Skip to main content

Democracy in America, Belmar, and Keith Ellison

A major theme in Democracy in America is Tocqueville's recurring evocation of Americans as ceaselessly active and restlessly striving. The American spirit is energetic and enterprising. Americans are never at rest or settled, but always in a hurry, in permanent agitation and constant motion, incessantly jostling one another. Nothing is fixed. Perpetually on the move, Americans change jobs and homes whenever opportunity calls. Tocqueville marvels at meeting men who have successively been lawyers, farmers, merchants, ministers of the Gospel and doctors. (xxxii)
I promised myself that I would attempt to read this book, since I had first encountered this title in high school. I was surprised to learn that Tocqueville was only 25 years old when he makes the trip to America, and begins writing his intellectual opus. He arrives in America on the pretext of observing American prisons, but remains here for 9 months studying the culture, people, and way of life. His observations have become the cornerstone of American Studies, which is the subject I longed to study at the Masters level. Tocqueville trained as a lawyer and then went on to become a writer. How did his aristocratic, privileged background allow him to become an intellectual giant? He was set on writing from the very beginning. He did not waver in his resolve to become famous.

He writes about America's thriving civic culture, the voluntary associations that are formed by civic-minded individuals who seek to take action rather than wait for governmental assistance.  There was an enthusiastic involvement of Americans in private associations and local self-government. There were common needs in the community, and a sympathy for others. Tocqueville was fascinated by and worried about the individualism of America, the individualism that is at the core of all its attitudes, values, customs, manners and fundamental feelings. Under his understanding of individualism, Americans are preoccupied with the narrow circle of self or family, worrying more about their own ambitions and personal rights than engaging in a quest for a common good. He thinks that Americans regard individual reason as the sole source of truth and thus each American is considered the best judge of what concerns themselves, society having no claims on the individual unless their private actions harm the common good.

This description of Americans fits perfectly with my immigrant parents. Life is a struggle. I see people constantly hustling, struggling, striving for a better life for themselves and their children.

====

Sometimes I worry that I am making the wrong decision by going to Penn instead of Columbia. I feel like this program is the best fit for me right now, but not the best fit overall. Do I really want to do social work? Can I handle that kind of work? This is a great opportunity, but maybe I am supposed to try for better opportunities? I got into NYU's MPA program. I am confident I could get into other MPA programs. I think I am seeking quantitative skill development, and building my skills overall. I don't know if I can do that at Penn. My time will definitely by limited but I need to keep striving, keep working hard towards other goals at the same time. I have a lot of hopes, but I need to make those hopes real. I worry about my heart. I worry that in the past year, since my Umrah, I've come back as a shell. I worry about my individualism, my religion, and my direction.

===

I wonder how Tocqueville would feel about Keith Ellison, a Muslim Minnesota Congressman up for reelection. Ellison is a Muslim-American politician who spoke honestly and candidly about what role he serves in Congress. He reaffirmed the need to keep youth engaged through community programs. In order to keep youth from getting ghettoized or radicalized, it is important to keep youth engaged in creating change. It is not just about youth development programs.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why Not Friendship (Revised)- Repost

It is difficult to be merely a friend to a boy who seems more suitable as a husband than a friend. To reduce a potential life partner to a friend is immature and selfish. Friendship is the not the greatest type of relationship, but it is the safest. Friendship allows you to be intimate without the messiness of other things, like physical attraction, etc. Between friends, there is a warm permanence, a fuzziness that can be called appreciation and gratitude. There is also comfort and trust. Friendship is great if only for the possibility that one can know the beauty of another human being. The possibility of that is worth the difficulty of all else. But sometimes friendship is not enough. Sometimes, to reduce someone to friend when he should be much more is an affront to the opportunity God has presented before you. It is like saying to him, I know that we are amazing together, but we should be friends because I am a dumbass. To reduce him to friend also precludes the possibility of love
Malcolm Gladwell. "Getting In: The Social Logic of Ivy Leage Admissions" http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_10_10_a_admissions.html Major themes: 1. Passion is a significant contributor to success. 2. High intelligence means little without discipline and passion. "Bowen and Shulman write about the characteristics that make athletes more coveted by Ivy League schools: One of these characteristics can be thought of as drive--a strong desire to succeed and unswerving determination to reach a goal, whether it be winning the next game or closing a sale. Similarly, athletes tend to be more energetic than the average person, which translates into an ability to work hard over long periods of time--to meet, for example, the workload demands placed on young people by an investment bank in the throes of analyzing a transaction. In addition, athletes are more likely than others to be highly competitive, gregarious and confident of their ability to work well in groups (on teams). I

Re: Your Inquiries

"You confuse yourselves with your actions, even with your thoughts. You barely understand that in order to be, it should not be necessary to act, and that the world changes you far more than you change it." (Malraux, The Temptation of the West, 1961 ) The world consists of wonderful people who enter and exit your life. When you let them enter, your breaths seem more thoughtful, your behaviors more scrutinized, your ideas challenged, and sometimes your brain orgasms from happiness. But when these individuals leave, you experience equally significant things like confusion and hurt. It seems okay to let someone in, someone trustworthy, good, honest, and not concern yourself with the end. As things exist in your mind, there is no harm. Intellectual promiscuity, then, is not so bad. To have intimate, intelligent conversations into the morning is not troubling, either. Sometimes when good people enter, it is not necessary to act, or specifically to resist. When people enter, their