Blog #10: Politics and the American Dream

Politicians are always trying to gain votes. They want to win elections. They want their policies but into law. But how do they appeal to us? In large part, they utilize the American Dream to influence us that they deserve our vote. My topic for essay #3 is the role of politicians in assessing and utilizing the American Dream.

My chapter from American Dream in the 21st Century is titled "The Politics of the American Dream, 1980 to 2008," which was written in 2011 by Professor of history Michael C. Kimmage. From this chapter I have learned that politicians use the American Dream as a source of power over the people, but in order to get that power they must evaluate and understand what their citizens need. In essence, they have to understand the citizens' version of the American Dream and from there they can appeal to what the citizens want. Kimmage splits the American Dream into the physics and metaphysics, meaning the physical aspirations (like owning a house) and the spiritual aspirations (like happiness). This distinction in parts of the American Dream helps to understand what Kimmage means when he says politicians have to assess the American Dream. This means one part of the American Dream is more likely to satisfy citizens and win votes based on the needs of the time period.

In addition to what I learned from Kimmage, I learned more from my other sources. Fisher's "Reaffirmation and Subversion of the American Dream" (1973), which we all know and love, taught me that Kimmage might not be correct that one version of the dream will apply to a specific time period, because Fisher claims that both versions of the dream coexist in politics. Fisher provides evidence for this by analyzing the rhetoric of Nixon and McGovern during their campaigns and comparing them to one another. This showed how each candidate embodied a versions of the dream, but they both were appealing to the citizens' needs.

I also learned from Professor of communication, rhetoric, and political science Martin J. Medhurst in his article "LBJ, Reagan, and the American Dream: Competing Visions of Liberty" that presidential candidates base their view of the American Dream on the word liberty, and that's what influences their campaign. While Medhurst supports this through compare and contrast of LBJ and Reagan's definition of liberty, I find it complicates both Fisher and Kimmage's claims that the candidate does not assess what the people want. Instead, suggests Medhurst, they promote and define their own version of liberty and the American Dream, which attracts voters based on how well they campaign.

Lastly, I learned a very interesting way that Obama used the American Dream through Robert C. Rowland and John M. Jones' article "One Dream: Barack Obama, Race, and the American Dream" (2011). In this article it presents the claim that Obama assessed citizens' main problem during his campaign, racial disparity, and instead of directly addressing a solution, he focused on the American Dream as a way to overcome this problem. Through the use of the American Dream, Obama was able to inspire citizens that by focusing on making the American Dream achievable for everyone, the could overcome racial boundaries.

By synthesizing these sources and all the information I've learned about the role of politicians in assessing and utilizing the American Dream, I have come to my own conclusions. Politicians, in order to be effective, must know the issues that plague society during their campaign, as well as what the citizens' want to hear will fix them. I've seen this from Kimmage as well as Rowland and Jones. Also, politicians have choices of how to approach the American Dream, just like all of these authors present, but I do not think that one way is considered the right way. I come to this conclusion by looking at how different Obama's use of the American Dream was in politics compared to past politicians, and how successful he was in bringing the nation together.

Because citizens will always have new problems and new American Dreams, politicians will continue to use the American Dream in unique ways to wins voters and help guide the nation.

Blog #9: The American Dream Changes, but Never Dies

As college students, we often have simple American Dreams for the time being. Our idea of living the good life is often having enough money for food and going out on the weekends, sleeping until we aren't tired anymore, and passing our classes. But what comes next? When we graduate and launch into our careers, how will our dreams change? Maybe we think we will buy nice houses and fancy cars, or go shopping and be able to buy whatever we want. In reality we will probably not be dreaming of these things. As discussed in John Zogby's chapter in The American Dream in the 21st Century, "Want Meets Necessity in the New American Dream", we will probably find ourselves having less lavish dreams such as making rent, car payments, having food, and other things we need to live.

In this chapter, Zogby talks about the American Dream changing over the years to be more focused on necessities in life, and the reasons for this change. He also explores the idea of Secular Spiritualism, a term used to describe people who believe the American Dream can be fulfilled spiritually instead of materialistically, and how this change from "wants" to "necessities" doesn't have to be a negative view of the American Dream. He evaluates this by looking at people's beliefs based on generational differences.

The claim that stands out the most to me is Zogby's claim that the whole world is changing, there is less money to spend on leisurely goods, therefore the American Dream must adapt, but never die. He first supports this claim with some shocking statistics that in a poll taken by Zogby and his wife in 1987, 21 percent of people said they have gone a whole 24 hours without eating food, and 6.8 percent of these people where middle class Americans! This draws an interesting conclusion that back then, people would rather give up a basic need, food, than adjust their lifestyle. But why would they have to give up food? What changed? Zogby states that "In 1990 one in seven people nationwide reported earning less than they once did"(106). At this time, people seem less willing to adapt the dreams, but as we look forward into new generations, that outlook will change.

Since 1990, people generationally have had less money to live on, which has paved the way for Secular Spiritualism. Why did people all of sudden start believing in the American Dream as a spiritual idea? Interestingly, Zogby proposes that it happened gradually, explaining that those who were once angry about earning less money adapted and accepted new, reduced expectations (Zogby 108). This change happened over generations, all the way from Baby Boomers to us. But why doesn't  this pose a generally negative view of the American Dream or show that the American Dream is dying? I believe that it is because as time goes on, people don't know any different. We have no concept of once having more money than we do, because we weren't alive and working all those years ago to be experiencing it. We base our dreams on not only what is somewhat reasonable for the current economy and job that we want, but what we want out of life. Happiness, love, compassion, faith, security, and more. Zogby explains that a lot of this has to do with generations becoming more open minded and tolerant as time goes on. That's why this change to Secular Spiritualism grows over generations as values change to reflect the state of the world, and why it doesn't give people
a negative view of the American Dream, just a different one than generations past.

Blog #8: Morals or Money? You Choose.

When we look at the American Dream as applicable to each individual, there are infinite meanings to what each person's dream is. It could be to own a car, or own a house. Maybe it means getting an education or or the right to vote. These dreams are unique, but as Walter R. Fisher asserts in his article, Reaffirmation and Subversion of the American Dream, there is a dichotomy between two general versions of the American Dream: materialistic and moralistic.

Fisher explains that this dichotomy was utilized during the 1972 election by Richard Nixon and George McGovern. Nixon represented the materialistic view of the dream, while McGovern represented the moralistic view. They based their campaigns off of their respective views, and this dichotomy was present throughout the election. In order to win the election, Fisher claims that, "...one can not merely reaffirm [their position], one must also subvert the position of one's opponent,"(120), meaning that they had to convince Americans that their view of the dream was possible and just, while the other's was unattainable or wrong. Fisher supports this claim by inserting quotes from speeches of both candidates that attack the other. Nixon attacks his opponent by claiming them to "irrational" and "unrealistic" while McGovern claimed that Nixon's ideals were manipulations that would destroy society as a whole.

This subversion of the American Dream can be seen not only in 1972, but also in 2017. We saw in the recent presidential election how Senator Bernie Sanders' views on healthcare were attacked by his opponents on the basis that they weren't realistic. In contrast, Sanders and his supporters views the abolishment of Obama Care and lack of universal health care immoral. Both sides not only supported their own ideas, but attacked their opponents based on whether their ideas were practical or moral.

Another claim Fisher makes is that people believe in both versions of the dream, whether they like it or not. This claim asserts that one version of the dream may be more consuming for a person, or they may believe in one version stronger than the other, but the other version is always there. For example, if you vote for someone who embodies the materialistic version of the dream, you may still have beliefs that that materialistic dream corrupts. Such as not wanting business regulations, but still believing that everyone deserves quality healthcare.

I can see this display of both dreams in 2017 by the way a lot of people feel about President Trump. I've talked to many people who voted for Trump based on his promise of more jobs and economic improvements. These people bought into the materialistic side of the American Dream that they want have money, opportunities, and not have to pay so much into systems that benefit others. However, these people have also expressed a morality issue with Trump's stance on immigrants, travel bans, and women's rights. This shows how even today people believe in both the materialistic version of the American Dream and the moralistic, but for better or worse, one does govern people's actions more than the other.

Blog #7: Don't Waste My Time

I have never been outside of the United States, seriously, not even to Tijuana or anything. So it's fair to say I haven't experienced other countries' way of life. Asking myself how I am different from other cultures is difficult to answer. Many Americans, not excluding myself, seem to think of their behavior and values as somewhat universal. This is not true at all! After reading Gary Althen's "American Values and Assumptions" I can see how these values are relevant to my life, and am interested that America's values are actually very different from many other cultures.

Individualism is the first quality that Althen discusses, and this is something I can definitely see within my family. When my older sister graduated high school, she didn't really go to college. She wasn't sure what she wanted to do with her life yet, but she did know one thing: she had a burning desire to get out of our parents' house and live on her own. By the time I was even half way through my next year of school she had been working a full time job, saved up money, and rented a house out with three other people. Paying rent, utilities, food, gas, and living expenses was a huge financial burden on her. Instead of saving her money by living at home, she moved out and had to struggle and work hard simply because her sense of individualism was so strong, she felt like being 18 years old meant it was time to move out, no matter the cost.

Another value that Althen discusses is competitiveness. Althen describes, "...Americans naturally see themselves as being in competition with others. Competitiveness persuades the society,"(7). I see this value in my life from playing sports, academic rankings, and or even just playing board games. However, this quality doesn't really apply to me. A large part of the reason I chose to stop playing sports was because I did not have the competitive nature in me to be the best, and I had a hard time understanding my teammates in that way. Similarly, I never cared about class ranking as long as I knew I was doing my best work, but nearly all of my friends were always stressed about stayin
g in the top twenty rankings. I never see myself in competition with others, it just is not one of my values. I value pushing myself to do the best that I can in all of my pursuits without feeling like my work is somehow beneath or above someone else's.

One of the American values that I can wholeheartedly relate to is American's view on time. Sometimes I hate that I think of time as a resource, because it makes things harder to enjoy in the moment. For example, if I know I an only watch TV for an hour until I have to do homework, it's hard to enjoy what I'm watching and not ask myself why I'm even watching TV at all when I could be doing homework. Similarly, I'll ask myself "is this a waste of time?" when I'm reading, or face timing my friends. As an American, I value time and don't want to "waste" it, but I constantly remind myself that doing things that I enjoy is not a waste of time. Like many other Americans, I feel like not being productive with my time results in a waste of a valuable resource.

Blog #6: They Really Were Preparing Me For College.... Who Knew?!

This might be the most helpful thing I've ever read in school.

In Teresa Thonney's Teaching the Conventions of Academic Discourse, she is upfront about the problems with first-year college student writing. But not only that- she describes how to fix them! Teachers are her primary audience, not students like you and me, but this makes the writing much more valuable. 

She clearly breaks down why first-year students struggle with writing, where they go wrong in academic writing, and what tools teachers can equip them with the fix these problems. Her language is very academic,  but the overall piece is easy to understand because she breaks it down to six main issues. 

The way the journal was split up was the most enjoyable part for me. Of course it was, because it was simpler to understand and although I am not her primary audience, it appeals to me. By breaking the piece into six common problems and their solutions, it made the piece friendlier to the audience and seems like a check list for students like me. When I write my next essay, I can go through the six steps and see what I can improve. It is also beneficial to other scholars because they can base their teachings off of her organized six step approach.

The one thing that definitely doesn't appeal to me: all the citation. I see how the citation would appeal to other scholars: it is appropriately done and adds a lot of credibility to her main points. But for me, it made the reading harder to get through and it was hard to focus on specific examples. 

One point that Thonney makes that stands out to me is when she says, "Some composition instructors want students to avoid statements of purpose that begin 'In this paper' and to avoid 'blueprint' statements,"(CR 47). This is the opposite of instruction I have been given in the past. In fact, I had many AP teachers who would hammer home the idea of the statement of purpose and blueprint, they even used those exact terms. Thonney concludes that section by explaining why this IS an important skill for writers; she explains that teachers read so many papers so quickly, that being clear and having direction will make it more likely that the student will get a higher grade. My AP teachers would always always always tell me this, and I believe it helped me pass many of my AP tests. At the time, I thought it was so annoying how my teachers would make us practice blueprints and statements of purpose over and over again, but now I'm grateful and understand that they were helping prepare me for college. Thanks AP teachers!

Blog #5: There's Always Strength In Numbers, and The Masters Know It

Who cares about other people? You should only care about yourself and what benefits you- at least that's what the masters want you to do.

In Chomsky's Requiem For the American Dream he claims that the masters of mankind are actively trying to dismantle any solidarity among Americans. He goes as far as to title his fifth principle "Attack Solidarity." This adds to Chomsky's overarching argument that the American Dream is dead because it explains how the masters are trying to dismantle programs that allow the public a chance to better their situation in life.

Chomsky builds his argument by using Social Security as an example. He explains how Social Security works to benefit the public, and the "crisis" that everybody focuses on with Social Security is simply a way for the masters to destroy the program. He cites the Social Security Act of 1935 to strengthen his argument and allow the reader to look at what the Social Security Act is truly about, not just trust his opinion. Once Social Security is defunded, the system won't work and privatized companies can swoop in and profit. It all circles back to the vile maxim; people want what is best for them, not the public.

Next, Chomsky goes in depth on the destruction of public education. He compares public education in the '50s and '60s with public education today in order to highlight a startling observation: "In the 1950s, it was a much poorer society than it is today but, nevertheless, it could easily handle essentially free mass higher education,"(68). Chomsky relates to his audience by using personal experience of himself achieving higher education, at an Ivy League school, for virtually no cost. This personal account makes a huge impact when he compares it to today's problems with student debt. It appeals to both ethos and pathos by making the reader trust Chomsky due to his concern for students, and making the students angry towards a system that is supposed to help them learn and achieve their dreams.

Lastly, Chomsky evaluates the issue of joblessness in America. He breaks down how the masters want us to focus on our country's deficit, when joblessness is what matters to the public. If we were to put our workforce and resources to use, the public and the economy would be better off. Instead, the masters want to focus on themselves, not the betterment of the country, and they want Americans to sit back and watch. It's working, and our school systems and public programs are being destroyed. This evaluation appeals to logos in the way the Chomsky explains and clearly breaks down a complex and hidden plan that the masters have in place.

He calls out to his audience in the end of this chapter to realize that the outrageous price of higher education in American is a choice made by the masters. It is preventing people from reaching their dreams, thus adding to the argument that the American Dream is altogether dead. He evokes feelings of betrayal and frustration so that his audience will want to be active and change the course of this vicious cycle.

Blog #4: Is It Really That Bad?

The dream is over. Democracy is dangerous. There's a vicious cycle that hands over power to the wealthy. This is harmful, corrosive.

The above diction is just a fraction of the language used in Noam Chomsky's Requiem For The American Dream. This repetitive, alarming diction caught my attention and challenged my views of the American Dream. Chomsky intentionally uses these negative words and phrases to get his reader to understand his point of view, that the American Dream is dead and the state of our country will keep it that way.

Chomsky challenges my optimistic beliefs about the American Dream, and he uses solid evidence. Don't get me wrong, I don't think America is all rainbows and equality, but I still believe there are chances for ordinary people to achieve their dreams. Through references to James Madison's protection of the wealthy, the indoctrination of school children, and the insane prices of higher education (relatable am I right), Chomsky does a successful job in pointing out major obstacles to the American Dream. I have to say, I start to believe him that these obstacles cannot be overcome.

Something that stands out to me is Chomsky's argument that the structure of our political system is meant to keep the poor people poor and the rich people rich. He calls out the founding fathers by claiming, "...the structure of the system, it was designed to prevent the danger of democracy,"(3).  Chomsky then presents a two sided argument (Rebecca Jones would not approve) pitting Aristotle's and Madison's solutions of how to run a free democracy against one another. Aristotle claims the answer is to reduce inequality, while Madison asserts it is to reduce democracy. You and I know there are infinite more opinions than these two, so it is hard for me to believe Chomsky that Aristotle had the right idea. It is not enough to provide a this or that argument as evidence. I want some specifics! One way to reduce inequality would be to redistribute land. However, Madison is clearly concerned with land being protected. I'd like to see an argument not for or against these two ideas, but somewhat of a compromise.

Speaking of compromise, it is a new idea to me to view our structure of government as not being a compromise. All along in school I was taught that the idea behind the House of Representatives and Senate was to find a compromise. Represent states equally and by population. However Chomsky goes deeper and discusses how back in the day, most power was given to the Senate (which was made up of wealthy men), and this ultimately kept out the majority of the population's opinion. It makes me think that maybe all along there was no real compromise happening, and that everyone was just believing propaganda like the Federalist Papers.

Although Chomsky poses a depressing view of American politics, economy, and society, he hasn't convinced me that the American Dream is dead. He has planted seeds of doubt, but I still believe! Ask me again at the end of this book though... my opinion might change. 😮