cas

cas by danielsm featuring hair bow accessories

Old Navy raglan sweater
$30 - oldnavy.gap.com

Hydraulic embroidered jeans
$43 - tillys.com

Keds lace up shoes
$30 - jcpenney.com

White House Black Market post earrings
$18 - whitehouseblackmarket.com

Hair bow accessory
$4.99 - tillys.com

Woolrich rayon scarve
$19 - woolrich.com

More on Virtual Worlds

As we've talked more about virtual worlds and Second Life, which I mentioned 2 blogs ago, and continued reading Coming of Age in Second Life by Tom Boellstorff, governance of this particular virtual world has been discussed.  The company who created Second Life is based in California and is called Linden Lab.  This corporation has ultimate control of everything in the virtual world and anything said or done in Second Life is recorded by the companies' many servers.  The author mentions that everyone signs a Terms of Service agreement when initially creating an account and has no ability to negotiate these terms with Linden.  Nor do users get any say in the rules and laws of the virtual world (however they can form groups and stage protests with their avatars).  The author writes, "Since SL was owned by Linden Lab, its authority was absolute...such total control over virtual worlds is one of the most consequential aspects of emerging models of governance for them, raising the prospect of virtual dictatorships...This omnipotence with regard to SL's governance was a source of concern to many residents. Those accused of transgressions had no way to face their accusers or a appeal a decision" (223).  This was really interesting to me after spending a semester on democracy in AmCon.  In this virtual world you can do so many things you can't do in real life.  You can fly, embody any animal, look any way you want, talk anyway you want, build anything you want, yet you have absolutely no rights as a user when it comes to governance and the rules set in place by the company who owns the virtual world.  Part of the emphasis of using virtual worlds is having the ability to do so many otherwise impossible things, yet you can't stand up for yourself if you are accused of doing something you didn't do.  This is such a different state than what we have in the US as a democracy.  In Second Life, you can do anything except have a voice or say.

Black Elk Speaks

I guess I don't have that much to say yet about the content of the first 6 chapters of Black Elk Speaks, but it was nice to read something written in a story form for a change. I really like how Neihardt write Black Elk Speaks: ...and tells Black Elk's stories as he would tell them and then says Standing Bear or whoever else speaks: ...as if you're sitting there with them, listening to these men talk and add on to each other's memories. I think the other perspectives that the older men give add a lot to Black Elk's story and provide context and knowledge about things that Black Elk may not have been old enough to understand or observe.

Social Capital in a Virtual World

In my anthropology class, we recently starting reading an ethnography about Second Life, a virtual world where people can get online and do practically anything with an avatar such as go shopping, build a house, attend a wedding, etc.  (For more info- http://secondlife.com/whatis/).  Users say that the most compelling reason they use Second Life is the relationships they make with people who are across the globe.  Even if people have never met each other in the actual world, in Second Life, they can get married, be friends; an adult can even be a child avatar and have another user agree to be their parent in Second Life.  This ability to create relationships and participate in groups in this world made me think about Putnam and social capital.   Could people produce social capital in a virtual world like many of our groups decided in Part II that people can do on Facebook?  This virtual world is like Facebook but better because you can interact with each other through more than just words.  For instance, this picture is of a GreenPeace meeting in Second Life.  It sounds like a stretch, and the concept is somewhat confusing, but I wonder what Putnam would say to this kind of interaction and connectivity between not only Americans, but the global population.

On Civil Disobedience

"Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight." -Thoreau in "On Civil Disobedience"


 I like this quote by Thoreau, how he says not to just fill in a circle at the polls and walk away from this democratic process, but to cast "your whole influence."  I think he means that we should try to see democracy not just as a one time action, but as an ongoing mindset or lifestyle.  He wants people to use all the tools and resources of power they have to work towards what they want to see happen.  Along with this, he also points out the dangers the majority can pose with how much power it is given in American democracy.  He echoes much of what Tocqueville says as well.  I feel like Thoreau, however, looks more at the negative aspects of this while Tocqueville talked more about how the minority can work to combat the majority through voluntary associations.  Thoreau also says "There are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them; who, esteeming themselves children of Washington and Franklin, sit down with their hands in their pockets, and say that they know not what to do, and do nothing; who even postpone the question of freedom..."  He points out how so many people are idle and don't do anything to change what they don't like while Tocqueville talks about how people, through voluntary associations, do not sit idle and work towards change.

Thoreau's Walden

"The morning, which is the most memorable season of the day, is the awakening hour. Then there is least somnolence in us; and for an hour, at least, some part of us awakes which slumbers all the rest of the day and night...Every morning was a cheerful invitation to make my life of equal simplicity, and I may say innocence, with Nature herself...Morning brings back the heroic ages." -Thoreau in Walden


I liked what Thoreau says about morning.  Like he says, I think there is something special about morning when it's quiet and the world is just how it is, without people or cars or anything we've contributed to it.  This is kind of a simple blog post, but I think that if I were to take something from Thoreau's lessons that he wanted people to learn from and take into their lives, I would try to get up early more often or get up to see the sun rise and go be out in nature in the morning and experience the freshness and silence that's there.  I think it'd be refreshing and a good way to remind myself of the peacefulness of life in the midst of all the busyness and rushing we're constantly a part of.

Emerson's "Nature"

"To speak truly, few adult persons can see nature. Most persons do not see the sun. At least they have a very superficial seeing. The sun illuminates only the eye of the man, but shines into the eye and the heart of the child. The lover of nature is he whose inward and outward senses are still truly adjusted to each other; who has retained the spirit of infancy even into the era of manhood. His intercourse with heaven and earth, becomes part of his daily food." -from "Nature" by Ralph Waldo Emerson 

This passage by Emerson and the general tone of "Nature" reminds me of Bellah's argument about paying attention.  Emerson points out how as we get older and learn more, we forget about nature's presence and become less and less aware of it and its beauty, effects, etc.  This contrasts greatly with when we're children and we amazed by every new discovery in the world around us.  It's interesting because Bellah points out the "indifference of the youth to the world around them."  Emerson believes adults are the ones who don't acknowledge nature's presence.  This also reminds me of Thoreau's comparison of people to the railroad ties' nickname, "sleepers."  He also saw people becoming less and less conscious of the world around them, especially the spiritual virtues in life.  I think these men would greatly agree with each other if they were in conversation and Bellah could point out how young people seem less "awake" than the adults that Emerson believed were ignorant of the world they lived in .

The Transcendental Railroad

"Nor is the atmosphere in the coach unfriendly: there is a social spirit, a sort of comradeship. 'New people continually entered.  Old acquaintances-for such they soon grew to be in this rapid current of affairs-continually departed.'" -G. Ferris Cronkhite in "The Transcendental Railroad (pg. 326)

This excerpt made me think about a social change the railroad made that I hadn't thought about before.  Not only did the railroad allow people to assemble that normally would be separated by hundreds of miles, the railroad also created a sense of unity just through the physical coming and going of passengers through the cars when traveling by train.  It produced a sense of being in something together while Americans started using this invention that was unique to the States.  People also could make new connections and relationships with people from completely different places, even if they'd never see them again after getting off the train.  As more and more people became connected, this aspect of railroad travel contributed to the social life in the United States and helped unite Americans.

A Word About Railroads

After listening to the discussion in class (and not really talking due to the fact that I have no voice right now since I've been sick for what seems like forever), I felt like the railroad didn't get all the credit that it was due.  I agree that the major railroad companies were not benevolent and fair, the unions that came out of the solving of this issue were definitely a step in the direction of the democratic horizon.  Like the article "The Iron Horse" points out, the railroad changed the way people think about big business in America and the problems that arise from it, causing unions and regulations that protect people and help enable their participation in democracy.  Plus, the simple fact that trains allowed people to take advantage of their freedom to assemble with people they never would have been able to meet with before was a huge step in making a democratic society and the associations Tocqueville was so fond of.

Returning to Democratic Vistas

Like Wendy read in class, the Whitman passage from Democratic Vistas that sang to me was "We have frequently printed the word Democracy.  Yet I cannot too often repeat that it is a word the real gist of which still sleeps, quite unawaken'd, notwithstanding the resonance and the many angry tempests out of which its syllables have come, from pen or tongue.  It is a great word, whose history, I suppose, remains unwritten, because that history has yet to be enacted."  I love this passage because it embodies not only Whitman's great optimism, but the optimism that really defines America.  I like how he portrays democracy as a process, not a static state.  He embraces the agency we have here to change democracy's meaning and continually work on creating a better country.

Also-I went bowling over the weekend, and we had to wait until after 8:30 to go because of league bowling.  I instantly thought of AmCon and now have a good feeling that league bowling is still going strong in suburbs of Minneapolis. :)

awesome velcro bowling shoes

Blessed are the Organized

"Caring involves taking an active interest in something, in contrast with being apathetic about it or unconcerned with it." -Stout in "Blessed are the Organized" (pg. 12)

This quote goes with an issue I brought up in class when we discussed a part of Tocqueville.  I feel like one aspect of the cause behind democracy's somewhat decreased presence in the United States is the fact that the caring and active interest Stout brings up here is absent from the lives and minds of so many Americans.  With our popular culture today, there are so many other things that we would rather pay attention to (connection with Bellah), like sports, tv shows, fashion, etc.  Other things become more important and legitimate in our minds to occupy our time and attention.  It's important to recognize things you want change in and actually work with other people to accomplish that rather than becoming obsessed with other things and being isolated from others. 

Democracy Means Paying Attention

I like what Bellah says on pg. 277- "And the simultaneous disinvestment in 'human resources' has already shows itself in the social decay of crime, addiction, cynicism, eroded civility, weakened education, and most shockingly, perhaps, in the pervasive indifference of youth to the world around them."
I think that what he is saying here is that we've invested far too much into things and not into people, and therefore, these are the consequences.  Instead of spending time, money, ourselves, in others and the things that really matter, and getting the most out of the "human resources" that we have, we've wasted a lot of effort investing in short term things that will give us some type of pleasure or entertainment right away.  Bellah demonstrates how much this hurts the United States and how much more we could be "cultivating" people and growing up such a better world if we took the time to engage in each other's lives rather than the isolation that Tocqueville even observed in the nineteenth century.

Bowling Alone

I liked what Putnam said about technology's role in the loss of social capital in America (even if the outdated comment about the VCR was humorous).  He talks about how television and other technological advances allow people to be entertained by other things by themselves in place of more "basic" forms of entertainment with other people.  Were he writing this right now, he could say so much more about the role of technology.  This section made me think about how students now have the option to take high school classes (or college) online instead of actually going to school with other kids.  What are not only the social capital consequences of this, but what effect does this have on the students themselves who don't experience a real classroom and social environment during a crucial point in their lives?  Another example is texting and messaging online in chats rather than either talking to someone face to face or at least hearing their voice on the phone.  This definitely has changed the way we view communication and maybe allowed us to skip some participation in social groups, but it has also made other people instantly available to us and helped people long distances apart to stay connected.

Democracy in America IV

"...one is bound to notice all classes show great confidence in their country's legislation, feeing a sort paternal of love for it." -de Tocqueville in Democracy in America, pg. 241


At first when I read this, I thought he meant the actual legislation that has been passed in America and I immediately disagreed because we definitely do not all feel confident in all the laws that Congress passes.  For example, many people don't agree with Obama's new health care plan.  You definitely can't say that all classes in America feel very good, or confident, about this legislation.  But I think that de Tocqueville means law in general, like he talks about the respect for the law by Americans in this particular section.  I do feel that we are confident in the ways laws are passed and the way we obey them.  We have a lofty view of the idea of law and the intangible authority it has on our daily lives.  Part of the reason for this is like Alexis says, we feel some responsibility for what is passed into law because we elect our representatives in Congress.  I think another reason for this is the fact that we're all subject to the same laws and expected to submit to the law because of our participation in its existence.  It would have been interesting to talk to de Tocqueville and talk to him about the difference between Americans' and the French's idea of "respect for the law."

Democracy in America III

In his section about the "administrative instability in the US" de Tocqueville talks about how newspapers are the only records which people can learn about the past from.  He even says "I have no doubt that in fifty years' times it will be harder to collect authentic documents about the details of social life in modern America than about French medieval administration..." (pg. 207).  In this case I think he's referring less to the possibility of better technology and more to the fact that society seems to have the tendency to care less and less about history and the past events of their country and care more and more about the future and looking ahead rather than behind.  He states "Nobody bothers about what was done before his time" (pg. 208).  I agree, but also disagree with de Tocqueville here.  For once I feel like something he's saying is actually somewhat wrong.  I feel like we've, as a society, become more and more aware of the past and what we can learn from it, especially the past of the United States.  The fact that we're reading de Tocqueville's book in 2011 and examining which parts of it are still relevant today is an example of the way we strive to be aware and conscious of the past while learning from the mistakes of other human beings.  I think that's really important to think about and constantly be doing today when it's so easy to dream for the future.  Not that dreaming is bad, but our present is also the future place of someone else's dream.
This section of de Tocqueville's also made me think about how everything is recorded when it comes to the government today.  Like do we have every congressional session on file somewhere?  It'd be interesting to see just how much work goes into the simple task of recording the present for those in the future.  De Tocqueville would certainly be surprised if he could see the technology we have today and how easy it actually would be to find information both about "social life in modern America" and "French medieval administration."

Democracy in America II

"Therefore they have not received their powers; on the contrary, it would seem that they have surrendered a portion of their powers for the benefit of the state; that is an important distinction which the reader should always bear in mind." -Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America (pg. 67)

This quote reminded me of the story I posted last semester about the man in the LAX airport who refused to submit to a security inspection because it violated his rights.  This brought up the issue of giving up certain rights in order to be able to experience freedom from fear (in this instance of traveling nationally).  De Tocqueville brings up the fact that in order for society as a whole to have certain freedoms/privileges, Americans have to first give up an individual freedom.  In turn, they benefit from what the whole society gets when all individuals surrender something.  It's interesting to think about this in terms of morals like De Tocqueville talks about- what do people value more: their individual rights or the rights they, along with the rest of the nation, obtain because of the personal sacrifice of every individual?

Democracy in American I

"The surface of American society is covered with a layer of democratic paint, but from time to time one can see the old aristocratic colors breaking through." -Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America, pg. 49

I love this quote by Tocqueville.  He uses such a good metaphor for this, I guess you could say flaw, of American society.  The example he uses to illustrate this point is with committing a crime and paying bail instead of going to jail.  He argues that the rich can afford the price of bail and in turn, don't have to experience their punishment of prison, but the poor man can't pay the bail, goes to jail, and becomes even poorer because he's not able to work.  De Tocqueville says he sees many other instances of this visible aristocracy in American life- I wonder what his other ideas were.  This particular example reminds me of celebrities and pro athletes that get speeding tickets or commit other crimes and because of their ridiculous wealth, don't have to suffer the consequences of their actions.  For example, Brett Favre's sexting incident cost him $50,000.  This is hardly a slap on the wrist for him, since he makes around $12,000,000 a year.  This provides a modern example of how the "aristocratic colors break through" even today, which also speaks to the continued relevance of de Tocqueville's great work.

Cullen's 3rd Chapter

"In his masterful two-volume study Democracy in America, Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville invented the word "individualism" to describe a new sort of secular striving he observed in the United States and used the term "self-interest rightly understood"- a Franklinesque construction that emphasized the practical value of moral precepts like reciprocity and (temporary) self-denial- as the credo of American life."  Jim Cullen in The American Dream (pg. 69)

This is the sentence that I picked out of Cullen's chapter that I thought was complicated, yet works for the reader.  It's a lengthy sentence that is packed with different ideas and multiple terms necessary in getting his point across while defining those terms and connecting them to people/ideas that he talked about in the text preceding this sentence. Like Hatch and McLoughlin, Cullen emphasizes the way individual, common people obtained agency and started calling the shots instead of clergy and scholars (around the time of the 2nd Great Awakening), but Cullen involves different examples from American history like Franklin and Jackson.  I also liked that he involved the institution of slavery and how that impacted the South's idea of a self-made man and individualism. 
Also, Deane- I went home over the weekend for a family thing and inevitably got stuck in this lovely blizzard.  So if I'm not in class tomorrow, I'm either trying to brave my way back to Northfield or am still stuck in Minneapolis. Just thought you should know. :) 

Pietism & the American Character

"Not only did the Awakening seriously undermine the established church system throughout the colonies but it also undermined the conception of a learned clergy and of rule by the predestined elect." -McLoughlin in "Pietism & the American Character" (pg. 168)

Finally, a connection! In this quote, McLoughlin reiterates exactly what Nathan Hatch was saying in his piece.  The different religious movements changed the understanding of where authority lies.  It shifted from those with clerical status and education to the every day, average person.  I like that McLoughlin mentions the idea of the "Christian Commonwealth" or the Christian "political party."  This shows how much power and influence the Christian community, whether they were "Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Separatists, or Methodists."  They would put leaders in office that were part of this Commonwealth and in this way were able to infuse their moral values with the law.  I think they blurred the lines between Church and State here.  They used their new found authority and used it to their advantage in the legislative side of things.  I liked that McLoughlin filled in some of the blanks of Hatch's piece and  points out how exactly the Christians of the 2nd Great Awakening used the power they got once they undermined the clergy and scholars.

The Democratization of Christianity

"The rise of evangelical Christianity in the early republic is, in some measure, a story of the success of common people in shaping the culture after their own priorities rather than the priorities outlined by gentlemen, such as the founding fathers." ~Nathan Hatch in "The Democratization of Christianity, pg. 96

This is the crucial idea of Hatch's argument and I think it's a little bit startling for us to hear "rather than the priorities outlined by gentlemen, such as the founding fathers."  Usually we think of the founding fathers as always right and people we are reverent towards.  It's important to note that these Christian movements were doing the exact opposite, and that is how we have the kind of democratic society we have today.  Life isn't always about following the rules, but thinking for yourself and I enjoyed reading about how a group of plain, ordinary people, like myself, did exactly that in the face of people who were so against it.
In class I would have liked to talk about the "normalizing religion" piece of Opal's sentence and what that idea really is and how this "early republic" would have looked differently, had things gone differently in this time period.

Rapture Culture

"Readers occasionally express anxiety about the influence of secular culture and sometimes roundly condemn it, but rarely does this concern inhibit the buying, renting, or consuming of popular culture in its broadest possible sense.  So-called secular culture mixes readily- at least in practice- with Christian culture, and Left Behind is a significant part of this mix for many...The cultural influences are tangled, and evangelicals rarely separate themselves from popular culture even as they occasionally complain about its immoral content." -Amy Frykholm in "Rapture Culture"

I find this statement by Amy resoundingly true.  I remember when the Left Behind  series started to be ridiculously popular, and my parents along with the rest of our church and other family friends started reading them, discussing them, and passing them along to other people.  The series adapted for children started showing up in the classrooms of the private Christian school I went to through 9th grade (which, for the record, prohibited any of us from reading Harry Potter).  The books were a huge deal and it's interesting to me how much they've disappeared from "Christian conversation" and the circles that my family is still involved in.  Every one was talking about them nonstop for a while, but just like any other trend, their presence and significance has dissipated, in my opinion.  Frykholm's Intro and first chapter were really interesting to me, someone who grew up in a very Christian family and community, due to attending a private Christian school. What she says in the above quote is so true in my family and nearly every other family I know decently well from church or school.  The lines have blurred significantly between the "Christian" subculture that Amy talks about and popular, secular culture.  When she talks about the Left Behind series being one of the first literary works to expose the bluriness of these lines, it made me think of William P. Young's The Shack.  It's also stirred up controversy in Protestant circles and part of the reason for that, I think, is how it's been recognized by secular culture.  It's been all over the shelves in Barnes and Noble and multiple of "non-Christian" places.  I feel like part of the reason these two cultures are coming together is not because popular culture is getting any "better" morally, but because many Christians have started to do what the example of Sarah in the first chapter of Amy's book has done.  What Christians today constitute as a "godly life" is far different from what my grandpa, as a Methodist minister, would have advised.  Maybe this is more the beginning of what Whitman wanted to see in the future when he wrote Democratic Vistas- a basis of religiosity in America, not one big religious group or way of living, but a culture infused with religion and the individual agency of having your own beliefs and deciding for yourself what constitutes a godly life.  This mix of components from a religious culture and from popular culture is really interesting and something that I think will continue to shift and build into something that hasn't been seen in America today.  

"A Women's Awakening"

"By 1838, more than 40% of the converts could be identified as the offspring of this firmly entrenched first generation.  In some cases the lineage of conversion had passed unbroken through each stage of the revival cycle...Oneida County was littered with pamphlets, sermons, and ecclesiastical resolutions testifying to this same religious imperative, devising practical ways to guide a second generation toward salvation and full allegiance to the church of their parents." -Mary P. Ryan

In Mary Ryan's piece, "A Women's Awakening: Evangelical Religion and the Families of Uitca, NY, 1800-1840," she demonstrates the serious importance to the parents of Oneida County after the first revival of the Second Great Awakening of having God-fearing children who follow in their footsteps.  According to Ryan, they worked hard, using multiple methods, to bring their children up in such a way that would nurture their spiritual lives and cause them to convert as they [the parents] had earlier in life.  This makes me think of today and the way my parents brought me up, and their hopes for my future, especially in a spiritual aspect.  It makes me wonder how many parents strive with as much effort as the Oneida parents did to bring their kids to make the decision to follow in their parents "religious footsteps."  It would also be interesting to see where parents do this the most.  Would it be in the rural areas like the people in Ryan's focus?  Or mostly suburbs?  In what ways do Americans go about guiding their children in the "correct" spiritual path?  I think in a lot of senses, we still use pamphlets and sermons to reach kids in Sunday School and other organizations like Awana.  Ryan's comments on religion and conversion through multiple generations, one after another, were intriguing, especially because they remind me of personal experiences from growing up.    

Democracy

When I think of democracy, many of the other “great American ideals” come to mind, such as freedom and the pursuit of happiness.  These concepts and ideas are deeply rooted in American culture and Americans themselves or as Whitman refers to them- “the peaceablest and most good-natured race in the world.”  He dreamed of a future of “a couple of hundred best men and women, of ordinary worldly status, have by luck been drawn together, with nothing extra of genius or wealth, but virtuous, chaste, industrious, cheerful, resolute, friendly and devout.”  We tend to emphasize the pros to democracy without facing the flaws. 

One of the biggest issues with democracy is the looming possibility of “tyranny of the majority.”  In a democracy, everyone is supposed to have an equal voice, but obviously this has not always been the case in America.  During the practice of slavery, the majority had the upper hand while slaves had no voice whatsoever.  Earlier in time, Thomas Jefferson felt that slavery was wrong and lived with his guilt, and simply decided to allow future Americans to take care of the issue.  In this situation, democracy did not serve this country well.  Jefferson expected a lot from the future as Whitman often does in “Democratic Vistas” when he says that the word “democracy” has an unwritten history because “that history has yet to be enacted.”  He also called for writers and poets to be a big part of the growing democracy and to continue the work he started.  However, as Brooks states, those people “have not arrived” and Whitman’s work is still “the best explanation of the nation’s energy and aspirations.”  Sometimes, even in a democracy, voices are silenced and the majority can be wrong, but have the power just the same.

However, at its best, I think democracy does some good things for us.  To me, living in a democracy means you have the ability and power to choose.  You can choose to change, influence, speak, and better yourself in hopes of making a difference in the place you are.  I think that is what Whitman was hoping for when he talks about people “freely branching and blossoming in each individual, and bearing golden fruit.”  The idea of democracy is more than just an outline for a government and a country, but also a basis that we can springboard from to become better individuals, and therefore a better nation.  Whitman wanted this idea to be rooted so deeply in the hearts and character of the American people that they would die so that others could experience it and possess such a kind of life, like the soldiers that he talks fondly of.

Democracy is the hope that you can make a difference in this country and change things instead of watching people decide the rules of your life for you.  Even if we do not have a direct democracy and can not single handedly pass legislature, we have the ability to change someone else’s mind or come together and stand alongside someone who has that power.  Although democracy can involve a give and take of freedoms like submitting to security measures in airports in order to receive the freedom from fear, we still have that ability to deny giving up a freedom; we have the choice to say no.  Other people in other countries do not have the choice of giving something up or not.  This option is very important to Americans, I think, but also is taken for granted every day.

Lastly, I think that the idea of democracy is important to the way we look to the future.  Being a college student, I think ahead in time and realize that the things I aspire to do are made possible by the existence of a democracy.  I know that I can better myself and the lives of those around me through being a nurse because of how the majority has deemed healthcare important and the fact that everyone should be able to reap its benefits.   Democracy allows us to have a say in what our future will look like and how we will live.  This alone is a distinguishing factor of our country and what I think Whitman had in mind when he wrote that Americans should be “realizing, above the rest, that known humanity, in deepest sense, is fair adhesion to itself, for purposes beyond.”