undemocratic Milestone.” Vox, Vox, 28 Sept. 2020, https://www.vox.com/21456620/supreme-court-scotus-undemocratic-milestone-minority-rule. 

Tierney, John. “The Tyranny of the Administrative State.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 9 June 2017, https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-tyranny-of-the-administrative-state-1497037492. 

Steveliesman. “Majority of Americans Support Progressive Policies Such as Higher Minimum Wage, Free College.” CNBC, CNBC, 27 Mar. 2019, https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/27/majority-of-americans-support-progressive-policies-such-as-paid-maternity-leave-free-college.html. 

Cooper, Charles J., et al. “Confronting the Administrative State.” National Affairs, 2022, https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/confronting-the-administrative-state. 

Wilson, Woodrow. “The Study of Administration.” Teaching American History, 10 Sept. 2021, https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/the-study-of-administration/. 

Zakaria, Fareed. “The Rise of Illiberal Democracy.” Foreign Affairs, 18 May 2022, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1997-11-01/rise-illiberal-democracy. 

Humans and Automation

Introduction: I am just completing my last week of classes for my first semester at Grinnell College. I’ve had a great time and learned a lot about a wide variety of topics. Here is a paper that I had to write for my tutorial class which was on automation. I felt this paper was worth sharing as it is a topic that is very important to our society yet few people are talking about. I would love to hear your thoughts on this paper and the topic in general. I also encourage you to read Automating Inequality by Virginia Eubanks. It is an eyeopening book on the creation of the “digital poorhouse.” Come to your own conclusion and formulate your thoughts on your own. I hope you enjoy and have a great holiday season.

In Automating Inequality Virginia Eubanks documents critical evidence on the flaws of many automated systems that are being used to manage states’ social programs. Though she makes many important discoveries and eye-opening realizations, she is unwilling to recognize the positive impacts that an automated system, if operated properly, could have on people and society as a whole. One of the main systems she focuses on, the automated eligibility system in Indiana, was meant to automate the welfare eligibility system, to cut costs and streamline efficiency. Due to poor implementation and a negligent government the system was a complete disaster. However, Eubanks falsely interprets this lack of success as evidence that all automated systems will lead to problems. In my opinion, it was not the idea that was the problem- in fact automated systems for welfare have the potential to transform social programs for the better- it was the implementation of the system that led to people not receiving entitlements, the loss of critical documents, and the complete breakdown of the government to provide assistance to those in need. It takes time for investments in future technologies to pay off, and hiccups or mistakes will inevitably be made along the way, yet automating systems in our government agencies that manage social programs is an investment worth making. It is important to recognize and learn from the problems that an automated system creates; nonetheless, innovative technologies can enhance the capabilities of these systems and provide the greatest number of resources to those in need. Over the long term, automated systems used to manage states’ social programs will lead to more efficiency, less fraud, and greater outcomes for the people who need help the most.   

When automated systems become too impersonal, they can lose the very important human aspect required by social services. It is important to ensure that algorithms are not the only deciding factor when it comes to who gets benefits. However, even Eubanks admits that something needs to change because the systems we have now, across the country, do not meet the needs of vulnerable people in our society. Eubanks states “Cumbersome administrative processes and unreasonable expectations kept people from accessing the benefits they were entitled to and deserved” (Eubanks, pg. 179). A change to the systems that manage social programs is long overdue, yet the solution to this problem is not to eliminate automation; the solution is to combine automation with the humanity of a caseworker so as to better increase the outcome of clients.   

In the case of Indiana and the automated eligibility system, the way in which it was implemented was terrible. However, the intentions of the Governor and the private companies who helped build the system were good, in fact as Eubanks states the goals of the system were to “reduce fraud, curtail spending, and move clients off the welfare rolls.” (Eubanks, pg. 46) Unfortunately, the consequences of the automated system hurt far too many vulnerable people. In the past a caseworker would visit a client for years and get to know them on a personal level. When the new system was enacted, this changed, and caseworkers were told not to get to know their clients so as to better improve efficiency. On top of this three major changes were made, to the system, that had significant consequences. The eligibility system was turned into a telephone-based system, online applications were required, and files were digitized. This led to a 2000 percent increase in the error rate of the system as well as the loss of 283,000 documents (Eubanks). Complaints went through the roof, clients could not get resources they desperately needed, and worst of all, litigation began against the state and the companies who created the system. In the end, a promising idea turned into a total disaster.  

The new system was a complete failure. Thus, many people might argue that the old system was better, and automation led to this disaster in Indiana. However, automation was not the problem. Given that, the idea of an automated system was good, and the implementation of that system was poor, if the process of creating a new automated eligibility system in Indiana could be done again here is how it should be implemented. First of all, the implementation of this system needs to be slow and gradual over time. People and even machines and algorithms do not respond well to quick and sudden changes. By implementing the automation slowly, you would allow both caseworkers and clients to get used to the new system.  

The second way to improve the algorithm is to increase the amount of resources given to caseworkers. The biggest two complaints with the system in Indiana were that caseworkers were overburdened and untrained with how to use the system and secondly that it was more difficult for clients to access their benefits. As Eubank says, “Private call center workers were not adequately trained to deal with the severity of challenges faced by callers.” (Eubanks, pg. 50) By giving caseworkers more resources, we allow the algorithm to work with people not against them. An important question to ask is, do state governments have the ability and funding to implement a better system and give caseworkers more resources? Though it is true that at first state governments will have to spend more money to improve the system. In the long run the investment will pay off as resources are given more efficiently to those in need. This in turn will decrease the amount of people in need and lower the amount the state needs to spend on social programs. Moreover, a world in which machines and people work together will increase efficiency and outcomes in all areas, specifically, states social programs.  

Eubanks sheds light on many issues that come about when implementing new technology in an old system. The topics she addresses revealed many problems in our government, society, and the overall way that America treats the poor. The automated eligibility system in Indiana is a perfect example of how an inefficient and incompetent government failed at using automation to improve the lives of its citizens. Automation itself was not the problem. The implementation of the automation was what led the new system to fail. What this book reveals is that, in the United States, there are some serious flaws in how we get resources to those in need. The old way states used to manage their social programs was clearly broken. The automated eligibility system was an attempt to fix a system that had failed so many. Unfortunately, the new system caused much more harm than it did good. To blame automation for the failure of the new eligibility system in Indiana is not reasonable. What the automated eligibility system in Indiana showed was that automation and technology alone cannot fix an entire system. Instead, humans need to use automation as a tool, not the other way around. 

References:  

Eubanks, V. (2019). Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, And Punish The Poor. St Martin’s Press  

Levels of Analysis and Hierarchy in International Relations

U.S. diplomacy in response to international situations or a crisis traditionally combine and fluctuate between path dependency and the important attributes of the personality of the decision maker. 

There is a hierarchy in the process of decision making. The three levels of analysis in an international situation or crisis are the individual, the state, and the international system. Liberalism is based upon the idea that governments derive their power from the individual. As the Declaration of Independence stated, governments get their right to govern from the consent of the people. The individual by agreeing to be governed by a set of laws is giving up some of his or her personal freedoms. The individual could have chosen to live in a society of anarchy. Instead, in choosing to live in organized society, the individual concedes some powers to the state in exchange for security. 

The state is the second level of analysis. The state derives its authority from the individual. However, it has a lot of discretion in how it operates and decides how to be responsive to the individuals needs. An advantage that the state has is that the individual’s needs are not all the same. The states role is to balance the different and diverse needs of the individuals. All while achieving legitimacy and not alienating too many citizens. One example of this is the nations choosing to be in international organizations. Very similar to the way in which the nation obtains its right to govern from the consent of the people. All international organizations obtain their authority and jurisdiction from the consent of the member states. A concrete example of this is the situation in the European Union. The relationship between the people, the states, and the international system is very fragile. Part of the uncertainty of the future of the European Union resides in its inability to connect with the changing needs of the individual. 

In an international situation, there is room for path dependency as well as being room for the importance of the personality attributes. The international trade system provides a good example of the role of path dependency. The international trade system formed in the post WorldWar Two world, its underlying institutions, beliefs, and customs have led to a path dependent outcome resulting in ever greater levels of trade and integration. Much of the backlash that we are seeing in the political developments in the United States, European Union, and other advanced countries can be connected to this path dependency and it not being able to understand the negative effects of international trade. This would be an example of many of the individuals in the state not benefiting from a multilateral system adopted by the nations. 

At the same time path dependency can exist with the level of decision making and personality attributes of decision making and policy outcomes. As an example, a strong individual leader can influence and redirect path dependency.  For example, Trump’s position on free trade in 2016 was outside the institutional beliefs of the path dependency theory of free trade. His position was not mainstream and more in line with Bernie Sanders’ position. The positions of Sanders and Trump pulled Clinton in 2016 in their direction on trade issues. Today the institutional underpinnings of free trade are perhaps forever altered in part because of the leadership of this strong personality.    

The Obama Doctrine: Realism, Institutionalism, and Constructivism

Obama and his administration’s approach to foreign policy fluttered in and out of several theoretical international relation’s arguments throughout his Presidency. Sometimes Obama’s foreign policy decisions made him look like a realist, sometimes he sounded like a liberal/institutionalist, but perhaps, as the Atlantic article, The Obama Doctrine shows he typically behaved or believed more like Alexander Wendt’s moderate constructivist. 

For many years in international relations, especially with the creation of the United Nations and other international organizations after World War II, and specifically in American foreign policy two ideologies dominated. These two ideologies were realism and liberalism/institutionalism. These can be seen in the foreign policy approaches of both Bush presidencies and Clinton’s presidency.

Constructivism was disliked by many in international relations due to its focus on social construction over material and individual construction. Alexander Wendt’s work and writings on constructivism revolutionized the constructivist theory and paved the way for Obama’s mix of theoretical approaches. Wendt developed a moderate lane of constructivism that recognized the importance of materialism, individualism, and scientific methods. This branch of constructivism is a conglomeration of theories and eventually became a popular decision making tool for Obama and his administration on foreign policy. 

As an example, in 2011 the situation in Syria was becoming even more dire. Many Americans, some of his administration like Samatha Powers, and people all over the world wanted Obama to act. Obama resisted demands to help bring about the end of the Assad regime. He seemed to firmly believe that Assad would fall without U.S. intervention. And some might see this as Obama being a realist by not wanting a third war in the Middle East that would cost the U.S. trillions of dollars more and many more lives of American military. However, others might say that he was considering this inaction as a Liberal/Institutionalist by not acting alone but wanting an international coalition as he waited for David Cameron or the French President Hollande to join in a strike on Syria. In fact it was neither. This situation in Syria was Obama using Wendt’s theories of constructivism in making his decisions.

Obama thought that history was bending in the direction of U.S. policy. He believed that the identity of a country could change. The day he decided not to bomb Syria, he saw as a day of liberation. He rejected the foreign policy establishment that had dominated Washington for decades. Instead, the shared ideas of the international actors involved would win because self-interest would win. Obama believed in the U.S direction and that the world including Syria would follow without a need for force and military intervention.    

Obama used a combination of Constructivism, the kind that was developed by Wendt, to make his foreign policy decisions. He believed, in cases such as Syria, that U.S military intervention was not needed. He thought that even a brutal dictator such as Assad would do what was right without U.S force. This ideology might be interrupted as Realism due to its desire to protect American lives first and fore most. However, it was constructivism, an ideology that requires a certain amount of hopeful thinking rather than action. Many blame George Bush for his over involvement in the Middle East. Obama is hoping that he will be praised one day for what he did not do in the Middle East.

Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Social Justice: A Question of Rights, Responsibilities, and Religion

Gun control and gun rights debates are some of the most hotly debated and controversial issues of our time. This is a debate that the world is facing, however, in many aspects it is a uniquely American problem. Due to our history of overthrowing the authoritarian British monarchy and settling the Western frontier of the continent, guns and militia are important issues for Americans. The main reason though is due to the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which gives all citizens the right to own weapons. A right that few governments have given to their citizens throughout the world and over the course of history. Both sides of this debate are determined, well informed, and unwilling to back down. Many people from all over the United States feel deeply about how gun related issues should be handled in their country. The main reason is because the stakes of this issue are so large on both sides. Calls for gun control and more restrictive gun laws have been around for many years. Countries like the U.K and Australia have in recent decades made their gun laws very strict. In recent decades the debate around gun control has ramped up as more deadly weapons have hit the streets and mass shootings began happening far too often. One side argues that guns should not be in the hands of citizens and should not be easily accessible. While the other side argues that there should be very little restrictions on guns due to the Second Amendment. Both on the extreme ends of this issue are rarely ever willing to give an inch.  

In 1934, the first piece of gun control legislation was passed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. This legislation was called the National Firearms Act and was part of Roosevelt's New Deal For Crime. The NFA came in response to an increase in gang related gun violence. During prohibition gun violence increased significantly and events like the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre, a gang murder in Chicago, was highly publicized in the press. The new machine gun and its use by these unlawful gangs made many Americans fearful.These new laws during FDR’s administration imposed taxes on manufacturing and the purchasing of machine guns, shotguns, rifles, and accesories in an attempt to stop the transfer of guns to gangs. Thirty-four years later with the unrest of the 60’s by 1968 there was a new call in America for gun control. President Lyndon B. Johnson pushed for a bill called the Gun Control Act of 1968. The main purposes of this Bill was to ban the import of guns with “no sporting purpose,” create age limits to purchasing and owning a gun, and create background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the menatally unstable. 

Ever since 1934, there has been a back and forth of laws that expand the right to own guns and laws that are more restrictive of gun ownership. Examples of these laws are the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act, The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, and The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act came about after the assasination attempt on President Ronald Reagan. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, often referred to as the 1994 Crime Bill, was passed in response to an increase in crime in the U.S. This act expanded the power of the Federal government in a number of ways, most notably was the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act prevented gun manufacturers from being held liable for crimes committed with their weapons and products (Gray, Sarah). Many of these laws gave more rights to gun owners and some of these laws put restrictions on gun rights. These laws show the back and forth of our lawmakers and the divide that’s happened in America when it comes to gun issues.

In 2008, however, the most drastic change to gun control and gun rights issues took place. In the “District of Columbia vs. Heller” the Supreme Court changed a nearly 70 year precedent. In this case the Supreme Court said that the right to own a firearm is not necessarily associated with being part of a militia. A previous ruling by the Supreme Court in 1934 argued that states have a right to defend themselves and that individuals did not have a right to own any type of weapon. Heller vs. D.C. overturned the 1934 case and cemented the rights of individuals in the U.S. to own and possess firearms.

 In recent years there have been strong calls for gun control legislation in the wake of mass shootings. Even with these tragedies such as Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, Nevada, and Parkland there has been an inability by both sides to compromise. This inability to compromise has resulted in a deadlock with no passage of meaningful legislation and more division among Americans. Overall, the U.S has had a long and complicated history of guns and gun issues. It is unlikely that this issue will become irrelevant any time soon.

In the wake of rising gun violence and mass shootings many citizens have organized and protested for gun control. Most notably in 2018, after the horrific event at Parkland High School, a group of students organized a March for Our Lives event that drew hundreds of thousands of people from all over the U.S to Washington D.C. The events, mostly organized by students who were fed up with the inaction of the government, called for real gun control legislation. Social Justice played a large role in grassroots build up of this movement. In fact, light was shed on the injustices in gun control and gun violence all over the country. 

A question raised by many people is why are there so many guns and gun distribution stores? There are 51,438 gun retailers in the United States. For context there are only 14,098 McDonalds in the United States (Social Justice Resource Center). Proponents of gun control argue that this is not only absurd but immoral. The communities that understand gun violence better than anyone are the Hispanic and Black communities. In many urban areas, most of which are majority black, gun violence is part of everyday life. The issue of gun violence is one that has plagued this country for many years. Sadly, America's problem with guns is only getting worse. In fact, gun violence is having a major impact on American children. Annually, 3000 children and teens are shot and killed and 15,000 are shot and wounded (Everytown Research & Policy). The amount of gun deaths alone in the inner cities is astronomical and has been only increasing over the years. There may be two sides to this debate and both sides feel passionate about their opinions, but the deaths of children due to gun violence is completely unacceptable. This is something both sides agree on.                

  There are often two sides to every argument and there are few topics that cause as much anger as the gun control debate. The argument for gun control is made by the many claims that the only way to prevent increases in gun violence is through gun control. However, the other side claims that strict gun control laws violate the U.S. Constitution and individuals rights. Also, many people who are in favor of an individual's right to own a weapon argue that gun control is ineffective and wouldn’t accomplish the goal of limiting gun deaths. Many conservative people point to the fact that cities such as Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles have some of the highest gun crimes and deaths in the country while they also have the strictest gun control laws in the entire country. There’s also an argument that all people should be trained in proper ways to handle and shoot a gun like is done in Switzerland. The majority of gun accidents do not take place with well-trained individuals. The majority of gun accidents occur when someone is joking around or using a gun improperly. This means that the best way to prevent gun accidents, like teaching swimming to prevent drowning, is through proper training. 

The Catholic Church has a position on this controversial issue as well. The USCCB uses this quote from Pope Paul VI to explain their position on gun control “If you want peace work for justice.” The USCCB supported the assault weapons ban that passed in 1994 in the Crime Bill. Unfortunately, this ban expired in 2004 and assault weapons are for sale and legal to own today in many states. The USCCB calls on all people to work toward a culture of life and turn away from senseless violence that only brings harm to communities. The USCCB official statement on gun control is as follows “ We support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and makes them safer (especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children or anyone other than the owner), and we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns”(USCCB). This shows that the Church supports gun control measures that do not take away the rights of people to own guns. The Church supports people’s rights to own certain weapons, however, it wants to keep weapons of war off the streets and guns out of the hands of children. 

Even though I’ve never owned a gun nor do I know anyone who does, my personal opinion on this issue leans on the side of the Second Amendment and gun rights. I agree that weapons of war should be kept off the streets and guns should not be in the hands of young children. I also have the opinion that the right to own a firearm is secured by the Second Amendment and the recent decisions of the Supreme Court that support it. Individuals that are mentally stable, mature, and go through training should be allowed to own guns. The Second Amendment was placed 2nd for a reason. The Founding Fathers understood the importance of having checks and balances within the government. They also understood, maybe more importantly, that the people need to have a check on the government. A well-armed and well-trained citizenry whether in the form of a militia or not, is a check on power hungry people who may enter the government and attempt to pass unconstitutional laws. My belief in gun ownership does not mean I disagree with the need for background checks and making sure that mentally ill people never get their hands on a firearm. Overall, I strongly believe in the rights of all Americans to own guns whether that be for hunting, self-defense, or someone simply exercising their Second Amendment right. Both sides of this topic have strong and well thought out views. It seems that this controversial issue will be at the center of American life and politics for years to come and perhaps that is the best way to keep all Americans engaged in this important issue.

Works Cited: 

Everytown Research and Policy. “The Impact of Gun Violence on Children and Teens.”Everytown Research & Policy, 8 Jan. 2021,everytownresearch.org/report/the-impact-of-gun-violence-on-children-and-teens/.

Social Justice Resource Center, “Gun Violence Facts & Figures.” Business Insider,   socialjusticeresourcecenter.org/facts-and-figures/gun-violence/. 

USCCB, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.“Backgrounder on Gun Violence.” 2020. www.usccb.org/resources/backgrounder-gun-violence.

Bibliography:

“Backgrounder on Gun Violence.” USCCB, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. 2020. www.usccb.org/resources/backgrounder-gun-violence.

Ferdman, Roberto A. “The Racial Divide in America's Gun Deaths.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 19 Sept. 2014. www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/19/the-racial-divide-in-americas-gun-deaths/?arc404=true.

Gray, Sarah. “A Timeline of Gun Control Laws in The U.S.” Time. 30 Apr. 2019, time.com/5169210/us-gun-control-laws-history-timeline/1934,Valentine's Day Massacre.”

“Gun Violence Facts & Figures.” Social Justice Resource Center. Business Insider,   socialjusticeresourcecenter.org/facts-and-figures/gun-violence/. 

“The Impact of Gun Violence on Children and Teens.” Everytown Research and Policy. 8 Jan. 2021. everytownresearch.org/report/the-impact-of-gun-violence-on-children-and-teens/.

“Young Guns: How Gun Violence Is Devastating the Millennial Generation.” Scribd, Center for American Progress , Feb. 2014. www.scribd.com/document/208215761/Young-Guns-How-Gun-Violence-is-Devastating-the-Millennial-Generation.

To Lie or Not to Lie: The Dichotomy between Truth and Lies in William Shakespeare’s Hamlet

From the beginning of Hamlet by William Shakespeare, Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark hates the deception and mendacity of the Royal Court, and specifically those characters who lie or who he thinks are lying. Unfortunately for him, he is surrounded by people, family and friends, who deceive others in order to gain or maintain status and power for themselves. There is something, however, that Hamlet dislikes even more than those who lie to each other. He, as Shakespeare often emphasizes in his plays, dislikes those who lie to themselves in order to justify their own actions. This strikes a chord with many people because most of us have done this at some point in our lives. Essentially, Hamlet cannot stand the mendacity of the situation he finds himself in. His uncle has killed his father and has married his mother. Hamlet has lost his kingdom and family. He feels lost and distraught, as if his life has no purpose. It’s more than just that “the memory be green” of his father’s death as Claudius claims in Act I. It’s as if a curtain has been pulled back and he sees the lies and real lust for power that everyone around him has. It is marching him toward a family tragedy and the collapse of his father’s kingdom. In Hamlet, the dichotomy between truth and lies that runs throughout the play involves family, politics and the monarchy. Most of the characters in Hamlet are motivated by one or the other or both and the split has the effect of defining the characters' interactions with each other and with themselves. This dichotomy, and the tension within it, inevitably leads to death, destruction, and tragedy.

No one could read this play without picking up on the lies, mendacity, and the many ways in which the characters try to deceive one another and themselves. Some of the most important and revealing moments of the entire play, however, are when the characters are honest. Hamlet shows us early on in the play that he has a deep hatred for liars and those who try to deceive people. He is especially upset over how people are acting over the death of his father. When Gertrude, Hamlet's mother, asks him why he seems so depressed and upset with the world, he responds harshly to her. His response illustrates his anger with those who would pretend to mourn his fathers death just to gain status and power. He states:

  Seems, madam? Nay, it is. I know not “seems.” Tis not alone my inky cloak, good mother, nor customary suits of solemn black, nor windy suspiration of forced breath, no nor the fruitful river in the eye, nor the dejected ‘havior of the visage, together with all forms, moods, shapes of grief, that can denote me truly. These indeed seem, for they are actions that a man might play. But I have with that within which passeth shows, these but the trappings and the suits of woe (I.i 1-100).

Hamlet is trying to tell his mother that the grief he shows on the outside is nothing compared to how terrible he feels on the inside. He makes a reference to dark clothing and says that even though people were dressed in black to mourn the King, nobody really did. In other words, no one was being truthful about their sadness over the death of the king. The dark clothing of a funeral is how Hamlet feels on the inside. This is an example of Hamlet being completely honest in the midst of his mother and uncle’s deceitfulness, mendacity, and lust.  

Though it is hard to pinpoint who is being completely honest and who is lying throughout the play, no one can argue that the Ghost of King Hamlet tells the truth even though one might raise the question as to whether the Ghost is helpful or harmful to Hamlet and his Kingdom. However, help or harm does not always mean that someone is lying. Even though what he says does not help the situation, he does not lie. Even Hamlet, in Act I Scene V, describes the ghost as honest. The Ghost reveals to Hamlet the truth that his uncle Claudius poisoned his father in order to become the King of Denmark. From this point on Hamlet knows that he’s been lied to and becomes angry at the world and society, especially the monarchy and his family. The ghost's statements, though truthful, push the characters closer to the tragedy that is inevitable. In this situation Shakespeare raises a question closely related to the play’s dichotomy between honesty and deception. Should people tell the truth even if they know the truth will make the situation worse? These are the questions the Ghost and many of the characters should be asking themselves. Instead they are all so filled with lust, power, and revenge that they cannot see the consequences right in front of them.      

What makes Hamlet such a fascinating play is how Shakespeare sheds such a bright light on all the characters. By the end of the play Shakespeare reveals who they are--good and bad--and there is nowhere for them to hide. Even Ophelia who is not really deceitful but her lack of self-knowledge makes her a pawn in other’s lies. Even her death is not shown but happens off stage. There is an important dichotomy, however, between honesty and deception that is vital to the characters and the play. It feels as though everyone is lying to everyone else. This begins with Claudius. Claudius killed Hamlet's father, the King, in order to take his place on the throne. This is a central lie throughout the play and ignites a string of lies that follow to the final tragedy. It also creates much distrust between the characters, angers Hamlet deeply, and sheds a light on the inefficiency and disorder of the monarchy of Denmark that is hinted at by Fontinbras at the beginning of the play. 

It is not as though Hamlet is the only victim in this play. In fact, he lies a number of times and reveals that he is consumed by anger, depression, and hatred. As Hamlet lies about his madness he shows that the dichotomy between honesty and deception can be very blurred. Hamlet pretends to be mad in order to extract revenge for his father. He tells Horatio his deceitful plan. Hamlet is angered by the mendacity of others. He is upset with his family who lies to get what they want; however, he is a hypocrite because he intends to lie to get revenge. Nothing good comes from Hamlet's plan for revenge because when seeking revenge you always dig two graves and Hamlet learns this at the end of the play.    

Political lies create tension as a central part of the play. In fact, the entire play is kickstarted by a political treason within the monarchy. Shakespeare seems to be making broader implications about monarchy and families as a whole. The play shows that feuds within a family are a central part of all peoples lives. Everyone has experienced internal conflicts with family members. Now, imagine your family was in charge of an entire kingdom. The family conflict in Hamlet caused the instability and the downfall of an entire kingdom. This creates a central dichotomy between the lies and truths in the roles of families, monarchies, and politics.    

As the play leads to its tragic ending, there are omens and hints of the consequences of lies on the horizon. Shakespeare is making the point that some stories can only end tragically. Life, in essence, is one large tragedy and Hamlet learns this as the play progresses. The dichotomy between honesty and deception of families and politics are like two armies fighting over a kingdom. When both are so corrupt they will inevitably destroy themselves. Hamlet begins to realize that the lies the characters tell one another and themselves are so extreme that there is no way reconciliation can happen. The fist omen of the play is the appearance of the Ghost. The Ghost plants the seed of lies which leads to Hamlet’s need for revenge and from that point on there is no way of preventing the tragedy that is to come.

Hamlet as a character when viewed through the lens of a play about the dichotomies between truth and lies reveals many important lessons for living an honest life. There are many dichotomies shown by the actions of characters and how they are presented throughout the play. Honesty and deception are two of the most important reasons for problems in family and politics. As the play unfolds and Hamlet begins to understand the mendacity of his family and how that plays a role in broader implications of the monarchy, he realizes that mostly everyone is lying for their own gain. We hear from him in his many soliloquies how much this angers him. Hamlet is disheartened by the cruelty of the world and feels as though it has no meaning. The lust for power that his uncle has upsets him the most. Even knowing the truth does not set him free. Instead, it feeds his depression and his desire for revenge. 

Shakespeare shows us that throughout most of the play it is as though the characters are dangling on the edge of a cliff, about to fall off. By the end of the play they all fall off and it ends in an unavoidable tragedy. Can we really blame the characters of this play for lying? Self- preservation is such a natural human instinct and the only way for the characters to keep their positions is by lying and being deceitful. Honesty and deception are two crucial factors that play a large role with the characters' interactions as well as the role between family and the monarchy. Shakespeare seems to be especially writing Hamlet so that ordinary people can relate to the characters and the play. He shows us that the dichotomy between truth and lies and the characters' interactions with one another, including Hamlet, inevitably lead to tragedy, death, and the destruction of an entire kingdom. Hamlet’s tragedy begins from the first unanswered question of the play, “Who’s there?” It’s as if this part of human nature, the lies, must always run its course to tragedy. When Fortenbras takes the victory but with sorrow as he looks at the bodies of a family like they are on a battlefield, it is as baffling to us as it is to him. The only answer is in the divorce between truth and lies. Even Shakespeare’s complex characters in Hamlet could not survive in that tension.

Is American Power Waning?

Is U.S. power waning? From the treaty of Westphalia to today, dominant international actors—super or imperial powers—have risen, maintained dominance, and eventually fallen. As we look back in history we can see signs of when and why a nation state is in decline and the important role that institutions, international actors, and international relations have played in the rise, decline, and maintenance of a super power. This can be seen, for example, in the Roman and Ottoman Empires, the Spanish and English colonies around the world and the former Soviet Union, the leader of the communist bloc of countries. The length of the empires varied greatly with the Roman Empire lasting about 800 years, the British Empire about 300 years, and the Soviet Empire not even 50 years. There were many different reasons for the decline of these Super Powers and their roles in the world, but there were also similarities, which can be useful for analyzing today’s challenging international relations landscape.  

In 2020 it is fair to ask questions such as: is the U.S. similar to these former Super Powers of the world? Is the U.S. facing an inevitable declining and waning future and what is the importance of international relations in such a dynamic? The question is timely because  many people have recently compared the United States to those declining powers throughout history. There are many reasons for the decline of a Super Power. These experiences from the past of  declining empires and countries can help to examine the current situation of the United States. First is the role of competition from rising Super Powers threatening and eventually overtaking an established Super Power. The second is problems that arise from internal strife and threats from factions destabilizing and weakening a Super Power from within, including economic decline. A last reasons to be discussed is how perceptions and misperceptions in international relations can negatively effect the Super Power and the role it plays in international relations. Within the reasons for waning power, the role and importance of international actors, institutions, and relations within them can impact, especially today,3 the rise and fall of Super Powers. 

Dominant international actors have been constant throughout world history.  Two for discussion here and that can help to examine the U.S. Super Power status and how it might continue to evolve are the examples of the Soviet Union and the British Empire. The British Empire lasted for more than 300 years. At t its height in the 18th century the Empire with its colonies in North America, the Caribbean, and India dominated much of the globe. International relations at the time was not the dominant reason why England rose to and maintained its empire, contrary to the U.S. example which is discussed below. That is to say, England grew and was dominant in spite of the international equilibrium at the time between England, Spain, France and the Flander countries. International relations at the time was more focused on preventing a Super Power from rising. It did this through constantly changing and shifting alliances among the major powers. This can be seen most clearly through the rise of Napolean and his continuous  wars. 

The decline of the British Empire was due to many reasons but especially two reasons mentioned earlier in this paper. First, the rise of a younger Super Power, the United States, and the decline internally from Great Britain’s poor economic performance beginning in the early 1900s and accelerating in the decades after WWII. International relations was a passive participant during this period maybe because the handoff from the English Super Power to the U.S. Super Power was a benign and smooth transition.  

The Soviet Union and its Super Power Status began after WWII and came about immediately as a result of its destruction of the German Army and being in sole control of more than half of Europe at the end of World War II. The Soviet Union became an empire also as a defensive measure. It was twice invaded by Germany and its allies in the 20th century and was unwilling to cede total control back to those parts of Germany and Eastern Europe under its occupation. After losing more than 40 million inhabitants as a result of the two World Wars it was understandable that the Soviet Union would act in that way. It also was naturally in a leadership position of the Communist Bloc of countries in Eastern Europe because it had been the first country to have a communist revolution and adopt a communist economic and political system. 

International relations played an important role in the development and maintenance of the Soviet empire until its unraveling in the early 1990s. The main international relations during this time was between the two Super Powers, the Soviet Union and the United States, and although there was a Cold War at the time, it never led to direct confrontation. It can be argued that the Cold War governed and constrained the behavior of the two Super Powers in this detente. The main demise of the Soviet Union was not because of the appearance of a younger Super Power, but rather similar to Great Britain’s economic decline. By the mid 1980s, the Soviet Union realized that it could not compete economically with the United States and the West and began economic reforms that eventually led to the demise of the Soviet Union.   

The U.S has been one of the world’s Super Powers since World II, rivaled only by the former Soviet Union but today it is increasingly challenged by China. The U.S. Super Power status is the result of its military strength, its economic strength, its cultural strength, and its prominent role in international affairs. Militarily, the United States has an annual spending on the military of more than $700 billion, a sum that is more than the next 10 countries combined. Economically, at the height of its economic dominance in the immediate aftermath of post-World War II, U.S. GDP represented more than 30 percent of world GDP. Even today, with the rise of China and the strong economic development and growth of many other countries, the U.S. still accounts for about 24 percent of world GDP, with China second at 15 percent, and Japan third at 6 percent. Culturally, the U.S. influence is measured in terms of exports of cinema and plays, music, and social movements such as Black Lives Matter. 

Politically, the U.S. has been the predominant influence in international relations since after World War II as leader of the Western Bloc countries against the Soviet Bloc of countries. The dominant international actors and institutions accepted the Super Power transition from England to the U.S. and the U.S.’s role in the Cold War and eventual defeat of the Soviet Union. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the continued military, economic, cultural and political dominance of the U.S. made the U.S. a Super Power status in a way that some would argue no other empire has been able to match.  

The U.S. Super Power status, however, is still being questioned and challenged. If it is true that U.S. power is waning then there are three possible ways to look at why that is, as discussed earlier. The first, is the rise of other nations. Is the fact that China is growing at an unprecedented rate harmful to the United States’ power around the world? History and international relations show that competition from a young, rising Super Power can have a strong negative effect on the established Super Power and the international world order and can eventually create conditions for direct conflict if international relations and systems are not strong enough to mediate conflicts between the two Super Powers. This was the case in the competition between England and Germany in the late 19th Century that eventually led to the war to end all wars, WWI. History also shows that it is difficult to avoid conflict between a rising Super Power and a declining Super Power that are not in the same international sphere of influence, as was the case with the U.S. and England. 

The rise of China is creating a direct threat to the U.S. in terms of economic growth and China’s economic power against the U.S. and its growing economic alliances with other developing countries. The rise of China has been due to the government allowing the market forces to play out. It seems as though China will soon become the worlds leading economy. Many worry that China will soon be the world’s new Super Power and will have more influence over the world than the United Sates currently does. This can be seen through China’s “Belt and Road” Initiative in Eurasia, the Middle East and Africa. Economic power leads to military and political power.  However, does China’s ability to grow have limits that the United States has not? China is run by a totalitarian government that does not allow free speech, free choice, or democracy to flourish. Is democracy so natural to human nature that any government that tries to suppress its citizens will not be able to endure for long as was seen in the Soviet Union? Also, China is still quite a poor country overall. Its economy while growing quickly still only produces 10,870 dollars per person compared to the U.S which produces 67,430 dollars per person.

The second possibility for the decline of the U.S. is due to internal conflicts and divisions. This theory believes that a Super Power usually does not fall directly from external threats, but rather they are weakened internally by domestic strife which eventually makes the nation vulnerable to external threats. This was the case to some extent with the fall of the Roman Empire. Internal weakness made Rome vulnerable to invasion from the northern tribes. Under this theory, the U.S. will not fall from the outside but only from within from the polarization, political issues, and economic troubles currently facing the U.S.

Anyone who lives in America can tell that America is becoming more and more divided along political, cultural, and religious lines. Bill Bishop covers this topic in his work. One example of this is called The Big Sort. This specific essay in American Polity talks about how Americans are moving to and living in places that have more people who agree with them on political and cultural issues. Over the past 30 years, red states have become redder and blue states have become bluer. Bishop believes that as Americans have separated themselves from those they disagree with, they have turned into tribes. Bishop states that: 

“We now worship in churches with like minded parishioners, we join volunteer groups with like minded companions, and we read and watch news that confirms our existing opinions.” (Bishop, 563) 

Are Americans losing the ability to have civil discourse with those they disagree? More importantly, will future elections become more divisive than ever? As political parties play more and more to their base they lose the ability to speak for the entire country. This internal polarization the United States faces could weaken its position in international relations and the global community. Why are Americans so intolerant for those that they do not like or agree with? The words of Abraham Lincoln seem more applicable to the situation in the United States since the civil war. He said, “ America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

A reason for economic decline for the U.S. is the money it takes to maintain its empire. This is also a challenge in the U.S. with its military expansion around the globe. The Pentagon stated in 2013 that there are around 600 U.S military bases in other countries. This leaves an obvious question: Is America stretching itself too thin? It is very similar to that of Rome where the expense of having such a large military presence actually harmed the empire. Is America becoming too imperialistic and in fact an empire? Since America’s inception the U.S military has invaded 42 independent countries. This does not include countries that have been bombed or the U.S played a role in overthrowing another country. Not only does Americas imperialistic behavior harm foreign countries, soldiers, and civilians, it also harms the Americans at home. Costly wars force the United States to go deeper in debt and spend more and more money. For example, American tax payers have spent two trillion dollars on the Iraq war alone. In total the U.S has spent 6.4 trillion on its War on Terror.. At the same time many of America’s roads and cities are crumbling and not everyone has health insurance. Though the human lives lost in the wars are terrible, the financial costs can be extremely damaging as well.

Finally, is the decline of the United States due to its misperception of the world or by the world? Robert Jervis explains in Perceptions and Misperceptions in International Politics that when states make hasty decisions based on incomplete information and images that they have already perceived, the outcomes are often faulty. The world is a complicated place and we need those perceptions to make sense of it, but they also make us prone to mis-perceptions. In Perspectives of International Relations by Henry Nau we see how Great Britain made the threat from Germany worse by not seeing how their agreements with France and the Soviet Union played on Germany’s insecurities. (Nau, 141). Are we currently witnessing a similar episode with respect to the current U.S. policy toward China and the U.S.’s unilateral approach to international relations, or is this something which was long over due in order to strengthen and maintain the international order among nations? 

The U.S. strength, economic and political, in the post- World War II period has slipped and its vision, especially internally, is now blurred. It is possible that the U.S. will follow in the footsteps of former international actors like the Soviet Union and Great Britain’s Empire. The U.S. faces challenges both internally and externally, but it can lead again even if some dominance fades. If the international systems and organizations support the ideal of democracy and freedom of thought and individual spirit, there is hope for a world where people can live with the openness and freedom that all human beings aspire. It will depend on something bigger than economics, military, or politics, it will be a resolve and desire for unity amongst humanity.   

Bibliography:

Bishop, Bill. “The Big Sort.” The American Polity: The Lanahan Readings. Lanahan Publishers.

Baltimore, 2016.

Moisi, Dominique. The Geopolitics of Emotion: How Cultures of Fear, Humiliation, and Hope

Are Reshaping the World. Anchor Books. New York. 2010.

Nau, Henry R. Perspectives on International Relations: Power, Institutions, and Ideas. Sage. Los

Angeles. 2017.

Impact of the Pandemic on Globalization

According to the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource center, there have been 565,719 deaths and over 12 million confirmed cases as of July 12 due to Covid-19. The virus is not only affecting the health and well being of citizens around the world, it is also having a profound impact on economics, politics, and especially the role of globalization in the modern world. Prior to Covid-19, globalization was having significant challenges and setbacks due to its side effects involving immigration and low-skilled workers.  The pandemic has accelerated those forces. 

For the last 40 years globalization has been a driving force on the world stage. Many countries have become very wealthy in the last few decades due to the rise in globalization. The E.U has gained more power and control over the countries that are a part of it. A major part of this rise is the many free trade agreements that have been signed and implemented all over the world. There has never been a time in human history where more free trade has taken place. An example of this is NAFTA. Though NAFTA made some people very wealthy, it also left many people, especially in the Midwest, worse off than they were before. Those who held jobs in factories saw those jobs disappear for cheaper labor in places like Mexico and China. This phenomenon is called outsourcing and it left many workers in Western countries feeling disheartened with globalization and free trade agreements. 

The process of globalization and hyper interconnectedness between countries has seen some pushback in recent years. Well before anyone knew of a virus named Covid-19, people were feeling that globalization may not be the best for their individual countries. One can see this sentiment expressed in many countries in North America, Europe, and even South America. The rise in populist parties has been an indicator that many people feel left out. These people, many of whom are in the working and middle class, have seen the wealthy get even richer from globalization while they struggle to pay their bills. Populist parties all over the Western World have been growing in strength and numbers for many years. The elections of Trump, Bolsonaro from Braziil, Viktor Orvban from Hungry, and Brexit show that many people are not onboard with globalization.  There is a strong movement currently in Italy that is calling for a “Italexit” and Spain has a strong populist and nationalist party called Vox that is also anti-European Union.   

Covid-19 is accelerating the resentment many people have to the rapid increase in globalization and it will likely slow it down and may even somewhat reverse it. In fact, many leaders are rethinking some parts of globalization that have gone too far. For example, politicians in the United States and many European countries are asking if they have become too dependent on international trade for essential products. Should ventilators, antibiotics, pharmaceuticals, and protective equipment be outsourced just because it is cheaper? Are these items are so important to national security that they should be made in the United States? As we are seeing now, when there is an economic crisis/pandemic, we become very vulnerable when essential items are made in other countries. 

The shutdown over Covid-19 has caused massive unemployment in the Unites States and many other countries. This may not be the time for unchecked immigration and increased globalization. With so many problems, the United States may not be able to handle an influx in immigration while the U.S unemployment rate is at 11.1 percent. This pandemic has made many people rethink the free trade agreements and rise in globalization that has taken place in the last few decades. This is not to say that many good things haven’t happened due to globalization. In fact a huge amount of people have been taken out of poverty due to globalization. However, this Pandemic may cause a new shift and many countries will take back control over their trade, manufacturing, and borders in the coming years.  

Democracy in America

My summer homework for AP Government consists of reading The Lanahan Readings in American Polity. In the first essay, Alexis De Tocqueville writes From Democracy in America. De Tocqueville was a young French aristocrat who came to the United States in 1831. He intended to study the new social and political phenomenon, American Democracy. In his travels and writings, he realized something exceptional about America. It was unlike any previous nation in history. To understand why that is the case, we must understand the history of its founding. De Tocqueville knew that America was founded by those who were not wanted in Europe. He says in the essay that “It may safely be advanced that on leaving the mother-country the emigrants had, in general, no notion of superiority one over another. The happy and powerful do not go into exile.” 

The old European rules of lordship and aristocrat did not come over to the new world. Free from the ancient laws of Europe, the settlers created a more unique and more open society. Though America has not been free for many of its people, the foundation of the country allowed for change to take place. De Tocqueville realized that this country, free from the influences and biases of Europe, brought out hard-work, creativity, and determination in its people. However, he did make sure to say that America was not a perfect Utopia. In fact, he said, “There is no other country where the love of money has taken stronger hold of men.” America’s capitalistic and free-market society allowed for tremendous economic growth over our history. Unlike Europe, where there was little to no class mobility, wealth circulates with rapidity in America. 

  The best thing about this excerpt is that it shows the perspective of a non-American. In many ways, Americans take for granted the rights we have. We sometimes forget that most of the world does not live in a free society. What De Tocqueville was able to understand was that America embraces the individual. Unlike in Europe, where people were judged by their family and what class they were born. Ideally, in America we judge people by their actions and what they do. De Tocqueville realized the unlimited potential of the American system. Our country has never been perfect. We have the ability provided in the constitution, to make it a better place for all our fellow citizens.   

Civil Discourse

“Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain—and most fools do.”

—Dale Carnegie

At this moment of a world-wide coronavirus pandemic everyone says they want solutions, but practically no one attempts civil discussions of different perspectives. Maybe everyone has become too rigid. Right now, I’m wondering everyday when I will go back to school. Will I play baseball this spring? Can I see my grandparents? While I wonder if the world will ever be the same, adults in government and media seem to care little for average Americans. Instead, they are caught up in a political game in which both sides lack civility and the ability to engage in civil discourse. 

Politicians and reporters ridicule each other rather than solve problems. Social media encourages 30 second videos on Twitter rather than truth. During this pandemic, a crucial part of a free country, the press, spins the story and divides us between left and right, blue and red. We don’t need antagonizing claims to get more clicks. We need facts, unbiased reporting, and real debates with possible solutions that may save us all. 

Americans need to debate and discuss the right and wrong of how we are dealing with the virus. I believe that civil discourse was a crucial part of the founding of our country. Free speech is essential and unique to our founding, but it means more than bullying on Twitter. It gives us not only the right, but the responsibility of civil discourse. Our founding fathers made an unprecedented claim that each person has the right to give their opinion and have an equal say regardless of status. This can only be achieved when people engage in civil discourse.  

There are political ideologies that rejected free speech and civil discourse. Regimes like Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, and China dismissed the idea of civil discourse. Their ideologies were too certain for real discourse. There was none at Auschwitz, no place for free speech during Stalins purges, and no differing perspectives during Mao’s cultural revolution. In a democracy, strength does not come from one ideology. We are strong because our government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. Our power is expressed through freedom to debate differing views.  

I’ve always been interested in people who have the courage to express their viewpoints. Since the 2016 election, I have felt tensions rising in my hometown of Cambridge, MA. Everyone puts the same political sign in their front yard. In elementary school, we voted for president and all but one kid voted for the Democrat. I’ve wondered how long a “Make America Great Again” sign would last in my yard. That frightens me. Are Americans, even in my town, losing the ability to engage in civil discourse?   

Civil discourse is even rare between teenagers. Many friends are scared to speak up and offer their own opinion. I’ve been in this situation and question why so many seem scared? Do they fear losing friends and harming their reputation? Do they fear that it will harm their chance to get into college? It’s all of those things. Politics have become woven into our lives so that even high schoolers fear negative social and academic consequences. 

When I scroll through Youtube, Twitter, or Apple News, I read headlines like “Destroyed Social Justice Warrior Snowflake” or “All Trump Supporters are Racist.” These headlines do not inform us. Americans lambasting each other on Twitter isn't a way to exchange ideas. This kind of communicating is the exact opposite of civil discourse. This happens on both sides of the political spectrum. Practicing civil discourse reminds us that finding common ground and recognizing the humanity in those that we disagree with is more important than being right. 

Civil discourse is essential for a free society like our democracy to function. It is the glue that keeps a country as large and diverse as ours together. Are we willing to risk it for a jab on Twitter? Will we miss solutions to problems because of fear? Or Lose friendships over political arguments? Civility allows people from different backgrounds to find common ground. It allows people who disagree to learn from each other. Civility allows us to be wrong yet value our relationships more than being right. Free speech gives us the right to say whatever we want, but civil discourse obligates us to behave in a dignified manner. I’ve learned that civil discourse is not a way to persuade those you disagree with, but a way to bring people together and lead to solutions for our country and the world’s problems. This is something we, not only Americans, but the world is in desperate need of during this pandemic. 

Works Cited:

Carnegie, Dale. How to Win Friends and Influence People. Simon & Schuster. NY. 2011. 

DeMille, Oliver. A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the

Twenty-First Century. TJedOnline.com. 2009.  

Franklin, Benjamin. The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. Quanto Publishing. NY. 2015.