Category: Democracy in America

Stand for America

When talking about political issues, it is important to thoroughly understand both sides of the argument on a certain topic. In whatever issue you choose to speak upon, you must identify all of the facts and details to make the best possible decision to better your political values. This is what makes our beliefs grow and metamorphosis. This even allows them to change when we critically think about them and when we go deeper into every tiny little detail. The people of America have different political values and a variety of beliefs. We are diversified. I believe this is what makes America so great. We all have the freedom to express our own opinions even when they might go against many other beliefs. So when we talk about standing (or not) for the national anthem we can expect the people of America to have different opinions on what they believe to be right. I understand how important it is when talking to people about certain topics that we keep how we feel about the topic away and that ultimately, we keep our biased opinions to ourselves. I also know that biased opinions are inevitable no matter how much we try to steer clear of them. So with that said, let’s break this down and go into the depths of this political issue.

To properly analyze this issue, we must start from the beginning. On October 14th, 2016 Colin Kaepernick (a player in the NFL) took a knee during the national anthem. There was a period of time that lasted about two weeks when nobody noticed. Then, all of a sudden, he was questioned in an interview where he eventually told the public why he took a knee during the national anthem. Once the public figured out, some people hated him automatically. This sparked huge debates on whether or not this was morally and/or politically right. Colin Kaepernick had several goals for this specific kneel: he did this to raise awareness of racism and police brutality, he wanted to show that he could express his freedoms, and finally, he wanted to show his opposition to United States President, Donald Trump’s policies. Now let’s get into why Colin decided to perform this protest. First, Police Brutality… “Police brutality is defined as the use of excessive physical assault or verbal assault during police procedures, such as apprehending or interrogating a suspect. It is one of several forms of police misconduct that involves undue violence by police members. Widespread police brutality exists in many countries and territories, even those that prosecute it. Although illegal, it can be performed under the color of law.” (1) With that being said we can conclude that police brutality can and will come in several different forms which most often times is verbal or physical. We also learn that it is usually expressed or placed upon races of the minority. Colin was fed up with the stories and reports of the black community being treated poorly. He was ready to start a movement that would hopefully make changes to that. And this is the way he decided to do just that.

It is often considered a tradition that people of all sports in the United States play the National Anthem before the game, usually placing their right hand over their heart as they sing along. That being said, Colin is not a player that does things because he has to. Colin is not a rule follower, in fact, he’s not a follower at all. He is a player that will do what he thinks is right even if people will look down upon him for it. He is a leader. He was fed up with the way people were being treated. He was tired of seeing police exercise their rights as an officer unjustly and inhumanely. Police Brutality is a problem that has been around for a long time. The history of police brutality goes as follows, “ Police brutality has historically been perpetrated against individuals in lower socioeconomic levels and the socially marginalized, commencing with worker strikes in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Police brutality was permitted against citizens who challenged big industries. Police brutality was used to oppress labor strikes. Also, police would brutalize working-class people and arrest them without cause. Police brutality was also a common occurrence during the civil rights era when activists would be sprayed down with water hoses and attacked by police dogs.”(2) This clearly shows us that not only is police brutality a problem, but that it has been for a long time and still it is without an absolute solution. Colin believes that we have not searched hard enough for this solution. Solutions can come in many ways, shapes, and forms. They may come in the most unexpected of times which means we the people have to stay ready to pounce at even the slightest chance for change for the better. There is a significant problem with the way people are racist deep down at their core. And that problem is one that will not go away easily. The racism is so far deep down in their roots and this is no surprise because it is simply the way they were raised. That is a problem that we have searched for the solution to long and hard, and still, are nowhere near close to finding the solution. But once we get over this racism, we still have the fact that some people are violent to their very core. They are aggressive and are not afraid to place this aggression on anyone. We must put these cops away and make sure they are never put in this position ever again. A position where many things slide; a position where few things will raise suspicion. A position where you can hit and sometimes even kill someone without seeing any jail time.

With that said, we still do not know how much this affects us today. In modern times, Police Brutality has run ramped. A recent event that involves this police brutality would be, “Race was suspected to play a role in the shooting of Michael Brown in 2014. Brown was an unarmed 18-year-old African American who was shot by Darren Wilson, a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri after Brown attacked the officer, tried to grab his gun, and came back toward him. The predominantly black city erupted after the shooting. Riots following the shooting generated much debate about the treatment of African-Americans by law enforcement towards him. The predominantly black city erupted after the shooting. Riots Following the shooting generated much debate about the treatment of African-Americans by law enforcement.”(3) This simply shows us that police brutality is very real and needs to be stopped. I do believe certain people might overreact to certain things, but there is always some truth when you look deeper. If that man was white would he have been shot? If he was the President’s son, would he have been shot? The answer is no, he would not have been. How can we say that all men are created equal and then not live by this? This was just one of the problems Colin was trying to bring to the surface.

Colin also wanted to show that he has the freedom to kneel during the national anthem. The Bill of Rights is a good way to show you these rights upfront that Colin was proving he could use.

“Amendment 1

– Freedom of Religion, Speech, and the Press

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 5

– Protection of Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property

No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Amendment 9

– Other Rights Kept by the People

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”(4) Although there are many more amendments, these were the rights that Colin was showing he was willing and able to use. Colin was infuriated by the way minorities were being treated. He wanted to show that he was not okay with it. ‘I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,’ Kaepernick told NFL Media in an exclusive interview after the game. ‘To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.'(5) This clearly shows how upset Colin was. He wanted to make a change to the way these people were being treated and decided to make influence it. His being this famous NFL player gave him a chance to make a huge statement because he knew so many people would be witness to this kneel. With that being said there is still one more reason that Colin took his seat during the National Anthem. Colin was upset with the policies United States President, Donald Trump was putting on the nation. One of these policies, “foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration includes a focus on security, by fighting terrorists abroad and strengthening border defenses and immigration controls.”(6) Colin Kaepernick knew there would be opposition to this specific kneel. He knew that people around the world would react very differently to his actions. What he did not know was that he would lose his job and become a free agent for years following the kneel. “ Kaepernick, who played in Super Bowl XLVII for the San Francisco 49ers in 2013, lost his job in 2016 after taking a knee during the national anthem to protest racial injustice in America, sparking the controversial #TakeAKnee movement(7) Colin will most likely never see the field ever again and even if he does, he has missed some of the most valuable time of his career because he decided to stand up for what he thought to be right. The one thing that Colin could take away from this is that he had started a movement. This movement was named the #takeaknee movement. This caught the attention of the public and soon some of his own teammates started taking a knee with him. Colin had started something that was starting to catch on and soon even players from a variety of teams started taking a knee following in Colin’s lead. I believe we need more people like Colin, people who are not afraid of what will happen, people who will always stand for what they want, and people who are actually willing to make a difference. But I do not believe that Colin did this the right way. Colin needed to make his opposition clear. He needed to be more sophisticated in what he was upset with. When I first heard that someone had taken a seat during the National Anthem I was extremely upset. I thought he was bringing down our military when really this had nothing to do with the military. He was not upset with the military, he was upset with the way that minorities were being treated. If he would have made this clear, more people would have agreed with him and more people would still have respect for him. Sadly, people took this kneel as an insult to the country. When Colin took this knee at an NFL football game he was continuously booed every time he took the field. He also wore socks that had police officers looking like pigs showing how corrupt he truly believed them to be. But when it comes down to it, I believe that Colin did not do the right thing. We as Americans must be proud of our nation even if we don’t agree on all the rules and regulations. People have fought hard for this country and even though it isn’t perfect, it is worth standing for. Colin disrespected everything we as Americans value when he decided to not stand for our anthem. One of Collins’s teammates says, “People fought and died for our country. They did that so we would have the right to do what we did: speak out against wrong things and try to change them,” Reid said. “It hurts that the message has been totally twisted and that Colin, who helped get us [the movement] going for all the right reasons, and who has put up his own money and done so much to help people in different ways, is being called a radical. They’re saying he’s un-American and worse. What we have to do now is keep reinforcing what the protest is really about. We have to get back to that.” Now more than ever.”(8) And I would agree with Reid to a certain extent, but I do not agree that Colin did this in the best way that he could. When you sit down for the national anthem that disrespects everything that the country stands for. That shows that you don’t care what the people of this nation have fought for. It shows that he couldn’t care less about this country. Colin had a good reason to make an effort to try and help with the problems he was seeing. But the way that he did it is not okay and will never be okay. Colin is doing the right thing by spreading out his money and trying to make a difference, so I have respect for him for that reason.

In conclusion, we must understand that life is all about making a change, but we have to make a change in the right way. When we desire a new way of life we must strive for it and try with all we have to make this happen. This is what makes America so great. We are all different with very different opinions. We have different ways that we see things, but we must stand together as one. We must never disrespect the lost lives trying to make a better life for us. We must never forget our fallen soldiers and what these people have done for us. At the end of the day, when we are all on our deathbeds. It isn’t going to matter how much money you have, but more about the impact that we put on the world. This is our legacy, the only thing that stays when our souls move on.

Throughout the existence of humans there seems to never be an absence of some form of religion, but also government: a ruling power over the people. It can easily be concluded that these codifications went hand in hand. In his book Democracy in America (1835), Alexis De Tocqueville suggests that America’s equality and political freedom is an outcome of religion. He asserts that without the influences of religion, democracy could not properly function. Tocqueville’s argument for the importance of religion and democracy is what attributes to create a harmonious balance between political freedom and liberty. Without this equilibrium, democracy would ultimately struggle and be threatened with extreme religious bigotry, tyranny, and materialistic desires amongst Americans. This would be a result of the absence of morality and how it restricts absolute power. Tocqueville emphasizes the importance of religion and how it introduces institutional organization and how without religion, a sort of chaos would occur; worrying how a religious decline could take place and ways to accommodate such. Tocqueville’s Democracy in America expresses his obsession with how America is the golden standard for democracy and how religion is a key component to paving the way to political liberty and true equality.

In the nineteenth century the main religion in France was Catholicism, the french at the time believed that the church and its teachings had no place in democracy. On the other hand, Toqcueville thought that the teachings and moral character presented with religion benefited democracy believing that “The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law and the surest pledge of freedom”(62). Through his findings and observations while in America, Tocqueville became more and more curious as to the dynamic ability America had to sustain such a relation of religion and democracy. Being not only an aristocrat but also a devout Catholic intrigued him on such an idea. He would later conclude that religion was necessary in order to have a prosperous democracy.

The first thing Tocqueville points out early in his essays were two ideas that help society understand freedom. The first excerpt from Democracy in America being “… America religion is the road to knowledge, and the observance of the divine laws leads man to civil freedom.” (60) and the second “Religion perceives that civil liberty affords a noble exercise to the faculties of man, and that the political world is a field prepared by the Creator for the efforts of the intelligence.” (62). With introducing these ideas early in his essay, Tocqueville is able to show the progressive ideas of community and how religion is a proponent and almost a natural quality of democracy.

Tocqueville warns of the dangers that behold in a decline to religion in America; how such a decline could put democracy in peril. The author initiates this thought with the idea of individualism and how individualism would give way to materialism. Tocqueville warns that since Americans, unlike aristocrats who are born into a social class, can easily be controlled with materialistic things. He asserts that due to religion causing morality and preventing Americans from becoming self centered they rather strive for the improvement and preservation of the collective. In sense he claims that religion prevents individualism which degenerates political freedom and equality. “Religion, then, is simply another form of hope; and it is no less natural to the human heart than hope itself. Men cannot abandon their religious faith without a kind of aberration of intellect, and a sort of violent distortion of their true natures (religion being a permanent attribute to humans)” (341). Toqcueville also hints that if a religious decline were to occur it would also threaten democracy in America. Where a society would have religious bigotry as a result of an emerging materialistic society. Religion in America is a means of fellowship, a bond that people carry, a sense of commonality. Since Tocqueville claims that there will be a decrease in religion and an increase of “individuals”, people will have negative views towards religion and spawn a society of hate and disruption. A division amongst the people, “separated the rich from the poor… the greater is their mutual hatred, and the more vehement the envy and the dread with which they resist each other’s claims to power” (20). Tocqueville suggests that bigotry is destined for religion and as an outcome of this, American equality will suffer due to the inability to cohabitate without hatred. But, Tocqueville also suggests that religion is an aspect of society and the government will succumb to tyranny due to the lack of morality. Tocqueville states that, “when the religion of a people is destroyed, doubt gets hold of the highest portions of the intellect… despairing of ever resolving by himself the hardest problems of the destiny of man… relax the springs of the will, and prepare a people for servitude… allow their freedom to be wrested from them; they frequently themselves surrender it” (505). These unfavorable consequences would result in tyranny of the masses. A decline or loss of religion would ultimately cause Americans to lose their freedom.

Alexis De Tocqueville believes America’s democratic example can provide lessons to be learned by France that would result in a multitude of benefits. He also believes that American’s not only provide democratic examples but religious cultural examples. A particular example that Tocqueville thinks France could adapt is the unique relationship that religion and democracy share; the influence of mores and the bond to freedom and liberty through American Culture.

Religion is an important for understanding democracy according to Tocqueville because it restrains excessive individualism. Tocqueville felt that the best way to counter individualism was through religion. Religion has taught people that there are more things in life besides money. Tocqueville wanted to pursue and renew the American knowledge of religion to contribution to independence. Tocqueville argues that modern democratic freedom industrialized as an outcome of Christianity’s impact of the European cultivation, and more predominantly as an effect of the Puritanism’s impact on the American cultivation. The relation of these two is not accidental. To have political freedom one needs an imperturbable ethical footing that solely religion can offer. A democracy adopts to logical and ethical behaviors that can be unfavorable to liberty. The American Christianity functions as a counteractive to these dangerous democratic predispositions.

In Democracy of America Tocqueville reminds us of somethings we tend to forget now is the liberty we value relies on religious fundamentals. Also, Christianity in today’s world doesn’t carry the public ethical authority that it once held in the 1830s. In America today the religion is more distinctive from America that Tocqueville knew. Tocqueville reminds us of something we have a habit of overlooking. That is the freedom we value relies upon religion footing. Christianity helped effect the republic we still have today. Tocqueville then stresses the upsurge from his time of fairness as both an impression and social component. Instead it is the characteristic, “In which direction we cast a glance, we perceive the same revolution continuing in all the Christians universe” and “No one can say; for we already lack terms for comparison: conditions are more equal among Christians in our day than they have ever been in any time or any country in the world.”[footnoteRef:1] Without these religious foundations today’s democracy could have not developed. Tocqueville talks about the historical growth of equality as both an idea and as a social element. Tocqueville teaching is to be prompted of how much of America has transformed since he observed it. [1: Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, tans. Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), pp. 6]

With the growth of equality, Tocqueville states this cause both Christianity’s impact on civilization’s foundation’s and by its logical influences. The first instinct of this began with the start of the Christian clergy into an aristocratic society. With this aristocratic society which officially had been separated between the few inherited rulers and many who followed. The clergy he states, “opens its rank to all, to poor and the rich, to the commoner and to the lord; equality begins to penetrate through the church to the heart of government, and he who would have vegetated as a serf in eternal slavery takes his place as a priest in the midst of nobles, and will often take a seat above kings.”[footnoteRef:2] Tocqueville contributes Christianity’s impacts on humanity’s creations and its logical impacts. Which initial occurred with the start of the Christian clergy into an aristocratic society. This had been divided between few inherited monarchs and the many who followed. [2: Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, tans. Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), pp. 4]

Tocqueville explains that Christianity is a religious fairness that purpose to humanity thoughts of a kind o partisan equality and logical impact as well. Tocqueville says, “Christianity, which has rendered all men equal before God, will not be loath to see all citizens equal before the law.”[footnoteRef:3] The Christianity influences in this statement might appear unessential to the contemporary human beings, but we impulsively have trust in equality before the law. We’re not likely to appreciate a region that progresses spirituality providing to the impression of fairness. [3: Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, tans. Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), pp. 11]

The English Puritanism influenced the birth of American republic we have. The vital groundwork laid by the Pilgrims is the American trail in independence. “America is the only country where one has been able to witness the natural and tranquil development of society, and where it has been possible to specify the influence exerted by the point of departure of the future states.[footnoteRef:4] America cultivated from a specific point of departure, a partisan and social state that circumstances all that come after. The northern settlements provided this point of parting from family a place they once called home. Tocqueville states that the reason for the move was, “New England’s principle spread at first to the neighboring states; later, they gradually won out in the most distant, and in the end, if I can express myself so, they penetrated the entire confederation.”[footnoteRef:5] Tocqueville feels American republic owes its birth to the inspirations of Christianity pf the English Puritanism. Tocqueville feels that the English Puritans laid the important groundwork for America’s trial in self-governance. [4: Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, tans. Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), pp. 28] [5: Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, tans. Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), pp. 33-32]

Religion was one of the main reasons for northern settlers’ movement to the “New World.” These people left behind a comfortable place to deal with the hardships of America wasteland. They made this detriment decisions because, “…they tore themselves away from the sweetness of their native country to obey a purely intellectual need; exposing themselves to the inevitable miseries of exile, they wanted to make ideas triumph.”[footnoteRef:6] This idea was their origin of creating Christianity. It also was a way for them to establish the Christian community. [6: Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, tans. Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), pp. 32]

Tocqueville believed that church and state needed to be separated people who only cared about material possessions would sacrifice their political freedom. They are willing to do this because if it has a slight interference with making a living or becoming uninterested towards their communities. People will only think of themselves and their families. Tocqueville called this individualism and to contest this you need religion. With religion it taught people things that are more important things in life besides money and other material things. This brought forth people to look up from their trivial ways of life they were living and aim for a higher goal. Although, Tocqueville was a big supporter of separations of Church and State. He’s also a strong supporter of practicing religion.

Tocqueville helps resolving the risk of religious extremism. Tocqueville feared that in a materialistic culture a small number of individuals would respond in antipathy against what they were seeing around them. This would create a religious fundamentalist and adapt life-threatening views. Tocqueville shows us that the right kind of religion is essential to humans succeeding within a republic. Tocqueville doesn’t feel like religion is over because of the uprising of a republic. Tocqueville hopes that religion could be the stepping stone for the preservation of a republic.

Over the years we as a nation have lost the ability to see the constructive contributions that region has offered us in forming and supporting the democracy we have today. We have overlooked that religion that still holds significance to our political life. We are reminded of this by the ongoing debates about the appropriate choice of religious freedom. With these debates still ongoing we treat religion privately instead of publicly. This then becomes a fear of how much liberty people should have in utilizing their religious beliefs. Although we debate on this subject it does little to refresh our memory on how religious conviction could attribute as a uniting communal power and a set of mutual vies that are vital to keeping our democratic ways of life.

Marx vs. Tocqueville: Solution to Alienation and Individualism

Both Marx and Tocqueville have theorized about community, as well as the implications of the absence of community. The two sociologists have come up with solutions to gain community in order to avoid the opposite, in Marx’s case: alienation, and in Tocqueville’s case: individualism. When looking at both theorists, an important question arises: which solution would be more effective, in order to gain community? In this paper, I will argue that in order to gain community through labor, Tocquville’s proposal of voluntary associations is more effective than Marx’s proposal of the abolishment of private property. I will compare and contrast Marx’s and Tocqueville’s solution in relation to two types of alienation that Marx proposes in Alienated Labor: the alienation between a worker and their work, as well as the alienation between a worker and other workers. I will then conclude the paper with the importance of this comparison in relation to contemporary labor.

Marx argues that under a capitalistic economy, labor becomes alienated for the worker because as they continue to work in an advanced division of labor, the work becomes so repetitive, they become alienated from the physical task they are doing (Marx 6). Because of this, there is a loss of community for the worker. An effective solution to this would be what Toqueville proposes as voluntary associations in Democracy in America, rather than Marx’s proposal of the abolition of private property. Labour could still continue without the feeling of alienation with these types of associations. Individuals can form small groups, or communities with each other and would be able to exercise a simple division of labor, rather than an advanced division of labor that is exercised outside of these smaller groups. This would combat the feeling of individualism, as well as alienation because everyone would be able to share tasks that are not organized by the government, and would be able to expand their skills by not specializing in a specific area. This is a more effective solution to gaining community through labor, than Marx’s proposal of getting rid of private property because there would still be a large control on labor by the government, which allows individuals to still feel alienated. Marx states: “Thus private property is the result of the analysis of the concept of externalized labour, i.e. externalized man, alienated work, alienated life, alienated man.” (Marx 11). What Marx is arguing in this quote is that private property and alienated labor go hand-in-hand and that one always causes the other. Getting rid of private property would give the government full control on property, which gives them more ground to stand on, which Tocqueville argues goes hand-in-hand with individualism, the opposite of community. Overall, in order to create communities in relation to labor, voluntary associations are more effective, rather than getting rid of private property because voluntary associations get rid of individualism, which allows the government to have less control on citizens.

The second type of alienation of labor that would be solved more effectively using voluntary associations rather than abolishing private property is alienation from other workers. Marx describes that labor under capitalism involves alienation from other workers. Due to the advanced division of labor, workers feel as though they lose community because they are doing different tasks as everyone else, as well as have different interests than the owners. A way of getting rid of this individualism and alienation would be with voluntary association. Creating these smaller communities would again, allow individuals to feel less alienated from one another because they would be doing the same tasks, but it would also get rid of the harsh divide of social classes in relation to labor. In Democracy in America, Tocqueville states: “Is that just an accident, or is there really some necessary connection between associations and equality?… They would all therefore find themselves helpless if they did not learn to help each other voluntarily.” (Tocqueville 514). To unpack this quote, Tocqueville is referring to the associations he sees in the U.S., and how these associations are creating more equality in society. This shows that by using voluntary associations as a solution to alienation from workers to other workers, there is a stronger sense of community that is created because the strong divide of social classes would disappear. Though abolishing private property could have the same benefits in this case, there would be no relationship between workers that would create as strong of a sense of community, and the feeling of individualism could still be felt.

By using Tocqueville’s proposal of voluntary associations to create community as a solution to feeling alienated from labor under capitalism, rather than Marx’s proposal of abolishing private property, a stronger sense of community would be created, making it more effective. This is an important and relevant comparison to make because we are living in a capitalistic economy in Canada, and these feelings of alienation and individualism are still felt by workers today. Even though these theories were published years ago, they are still relevant to contemporary society and should continue to be discussed and considered.

Works Cited

1. de Tocqueville, Alexis. Why Democratic Nations Show a More Ardent and Enduring Love for Equality than for Liberty in Democracy in America. Harper and Row, 1969.
2. Marx, Karl. Alienated Labor, in Sociological Theory. Roxbury Publishing, 2003.