Calvert Hall Collage
Baltimore, Maryland
Teacher Mr. Kropp
Voting and Free Speech: The Foundations of Democracy
By Wallace Knobel
11th grade
American society today stresses the importance of exercising one’s rights. Many Americans believe that everyone is obligated to utilize these liberties and argue that everyone should exercise their rights because many have sacrificed their lives in order for us to do so, and people living in oppressive nations would do almost anything to have these same rights and freedoms. While it is important to use these freedoms, many Americans do not recognize the abuse and misuse of these rights, which can eventually cause great harm to American society. The misuse or non-use of the right to vote and the right to free speech can be especially harmful to American society.
The right to vote is one of our most basic rights. It allows us to have our voice heard in government and facilitates a government by the people, for the people. It is for this reason that the abuse or non-use of this right can potentially create dangerous situations. Apathy and indifference towards how our government is run can slowly cause it to morph into a totalitarian or dictatorship regime. When individuals shirk civil duty by the simple act of not voting, they lose their voice in government and weaken it as well. This, however, pales in comparison with the damage caused when one votes without being informed. This causes an individual to vote based only on popular opinion, and essentially allows someone else to decide who or what you should cast your vote for. This is dangerous, as popular opinion is not always correct, nor does it always have the best interest for the common good. This occurred during World War II, prior to Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor. Popular American opinion during that time was to mind our own business and stay out of the war raging through Europe. Most Americans really were not aware of the atrocities that were being committed by Japan and Germany. Americans also did not want to get involved in another war, because the horrors of World War I were still fresh in their memories. Voting for someone who is popular and charismatic and not knowing what he or she actually stands for can also erode away our freedoms and cause our government to become ineffective. Electing someone because they are skilled at giving speeches and look good in front of the camera could lead to a government led by incompetent individuals. Today this is known as the “cult of personality” Hitler and Mussolini are examples of this cult of personality, as they were masters of the power of persuasion. This allowed them not only to turn their democratic nations into totalitarian states, but also to do it with the people’s blessing. The people of Germany and Italy essentially voted their rights away by endorsing Hitler and Mussolini. The crowd mentality took over, so individuals were unable to think for themselves.
Events like the ones described above are occurring in the world today. Russia and Venezuela are two countries, which are currently experiencing a changing political climate. Both countries are teetering between democracy and dictatorship. Vladimir Putin has stripped away many of the rights of the Russian people, to include censorship of free speech and the press. He enforces this through violence and intimidation, as any journalist or public dissenter is watched closely, wiretapped, arrested, or even assassinated. Fortunately, there is open and active opposition against Putin, but there are also avid supporters of his policies. Venezuela also has a similar leader who is striving to institute a totalitarian state. Hugo Chávez tries to control elections and also censors free speech. Recently, he has even attempted to “reform” the Venezuelan constitution by eliminating fundamental rights in order to further cement his control over the country. However, the citizens of Venezuela did not allow this to occur; they publicly protested and forced Chávez to accept his first political defeat.
The freedom to speak one’s mind without fear of retribution is the foundation of any democratic society. Freedom of speech serves as a catalyst to democracy, as it allows citizens to voice their opinions and also reveal dissatisfaction with their government. However, free speech is also a double-edged sword, as it is sometimes utilized to spread prejudice and hate. Freedom of speech is used constructively, when citizens speak their minds or protest when they believe their government is on the wrong track. How can the United States remain a country for the people and by the people, if we do not exercise our right to vote or our right to free speech. If we allow these rights to stagnant, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
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?
Justin meant that people who are not accustomed to the freedom to choose their way of life would focus on the inequality and class systems it creates, and not on the opportunity that arises from it. I was not angered by Justin’s essay as he brought up points that I agree with such as America being free but not equal, and the constant struggle between social classes. I agree with what he said about freedom and equality in America and how they are in conflict with each other, but disagree with his belief that everyone has an equal opportunity. I disagree with this belief, because of the strong role education and money play in predicting one’s future success. A person cannot simply choose their occupation as Justin suggests because certain jobs require certain credentials. Doctors for instance need to have a medical degree and most white-collar employers demand that their employees have collage diplomas. Thus, education becomes a major factor in determining one’s occupation. It is no secret that children from wealthier families have access to greater educational opportunities and thus better paying jobs when compared to children from families with modest means.
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?
This quote means that the common good can be achieved through the natural mentality of a person to do actions that benefit themselves. This is achieved through sales and taxes that levy taxes on self-promoting activities such as working for money and buying goods. He attributed these feelings to James Madison.
Q3- In the next to the last paragraph in her essay, Faith Doyle discuses Emperor Diocletian and his Edict of 301. Relate that to the essay topic.
Emperor Diocletian’s Edict of 301 relates to the essay topic as it demonstrates what happens when human talent and ingenuity are inhibited in order to create equality for all. It supports Faith’s claims that it makes people dependent on their benefactors and creates misery for everyone.
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.
Kelly’s example was the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. She related it to her topic of preserving our freedoms without infringing on the rights of others by offering the example of when someone kills another person with a gun and thus infringes on their right to live. Another example would be using the right of free speech to spread a message of hate and racism that violates the right of other people to live without fear, and essentially tries to strip away their constitutional rights based on race, religion, national origin, or sex.
Q5- Explain what Joshua Spencer means when he says, “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.
Joshua means that our rights are very powerful because they can protect our freedom and liberty from an overbearing government, but are also easily absolved if a nation lowers their guard and lets the government go unchallenged. He relates individual liberty as a great threat to any dictator. I agree with his statement as our rights such as freedom of speech and voting allow us to control our government. The right of free speech allows us to do this by giving us the right to express our grievances and dissatisfaction with our government. The right to vote also enables us to do this by providing the power to decide who governs our country.
Q6-Luck Hall asked “Will we maintain our freedom or destroy it to be safe?” How would you answer that question?
We will be able to maintain our freedom if there are always individuals who point out instances when our government and its officials over step their powers and people listen to what they have to say. However, if American citizens become griped with fear for an extended period of time due to outside threats, then our rights could fall into jeopardy. Dictators often feed on the fears of people to gradually strip away their rights and freedoms.
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?
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?
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 was Lois Lowry's The Giver 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 support the side that calls for the limiting of government powers. I do not support the limiting of powers to the point were the government becomes totally ineffective, but I approach attempts to give the government more power with extreme caution. The more power the government possesses, the harder it becomes to try to harness and control it. Once a government has absolute power there is no way of knowing where its control will stop. I am also opposed to measures restraining certain individuals and groups because the government could keep expanding whom it considers members of this “group.”
Q11- Give three examples where personal responsibility would replace the need for laws. Do not duplicate those found in Patrick Karcher’s essay.
Examples of crimes where personal responsibility would replace the need for laws are littering, driving while intoxicated, and speeding.
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.
I do not agree with Benji’s idealistic outlook on the world that people would make choices that would serve and benefit their communities, as this would eliminated the need for government, laws, and the Constitution itself. If everyone would make decisions based on what was good for the community instead of themselves, crime, violence, hunger, poverty, and war would be nearly non-existent. Benji’s view of society best represents a utopia, which history has unfortunately proven to be unsustainable, as demonstrated by the rise and quick collapse of utopian societies within the United States during the mid-1800’s.