As the protests continued they eventually put enough pressure on our government influencing them to bring our troops home, thus ending the United States’ involvement in Vietnam and releasing the Vietnamese from foreign colonial occupation. Many hippies joined forces with the Civil Rights Movement and believed that everyone was equal and that no one had the right to tell them otherwise. Hippies took part in
In the end he says that in order to have a balanced government the majority must agree on justice. The historical significance of this article is, during this time if no separation of powers or checks and balances were enforced the government would have collapsed. If the powers were not limited; with time a certain person would end democracy and bring forth once again a tyranny government. It is also important that the government was equal yet had power to control its people because if not there would be no type of
The Disdain of Total Equality Total equality may seem fair and justifiable in the eyes of some people, but in many cases it turns out to be little more than a form of oppression, in which a group of people limit the abilities of others. Throughout the story Vonnegut speaks of this necessity for equality and the means that the government goes to achieve it by using devices called ‘handicaps’; one example of this is George’s earpiece, “A buzzer sounded in George’s head. His thoughts fled in panic, like bandits from a burglar alarm.” Vonnegut’s simile here creates a sort of loud diction, which expresses the sheer discomfort invoked by these restraints on the person wearing them. The governing body in this society views this as the solution to a problem, one that happens to be relatively impossible to solve, this is how Vonnegut incorporates satire into his story. He is poking fun at the age old concept of ‘equality,’ one that has inspired wars and movements alike; he accomplishes this by creating a system to make everyone equal, a system that happens to be just as stupid as the idea of ‘total equality.’ Under this system equality is achieved, but it is at the cost of individual freedom and a society full of stupid people, this in-turn creates the situational irony found in the story.
This is partially due the idea that each country thinks it is superior and only one country can prevail as the superior nation. Citizens from both warring countries will rally together to aid their country to victory. The people of a nation will forget about things such as race, sex, and different political views. After the American Civil War, patriotism took on an entirely new meaning for blacks and other minorities. Patriotism now meant that one would not only die for his country, but also that the government would guarantee social, political, and racial equality (O’Leary 112).
Legistlative Branch was to make laws, the Executive Branch is to enforce the laws, and the Judicial Brance is to interpret the laws. The Consititution banned states from being completely independent from one another but still be able to have their rights in independence for the people. Though these branches had remanded in the plans, it also followed into the Constitution. This new government would allow for a republic to rule, where the people had the oppurtunity to voice for themselves and to be heard that would respectfully benefit everyone in the country, and not just the majority. Peple had feared the Constitution, as it could potentially threaten their rights and properties.
Wilson wanted borders to be returned to the least conflicting areas, and colonial subjects given a say in their government, and open and free trade for all. These ideas were indeed ideal for an ideal society, but coming straight out of a massively destructive global war, many people were not open to the idea of sovereignty for all. In a sense, Wilson’s ideas were too radical for the crowd. Conflicting opinions in the senate and in the public hindered
Do we still need to be alert in our pursuit of a more reasonable society? Well the supposedly civilian government has introduced reforms aiming for increased democratization and development, but the challenges are huge in a country characterized by serious and extensive human rights abuses. The international community has welcomed the changes and suspended most supports. Ongoing conflicts, weak institutions and corruption add to the risks. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial agreement and a color-blind society.
The freedom that we can enjoy in this country is the product of the founding fathers and all their efforts in the history of the United States to make this country a fair and just place to live for the American people. Throughout history our country has had its fair share of injustices as well as ratification of those injustices for the betterment of the moral in this country. Such movements such as the abolition of slavery. In the beginning of the formation in this country there were actions such as those that this country later acknowledged to be morally wrong and has changed them in its due time. There was always much opposition to any change as there always is.
How did it get to this point? A background in elitism according to Abramowitz stems from the ideology of self reliance and personal freedom. The main idea is that the individual is responsible for themselves in order to achieve the greatness that they desire. The main issue is that those who achieve restrict those who are not at their level from being heard. The counter to elitism are the theories of egalitarianism and populism, which are doctrines in which they support the rights and powers of the common people in their ongoing struggle with the political elitism, they believe that all people are equal.
Madison says that there is a paradox to government—on one hand, it should be of the people, to prevent government from becoming too unrepresentative and greedy, yet government is administered by all too human people, and elected by all too human people. ‘Splitting the difference’ seems to be the logical conclusion he arises at to remedy this paradox: “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflection on human nature?