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. 😮

Blog #3 Wait, What Are We Arguing About?!

Before you start an argument, you and your opponent have to agree.

That statement seems to go against everything we believe about arguments. We think of agreement as not having any part in an argument, but it actually does. In order to have an argument, people need to agree on something called the "primary standpoint." This essentially means that people need be in agreement on what they are going to argue about.

That's obvious, though....isn't it?

Well, in "Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With Logic" Rebecca Jones points out that people often think they are arguing about the same topic, when in reality they aren't. She gives the example that one party may be arguing about voting on health care, while then other is discussing problems with Medicaid. These topics both fall under the broad category of health care plans in America, but each party is approaching a different situation: voting vs. problems with a current plan.

This type of "argumentation"is a huge problem in today's media because it gets nothing done. NOTHING. When people cannot establish what it is that they disagree on, it's impossible to find a solution. This defeats the purpose of good argumentation and gives a bad example for what argumentation is supposed to look like. The media has immeasurable influence in America, so as long as they continue to follow this model of argumentation, citizens will have to be satisfied with heated debates that come to no real conclusion.

As another example of this issue, Jones highlights, "It is well known that arguing about abortion is nearly pointless as long as one side is arguing about the rights of the unborn and the other about the rights of women. These are two different starting points,"(175). This illustrates how it is not enough to just argue about a broad topic, such as abortion. To be productive you must agree on a starting point.

I came across this issue as a senior in high school during my U.S. Government and Politics course. Both parties were debating on the topic of the death penalty: should we keep it or get rid of it? The discussion lasted all class, but since no conclusion could be reached, the topic was tabled until the end of the semester. I didn't know it then, but what happened was that both parties did not agree on a starting point. My argument was based in the economic benefits of abolishing the death penalty, whereas my opponent was appealing to ethics to establish that murders should not have the rights to live. No wonder we couldn't find a solution.

If I could jump back in time and give myself a solution I would suggest this: understand what you and your opponent are arguing. Thoroughly. Come up with a singular statement to argue about (a starting point) and make that statement specific. Make sure you and your opponent agree on this one point. If you or an opponent gets sidetracked, take initiative and redirect the argument back to your agreed starting point. This solution will make for a productive argument where ultimately a solution can be reached.

Blog #2 The Dream, the Myth, the Legend....

Why do we believe in the American Dream?

For the longest time I thought the American Dream was simply the tried-and-true way to a successful life in America. Work hard, and you will reap the benefits. Isn't that how it works? I believed that the American Dream was rooted in factual cases of people who had stayed on the grind, and therefore been successful in their pursuits. But what I believed isn't entirely true. 

Not to say that there aren't real cases of people starting from nothing and achieving all theirs dreams, but these facts are not the main reason people believe so whole-heartedly in the American Dream. In the introduction to The American Dream in the 21st Century (2011), authors White and Hanson discuss how the American Dream is instilled in citizens beliefs the same way myths are. It states:

 "The fact is that the American Dream is deeply embedded in American mythology and in the consciousness of its citizens. That is exactly what gives the American Dream its staying power, even in times when it seems as though it should surely die," (7).

This section of the introduction is somewhat startling to someone who believed as I did before reading this anthology. White and Hanson are claiming that the American Dream is something we are taught to believe in, even though it is not always a reality. They present the idea that because it is a myth, Americans are devoted to it more than ever in situations where the dream seems most unachievable. This analysis shatters my belief that the roots of the American Dream were based of evidence. However, the positive side of what White and Hansen are saying is that people always have something to put faith in to, and that is why the American Dream is always kept alive. 

Despite my initial reaction to viewing the American Dream as a myth, I actually believe it is good thing. This way, people do not need to see evidence to believe in the dream. In fact, even when other's pursuits of the dream fail, another person's may be kept alive. When people try to convince you that your dreams aren't attainable through hard work, faith in the American Dream will help you persevere. 

I've heard people say to me, "It's not always about what you know, but who you know," and when I hear this my belief in the American Dream falters. The idea that I could study hard, be good at what I do, play by the rules, and yet still not reach my potential for success completely goes against the principles of the American Dream. 

However, I have always kept believing in it. That is why it's okay the American Dream is a myth. That does not mean you can't make it a reality. It just means it is important to have faith in it, even when it may not seem worth it.