Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Economic inequality in America
Political inequality in america essay
Political inequality in america essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Economic inequality in America
Mark Lilla’s essay “The End of Identity Liberalism” vehemently endorses a post-identity form of liberalism that focuses on the commonality of the American people, instead of the differences that set them apart. According to the author, the age of identity liberalism—remarkably known for the relentless efforts of groups advocating for equality such as the Black Lives Matter or the gay rights movement—needs to come to an end so that the needs of all Americans are effectively considered, regardless of a specific identity or special privilege that may originate from it. Although such vision attempts to justify the Trump’s win by acknowledging the harsh realities of the white-working and religious groups in rural areas across the country who felt …show more content…
ignored, Lilla’s argument understimates the collective struggle of groups whose historic representations have been conditioned by the white hegemony that shaped the history of the United States. Therefore, Lilla’s argument is, to a certain extent, acutely relevant in bringing to attention the oftentimes neglected and socio-economic divergent realities of low-income Americans living in rural areas, but at the same time mistaken in overlooking the efforts of many groups who have been incapable to comply with the standards and values that define what it means to be an “American” within the imposed hegemony. As a matter of fact, Lilla’s argument presents a persuasive tone but that is, based on his romanticized idealization of post-identify liberalism, fatally conditioned by the historically oppressive and exclusive status quo maintained by the whites—in this case, the whites in power, not the underrepresented whites from rural areas who supported Trump’s agenda.
Notably, Lilla’s idealization of a post-identity liberalism could be able to move the country forward in collaborative ways that may have never occurred before. This way, the needs of Americans coming from every walk of life would be noted equally. Realistically, however, this will hardly happen in the absence of a strong sense of integration among those who share the values of what it means to be an American. In this case, it seems that there is a significant problem in mapping out the set of American identities themselves as a single instrument for unification based on common values, mainly due to the fact that there are so many groups disputing for power. That being said, it is possible to infer that the construction of identity in the American case seems to be rooted in the use of political and economic power and the consequences they bring to the present …show more content…
day. In regards to the historical construction of diversity, Lilla seemingly ignores that the U.S.
is soon to become a minority-majority nation, which makes the discussion of diversity not a “fixation” as he calls it; instead, it is an essential urge to prioritize the debate on the importance of diversity as the new common ground between contemporary democracies around the world. In such an interconnected and globalized world where ideas and cultures are increasingly exchanged, the denial of importance of diversity in tackling the enduring issues of racism, sexism, xenophobia, and violence are, at the very least, erroneous. On the other hand, it is also necessary to highlight that there is a compelling component related to the economic struggles of the white working class in face of job losses due to globalization and the great recession, not necessarily due to the focus on “diversity.” Such anti-globalization movement suggests that poor and uneducated people fear the current political framework and are in dire need of a leader who is able to represent them. It is worth mentioning that this is not an isolated problem in the U.S.; in fact, it has been quickly spreading across Latin America and
Europe. In the introduction to the article, the author refers to the incorporation of different ethnic groups and faiths in the U.S. as an “extraordinary success story.” Undoubtedly, such statement carries a positive spirit that is unreal. Another incomplete point is rooted in Lilla’s argument that affirms that such fascination for “diversity drama” has turned the American liberalism into a “moral panic about racial, gender and sexual identity that has distorted liberalism’s message and prevented it from becoming a unifying force capable of governing.” Such unifying force is quite relative and depends on several stances since liberalism itself is not an incontestable ideology, but simply one that has best served the capitalist interests of the U.S. over history, which means the hegemony of power that often excludes other groups. Additionally, Lilla’s argument ignores the fact that what he calls “fixation on diversity” may also be seen as a reaction to the white hegemony. To a certain extent, such notion of simplification aimed at finding the American common ground for all in Lilla’s argument is self-refuting, as Scott Lemieux mentioned in the article “Is ‘identitly liberalism’, widespread on college campuses, to blame for Donald Trump’s rise?” By showing that two-thirds of white voters without college degrees and over 80 percent of white evangelicals, Lilla blames Hillary Clinton’s campaign for not including all groups in America; that is to say that many felt excluded. Likewise, many of the Americans who have no choice but to fall into the diversity rhetoric in order to strive for their American identity may have suffered since the foundation of the country. Having said that, there is a debate happening that refutes Lilla’s understanding of Clinton’s focus on minorities as “a strategic mistake.” The argument is that Clinton’s political campaign served mostly as a response to Trump’s convictions for progress, which partially justifies her focus on groups such as African-American, Latino, LGBT, and women. It seems reasonable to assume that Lilla’s call for a post-identity form of liberalism will not be feasible while minority groups are ostracized because of their color of their skin, their religious beliefs, their places of origins, or anything that sets them apart from privileged- or status-based power. By contrast, it is also an important time to remind ourselves that the economic divide that increasingly persists in the U.S. is alarming and will enlarge issues between different groups. As stated in Katherine Franke’s essay “Making White Supremacy Respectable Again,” discussions of identity, or better yet status-based power, does not preclude discussions of class, war, the economy of the common good. All things considered, Trump’s win should not be seen as a failure, but as an opportunity to rethink the economy of the United States in relation to other issues of representation and, consequently, diversity in the realm of globalization. The economic divergence will magnify issues of education among uneducated Americans who are oftentimes forgotten in rural areas. To put it another way, education is the key for a more equal and tolerant society that embraces differences—diversity, in fact, has potential to become a common ground value in the U.S. as in many countries around the world. Ultimately, it is also a key time to remember the real foundation of the American values trusts that, despite the differences, there still can be alliances in some way, with a shared vision or set of qualities that could still combine to create a distinct and unified whole. In the light of the presidential outcome, there should be now a closer and real understanding of the realities of Americans that are not represented by Hollywood, upper-class interests, or Ivy League-educated groups.
Smith introduces the concept of ascriptive inegalitarianism, which effectively brings to light the conditions in which the reality of political ideologies exist due to social preconceptions that are passed from one generation to the next about the “natural” superiority of one race, gender, religion, etc. Liberalism and republicanism exist and function within this realm, not allowing for their respective ideological potentials to be fully realized. Hereditary burdens are placed on minorities because of clashing of democratic liberalism and republicanism along with these systematic and cyclical discriminatory practices. When seen through the eyes of society and government, these systems are completely inescapable. Americans, through these ascriptive systems of multiple political traditions, struggle with the contradictions each idea presents against the other and as a society attempt to embrace the best qualities of each. These outlooks help explain why liberalizing efforts have failed when countered with supporting a new racial or gender order. The ascriptive tradition allows for intellectual and psychological validation for Americans to believe their personal and hereditary characteristics express an identity that has inherent importance in regards to the government, religion, and nature. This provides those who are a part of the white elite to dictate which features are the most desirable and holy, giving head to social conceptions like “white wages”, which make them inherently superior to all other races and cultures. These ideologies are institutionalized within all facets of American life such as causing evils like mass incarceration, wage gaps, and rising suicide
The ability for people to look at a situation from a different perspective is vital in today’s globalized society. Diversity is the most important core attribute we share that gives us a new perspective to assess situations differently through our diverse backgrounds and upbringings. Unlike Patrick J. Buchanan’s argument in his essay titled “Deconstructing America,” diversity is not a burden, but rather a necessity in America’s culture. Conversely, Fredrickson 's essay titled, “Models of American Ethnic Relations: A Historical Perspective,” illustrated a more precise version of American history that disproves Buchanan’s ethnocentric ideologies. Buchanan speaks of diversity as a narrow, one-way street. The imprecise interpretations of history
It is so difficult to stand out in everywhere. “There must be other Latinas like me. But I haven 't met any.” (Barrientos, Tanya p.65). Barrientos uses this article to share her struggles. She believes that if we face our problems such as race problem, we can overcome racial stereotypes. Author’s writings like a mental support encourage people to stand out. And they could influence people who have Latino community in the United States. If people feel that they are alone with their racial struggles, they should face that by themselves, but this article make them realize that they should speak up and support each other, sticking together in order to face and solve problems. Racial stereotypes cannot define citizens who do not have white skin and blue eyes, about who they are. And they, facing racial problem, will not judge other people because of their backgrounds and histories. In China, a part of officer is Embezzle money and engage in corrupt practices. People will look for other people. They will find other people not have a good reflect about telling low-office the corruption. Then, they will keep silence. If there are some guys to stand out and report the corruption event to law-office. Maybe they who stand out will lose money and social status, even go to prison, therefore, most people want to keep silence. People who keep silence is like the Latina people who do not stand out. It is an important determine for every Latina and
concerns racial equality in America. The myth of the “Melting Pot” is a farce within American society, which hinders Americans from facing societal equality issues at hand. Only when America decides to face the truth, that society is not equal, and delve into the reasons why such equality is a dream instead of reality. Will society be able to tackle suc...
This essay will discuss the intrinsic relationship between diversity conceptualization and social integration presenting a response against David Brooks’ essay entitled “People Like Us.” In order to do this I will discuss four crucial elements: the influences of different definitions of diversity in cultural unification, Brook’s ideas about social groups working together and social groups coexisting together, the importance of diversity, and the influence of diversity in social changes. I will examine why some people have the perception that our American society ignore or see as unworthy diversity. Thus, I will dispute Brook’s view stating that our society disregards diversity, and Americans just pretend that it is important to them.
Identity is primarily described primarily as what makes a person who they are. While it is seen as an individual asset, one’s identity can be shaped and persuaded not only by life experiences, but by society as well. Bryan Stevenson speaks on several controversial issues and proclaims certain societal problems and the typical behaviors noticed in response to them. How one approaches the issues that are spoken about may expose their true identity. Stevenson argues that how one reacts to racial inequality within the criminal justice system may regulate their identity. In addition to that, how dealing with the nation’s history may force a growth on one’s identity, eventually bringing peace and acceptance to the nation. Lastly, how one views the
In the words of Joseph Margulies, “National identity is not fixed, it is made.” Through the event of 9/11 our national identity has changed significantly. Before we dive into the now and the changed national identity, lets set a foundation of where national identity started. In the nineteenth century, Protestant Americans were incomparably dominate. It was argued that the Enlightenment and the Western intellectuals of the eighteenth century were still the foundation of national identity in the nineteenth century. However, from the writer, Samuel Huntington, the religious foundations of American society were based off the Anglo-Protestant heritage. (Page 24) On the other hand, in Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity, the author stated the American culture was dwindling Anglo-Protestant heritage. The original values were based off the Anglo-Protestant heritage included liberty, equality, individualism, democracy, and the rule of law under a constitution. Later in the nineteenth century, the European heritage grew and the ideas of individual freedom, political democracy, and human rights grew as well. (Page 19) The nineteenth century introduced the “well-being and integrity of the community and the virtuous citizen’s obligations to the community’s welfare (page 20).”
“Commitment to diversity is at best a distraction and at worst an essentially reactionary position that prevents us from putting equality at the center of the national agenda,” ()according to Walter Benn Michaels, in his 2004 essay, “The Trouble with Diversity.” Upon hearing the word 'diversity,' members of society may immediately think of race. and political correctness urges society to support racial diversity. According to many, celebrating diversity is the best way to combat societal inequality. This is because people are convinced that the differences that divide society are the results of racial prejudices. Michaels, however, feels that the biggest problem in America is not that of sexism or racism, but instead the increasing gap between the rich and the poor. So if the problem is actually in the economy... The fact that people re-describe economic inequality as racial inequality is counterproductive to equality because people are simply trying to solve a different problem. But how did the notion that what separates us is race even start?
There may be a thread or fundamental truth that runs through the entirety of American literature. From the earliest American writings to present day publications, American writers are almost always concerned with individual identities in relation to the larger national identity. Even before America won its independence from Britain, Americans struggled with this concept. Look at Jonathan Edwards’s Personal Narrative, written in 1739, or The Autobiography by Benjamin Franklin, written in 1791. Edwards is looking at his relationship to God, other Americans, and the land itself, wondering what is the best way to serve all three oft these entities. Franklin is attempting to create an identity for himself through his, almost assuredly exaggerated, life stories, while cultivating a new American identity for other to follow through his philosophies of success. Struggling with one’s identity within a larger national identity may be as American as apple pie.
Race and class are increasingly important in the world today; yet, few sources focus on the similarities of these issues at a regional or global level. Ideologies of race were used to justify colonialism, conquest and annihilation of non-European peoples, slavery, indentured labor, fascism and Nazism. Yet, a common impression among men and women of color is that race and class issues are unique to their own particular community. Still, it is only through awareness of how these issues affect different communities that a common bond and understanding can be developed across racial, ethnic, cultural and class barriers. Both governments and media present the image of an integrated, egalitarian society, which in reality contradicts racial discrimination, and class oppression that is exercised against various minority groups. In each `integrated' and `equal' society, racial and ethnic discrimination is directly related to economic and class issues. Since the period of merchant bankers and the British east India Company, modern capitalist forces have penetrated `developed' and `developing' societies by division and conquest. Capitalist countries and companies pursue profit motives by providing arms, money, patronage and privilege to leaders of some groups, on the one hand, while denying the vast majority of their land and resources, on the other. Each year new reports are published concerning individuals and their levels of income. If one was to look at a list of people ranked solely by yearly earnings in the entertainment industry, the list would surely be topped with such names as Oprah Winfrey, and Michael Jackson, as well as such sports figures as Magic Johnson and Michael Jordan. On the other hand, if...
As long as civilizations have been around, there has always been a group of oppressed people; today the crucial problem facing America happens to be the discrimination and oppression of Mexican immigrants. “Mexican Americans constitute the oldest Hispanic-origin population in the United States.”(57 Falcon) Today the population of Mexican’s in the United States is said to be about 10.9%, that’s about 34 million people according to the US Census Bureau in 2012. With this many people in the United States being of Mexican descent or origin, one would think that discrimination wouldn’t be a problem, however though the issue of Mexican immigrant oppression and discrimination has never been a more prevalent problem in the United States before now. As the need for resolve grows stronger with each movement and march, the examination of why these people are being discriminated against and oppressed becomes more crucial and important. Oppression and Anti-discrimination organizations such as the Freedom Socialist Organization believe that the problem of discrimination began when America conquered Mexican l...
When examining the concept of race and ethnicity in Latin America, it can be said that it has quite a different meaning. Latin Americans perceive race as being open ended and explicit, yet racism is quite implicit in their society. They also attempt to adhere to the idea that they are living within a “racial democracy”. Racial democracies are a concept created to convince people that racism does not impact the structure of society and the opportunities that are available to people.
In a time rife with class, gender, and racial tensions, it can be easy to lose sight of just how much progress has been made in these relations in recent years. Only ninety-four years ago, women were granted the right to vote with the passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. It was only fifty-two years ago that the 1964 Civil Rights Act guaranteed equal rights, such as the right to vote, to black Americans. In particular, perceptions of racial identity have evolved drastically. Throughout time, people’s perception of racial identity has changed as racism developed due to the economic potential of a morally corrupt system, then evolved as the moral implications of slavery were viewed to outweigh the economic benefits, and finally has shifted to a new type of racial identity and racism based on national identity.
F.F Mansvelt Beck, ed. Liberalism,Minorities and the Politics of Societal Diferenciation Web. 2 Feb. 2014. .
Modern day society is engrossed in a battle for protection of individual rights and freedoms from infringement by any person, be it the government or fellow citizens. Liberalism offers a solution to this by advocating for the protection of personal freedom. As a concept and ideology in political science, liberalism is a doctrine that defines the motivation and efforts made towards the protection of the aforementioned individual freedom. In the current society, the greatest feature of liberalism is the protection of individual liberty from intrusion or violation by a government. The activities of the government have, therefore, become the core point of focus. In liberalism, advocacy for personal freedom may translate to three ideal situations, based on the role that a government plays in a person’s life. These are no role, a limited role or a relatively large role. The three make up liberalism’s rule of thumb. (Van de Haar 1). Political theorists have