Burlington High School
Burlington, Kansas
Teacher: Devra Parker
When Will Big Brother Come Home?
By Joel Campbell
12th Grade
In a society predicted in 1943, actions, thoughts, and words were monitored incessantly. Eric Blair, under the penname George Orwell, created a [fictional] totalitarian government to control its citizens with ruthless force and secrecy. Thought Police would make people vanish from the face of the Earth. A slight tremor of a facial expression could be enough to be erased overnight. In 1984, Big Brother ruled over all. How long will we wait before this becomes a cruel reality?
There are literary works describing a corrupt and evil government from every age. Edgar Allan Poe wrote of the Spanish Inquisition, Orwell wrote during war and depression, as did Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World. Every character was subject to oppression and led a silent rebellion against those who squashed personality, diversity, and liberty.
Today, the President has taken the first step down that ever so slippery slope to remove personal rights and liberties from the people. The Patriot Act gave the government the right to monitor phone lines, emails, and post from other countries into the United States. There are limits, of course, there always are, but when a baby learns to walk its first step is miniscule, and soon, a child can run. The government wants to maintain the safety of its citizens, but when only one third of those polled approve of the President, the people obviously do not feel that he is doing the right thing. The approval rating spiked after September 11th, but since then, it has dropped to record lows. President Bush barely won the election, and now most of the country regrets the outcome and is very glad that there is a term limit. A Democrat is sure to win the 2008 election, and then proper steps will be taken to please the people and restore the rights “endowed by their Creator.”
Freedom of speech is often known as the most important right given to Americans by the Constitution. When President Woodrow Wilson passed the Sedition Act, no one could speak out against the government or the war in which we were involved. It later became known as World War I. [In that war] the world leaders destroyed Germany and lit the path for a dictator to rise up and kill millions. If the government had allowed the people to speak against the war, and let members of Congress do what was right (oppose the war), how many lives could have been saved? Would the Jews have had the need to flee? Every problem in the Middle East can be traced to the Second World War, which was a direct effect of the First, and the poor decisions made by the leaders who would not grant the people the right to speak. Good idea? Not so much. The people always know more and have better judgment than the government believes. Individuals are able to find out whether or not the choices made and laws passed benefit them, so the government should know not to try to remove rights. The media will alert the people, and in the worst case scenario, rebellion will ensue.
The Legislative branch directly represents the people and should therefore not remove any right from its constituents. When the public is blind to the acts of Congress, then the world becomes Orwellian. Walter Cronkite wrote the forward to a recently released copy of 1984 and described just how little it would take to create such a kingdom of despair. Only a few more powers granted to the government, a few new loop-holes in the President’s abilities to control the military, only a few more pieces in the puzzle, and Orwell’s prediction becomes a sickening reality. Each and every right and privilege should remain firmly in the grasp of every American. If the idea of Thought Police and constant fear appeals to anyone, he/she clearly does not reflect the views of our Founding Fathers.
James Madison led the push to create a government that could not take away the power of the people and that would be able to keep itself in check. His ideas gave birth to [our Constitution, which] still applies over two hundred years later. He did not want the people to have reason to rebel; indeed, his idea was that the people would choose every part of the three equal branches. This way, when Congress or the president passed an unfair or unjust law, the people would have every power to elect another. The people are what make a country. If they do not have every right entitled to them, the country goes down, too.
Answers to Questions Regarding the Required Reading
Q1-What do you think Justin Reiter meant by including the following in his essay?
“…if the people are not accustomed to the freedom they will be angered by the inequality.” Were you angered by some of the things Justin said in his essay? Did you agree or disagree?
I agree, solely by imagining the man with less money and a sad life that doesn’t compare to the guy next to him. The rich society will bathe in the glory of being higher than the middle and lower class, but the common public will look up the social ladder enviously. Before long, the blame for their bleakness will fall on the freedom that separates them from a decent life, because before, they were at the same level as the elite. They were not a lower class, nor was there any person above them.
Q2- Explain: “He felt that the common good could be served by each individual pursuing self-interest.” To whom did Chris Carney attribute these feelings?
John Madison, the father of the Constitution felt that the people should choose everything in the government, and it is equally as likely that he believed each person would add to the fortune of the country.
Q3- In the next to the last paragraph in her essay, Faith Doyal discuses Emperor Diocletian and his Edict of 301. Relate that to the essay topic.
If the variety of a public is diminished, then the country with fall and chaos will ensue. Freedom ensures differences, and differences provide a steady society. The government will prosper, and the people with it.
Q4- Kelly Lanier says in her essay: “Even though everyone is born with the same rights here in America; sometimes a person can step on or take away the rights of another person.” Relate the example she gives and give us another one of your own.
Freedom is a give and
take relationship. To ensure some rights, others may be sacrificed for a
time to protect the freedom our country needs.
The people may not like it, they may even rebel, but it is for their own
good. In some cases, this excuse is used on the way to eliminating basic
rights and freedoms, but in others, it has held countries together and saved
lives.
Q5- Explain what Joshua Spencer means when he says that “individual liberty is a fragile, yet powerful, asset.” How does he relate individual liberty to dictators? Do you agree with his assessment? Why or why not? Be specific.
I do agree, because in order in order to gain total control, the people under you cannot be reliant on each other, but must turn to you alone. A dictator must take away individual liberty to be certain that the government controls every aspect of their lives. As soon as individual liberties are sacrificed for power, a dictator is born.
Q6-Luck Hall asked “Will we maintain our freedom or destroy it to be safe?” How would you answer that question?
We will maintain our freedom. Our forefathers fought and died to gain freedom, and we as a society shall not back down out of fear. When 9/11 occurred, we could have easily backed down from the terrorists, but instead we went to Iraq and fought to protect our rights. It’s not quite working out as well as we planned, but oh well.
Q7- Some people, according to which student essayist in 1999, suggested that “the Constitution's framers might have 'put greater emphasis on the protection of the community over individual liberty', had they seen the world today.”? She doesn’t agree. Do You?
Molly McGlone said that the Constitution’s framers fought over the protection and representation of the people of the United States, and little did they know, it almost completely applies to the world today, and protects the people better than any other document could.
Q8- “Just because a
law may achieve desirable results, it should not take precedence over the
Constitution.” Do you agree or disagree? Aaron
Traffas, discusses the Ban on Smoking in Public
Places and the Gun Free School Zones Act. How do you personally feel about
these two issues?
These laws both represent the promotion of good health of the public. Second-hand smoke is equally as deadly as first-hand, and guns are slightly dangerous, especially with small children around. School shootings are happening with alarming frequency, and steps should be taken to prevent more of them occurring.
Q9- Annie St. Romain referred to a book in her essay where “the government regulated every possible aspect of human life from profession to family to emotions.” What was the name of that book? Have you read it?
The book she referred to was The Giver, and no, I have not read it.
Q10- “As nations grow in size and social complexity, governments claim greater powers to restrain individuals and groups. Those who criticize this development believe that it has gone so far as to threaten the existence of individual liberty. Others believe that only if government is granted such powers, can complex problems be solved.” This quote can be found in Jessie Veit’s essay. Which side of the issue do you support and why?
I know you don’t want it, but I’m going to have to sit on the fence on this particular issue. The government is there to protect and provide for the people, not rule with an iron fist, but it also must do what is best to defend the country.
Q11- Give three examples where personal responsibility would replace the need for laws. Do not duplicate those found in Patrick Karcher’s essay.
There are numerous laws that relate to good decision making, and were the public a wee bit smarter, there would be no need for speeding laws, Alcohol laws, or seatbelt laws.
Q12- It is obvious that Benji Lehman is idealistic. In his essay he claims when the founding fathers “wrote the constitution they put a great emphasis on each person having personal rights as well as individual liberties. The true strength of each and every community falls on the individual. Believing each man, woman, and child will, and can recognize the importance of good responsibility. … These were laws that gave each and everyone of us the opportunity and self-respect to do the right thing.” Benji believed that people would make choices that would serve and benefit their communities. Do you believe that? Please explain.
No, I don’t believe that. I wish it were true, but we all know that certain individuals are always going to rebel and be disrespectful. The will not adhere to the laws and will not act responsibly. This is why we have jails.