From WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, to
internet tragedy Aaron Swartz and the growing political and social controversy
over gun control, our founding fathers of the great United States of America seemed to
have failed to clarify what other unalienable human rights are we really
allowed by our government?
American concepts of
war being a beast unleashed as a last resort and objectives of achieving world
peace have been transformed into a perpetual political debate on who to go to
war with in the future. These are the dangerous crossroads that we all now
face. One wrong turn at this point and our symbolic dreams will become the
World's nightmare; whether they are a country, a state, or an individual.
–
Brian Thomas
Armstrong
American Ideology in Danger!
American Ideologies are being
split in two over several aspects of the founding fathers of our countries true
definitions of what rights should be afforded the general population of
American society. When and how far to
take those rights before risking harm to that society is the dilemma we are all
facing today.
Several modern political debates
of these said rights have been appearing in issues such as gun control,
governmental prosecutorial overreach, web and copyright laws to torture and
drone attacks overseas. What constitutes an ‘Enemy of the State’ and what
rights should we afford our so called “enemies overseas,” and to what extent we
are willing to go to in order to protect and uphold the rights of our also so
called “allies,” remains a prominent subject for heated debate in our country.
The Declaration of Independence
states that,” We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights,
that among these rights are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
Unfortunately the Declaration of
Independence failed to clarify just what all those other unalienable rights
were that the pursuit was among. As usual with American political ideological
debate these questions pose even more questions than they provide answers to.
This lack of clarity on the
documents part has created a division of ideologies right down the middle,
causing democracy to fall out of balance even though it is split equally.
This has been seen in the latest
social debates on whistle-blowers and what punishment should fit the crimes of
both the offending parties, and as is lately often the case, the legal
liabilities of the whistle blower.
Do those unalienable rights
extend to all people as to how much whistle blowing in federal government shall
be allowed without endangering national security? If these rights are
restricted are we still practicing democracy in the true form it was meant to
be practiced in?
From the modern controversies of
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange releasing received classified documents on the
World Wide Web, to the tragic death of RSS and Reddit genius Aaron Swartz. We
are made more aware everyday of the need to reassess who the real enemies are.
When this promising and intelligent computer wiz was found hanging dead in his
home from apparent suicide after legal troubles with the federal government,
and his illegal downloading charges that could have sent him away to federal
prison for thirty – five years, obviously and adversely tossed even poor Aaron
Swartz for a loop, many Americans, not to mention watchers of the world felt
the strong influence of potential governmental American prosecutorial overreach
in Swartz’s death.
With so many questions being
opened up these days for society to ponder about what all people’s inalienable
rights around the world should be, and how our American Ideologies effect the
modern world, we must start to wonder if our society still understands what our
forefathers interpretations of those inalienable human rights are, and how they
should be administered in our modern social political world.
The modern American internal
debate about how the public's constitutional rights at home should be
distributed democratically, has put into perspective the urgency of the
situation to clarify these concepts of “Creator Given” rights and human
freedoms of choice.
Before these vague modern interpretations
turn even further into more public apathy, and then unfortunately to dictatorship
by public inaction, our clearly set standard of patriotic ideals obviously has
failed to be good enough.
The Declaration of Independence
also states that if these rights should be grossly overlooked by their
governing bodies, and said valid grievances be totally overlooked by the
peoples government, and that government does so to the extent that it is
destructive to the people it is supposed to represent, the people have the
unalienable right to abolish said government and organize a new government
based on principles and ideals that will most likely lead to societies return
to safety and happiness.
This interpretation of the
Declaration of Independence was somewhat paraphrased but was put into slightly
more modern terms as well. The biggest mystery in this debate of rights and
original American ideologies is what constitutes sufficient grounds for
revolting against your government, and more importantly what level of rights
should be safely afforded the public without interfering or endangering
national security.
To try to define democratic
ideology as one single entity of sustainable self-rule is like trying to define
human nature as one single set aspect of humanity; both are limitless with
possibilities. If you pick up a standard college textbook such as “Political
Ideologies and Democratic Ideal” Their interpretation of “Ideology” defines it
as “a fairly coherent and comprehensive set of ideals that explains and
evaluates social conditions, helps people understand their place in society,
and provides a program for social and political action.” This promising ideology
cannot be accomplished by a numb and apathetic modern democratic American
Society, this ideological dream can only be accomplished by an educated and
informed society with clear ideals formed by innovative progressive public debate
and action on the most important and sometimes neglected and under-appreciated unalienable
human rights; the rights our forefathers promised us.
