What I'll Take from the Class

Beginning this course I didn't expect it to open my eyes in as many ways as it did. Though I'm not sure it drastically changed my opinions on any of the discussed topics, it did open my eyes to new ways of thinking that I had not previously considered.
Leaving the class I approach the concept of Liberalism from a much expanded viewpoint. Before this class I wasn't aware of the ways in which the overarching concepts of liberalism are present in our everyday lives. What made me most realize how present liberalism is were the classes in which other professors came to speak. Looking at all different subjects through the lens of liberalism made it apparent how applicable it is to all fields. I've never taken a class before that incorporated religion, politics, community engagement, and even music all into one coherent course. By examining each of the subjects we did through the lens of Liberalism we were able to talk about a broad range of topics, which proved to be one of my favorite aspects of the course.
I also have gained a greater interest in the humanities as a field overall. Because I am a science major, many of the courses I take are very different from this one. But despite it's differences from my other classes, this course has remained one of the most interesting that I'm taking because of it's application to all areas of life and fields. This course has expanded my knowledge in not just one area, but in the many that it covered under the umbrella of Liberalism.

Final Trump Thoughts

Throughout the semester, Trump has been the sole person that our conversation has always returned to, and I don’t think that’s unreasonable. Trump is a perfect example of intolerance and illiberal speech. He’s racist, misogynistic, and has the maturity of a 6^th grader. But, apparently, that is exactly what some Americans believe will make a perfect combination for the presidential office. So how do we react to Trump? How do we react to his supporters?

               I think the way to respond to Trump is with rationality. Trump is an entertainer, and he thrives off of the attention that saying outlandish things gets him. Before this course, I probably would have advocated for Trump’s speech to be prohibited and silenced. However, I now recognize that Trump has a right to speak. I don’t think that it does good to laugh or ridicule him though. It seems that when people make fun of Trump, his supporters feel more attached to him. Making fun of Trump makes him look like he is being attacked for his ideas, and Trump supporters like to think that he is the victim. I have an acquaintance that said verbatim “The media makes him look so much worse than he is in person.” Attacking Trump seems to make him more likeable as a candidate, so I would refrain from that. However, we also cannot attack Trump supporters. My experience with Trump supporters is that the moment you question why they have chosen to support him they immediately think that you are attacking their right to believe whatever they want. They snarl something about being a “rotten liberal” and don’t actually answer the question. So there might not be a “right” way to talk to Trump supporters. I think that the best thing you can do is to just appeal to rationality. Don’t try to insult them; don’t act like you’re better than. Just ask simple questions in a non-threatening manner (which is extremely ironic considering most Trump supporters like to talk about how today’s younger generation is made up of pussies). Trump supporters should be questioned about policy, and the practicality of any of his current policies actually being enacted rather than repeating his sensationalized claims. Trump has the right to continue his hateful speech, but, like Cicero would say, it is the American population’s job to see through his claims and ask about his actual policy suggestions. For example, how exactly do you expect another sovereign nation to pay for a wall? Are you willing to enter a war for your wall? Do you realize some of your claims are in explicit disagreement with The Universal Declaration of Human Rights? I keep hoping that eventually people will realize that Trump’s claims are absolutely ridiculous, but I have been consistently surprised by the widespread acceptance for his claims. The only hope is that rationality will lead them to question their candidate’s legitimacy. 

What are Humanities?

Last class the teachers asked us what does the term Humanities mean. Our class falls under the Humanities GER and I really pondered on what that meant. I think a humanities course studies topics like language, religion, history, and other disciplines and how people in earlier ages or created the world they lived in, and how the world they lived in made them the people they were. And while studying the many different subjects regarding the humanities, we inevitably end up learning about more than simply past or distant cultures. We end up learning how we create the world we live in now, and how the world we live in makes us the kind of people we are. We learned earlier in the semester about the origins of the word humanity. The word humanity comes to English from the Latin humanitas, which first shows up with the writer Cicero. He used it to describe good people, that is to say “civilized” human beings. I think that Cicero used the word humanity in the context that all humans are civilized enough to practice concepts such as justice and hospitality. Isn't this what debated on throughout the whole course? When we read text such as A Letter Concerning Toleration by John Locke, we are learning about how religious toleration was perceived in the late 1600s. What's interesting to note is that Locke influenced the writers of the Declaration of Independence. John Locke wanted everyone to have the "right to life, liberty, and property" which is used in the Declaration of Independence as the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." His ideas of the social contract, in which everyone in a society is accountable to one another, and the idea of governments deriving their power from the consent of the governed were both revolutionary concepts in 1776 that made their way into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. This is the heart of what a humanities course is supposed to teach, about applying past writings and incorporating them into society today.

Flaws of the Two Party System

In class last week we harped on the fact that America's two party system has some noticeable flaws. When I say two party system, I don't mean there are ONLY two parties, I mean there are mainly two parties in control of the decisions made for the government. Sure there are parties like the Tea Party, but how much control do they have in the government? They don't have much control. This means that a candidate running for president will most likely choose either Democrat or Republican even though their views may not fully align with that side. We see this in todays election with Bernie Sanders. Sanders is really an independent, but he knows running as an independent will hurt is campaign for presidency. Running as an independent would mean not only losing out on debates but potentially helping Republicans win by taking votes away from the Democratic Party. Sanders seems uncommitted to being committed to the party. His Senate website and press materials continue to label him as an "independent" while his campaign website lists him as a "Democratic candidate." In his home state of Vermont, there is no party registration. So can Sanders accurately claim to be unaffiliated with a political party while still running for the Democratic nomination and sometimes calling himself a Democrat? It may seem oxymoronic, but yes, he can. The reason this is bad is that some people vote for the party, not the person. That one person is not guaranteed to work for all the party's goals. And what about all the people in the middle, the "independent" voters who agree on some issues but not others? I believe you should vote for the person who best supports your views, not the party.

An American Political Divide

The smug style in American liberalism article begins with stating that "American life is not divided by moral difference or policy divergence" but "by the failure of half the country to know what's good for them." This statement caught my attention. Though the article delves into a slightly different interpretation of the statement, I feel that this very strongly describes the current overall political climate.
Divides between opinions are sharp, and often polarized. Though to me consideration of other's opinions and openness to different ideas seems crucial for actual progress, politics often appears to be a game of opposition. To me - "The failure of half the country to know what's good for them." - often describes the relationship between the dominating political parties.
I cannot say whether this is a divide that has grown stronger in recent years, or whether it has always existed but I believe it is often a factor that hinders the U.S. Political discussions, I've found, always go better if everyone is not only educated in what they're speaking about but also willing to listen to other's points of views rather than immediately strike them down should they differ from their own. I'm guilty as anyone else is for sticking to my beliefs, but I have learned that considering other's viewpoints is just as important as expressing mine. Should we lessen the belief that half the country doesn't know what's good for them, I believe that political progress may be easier to come by.

Hating on Liberalism

William Hazlitt’s “On the Pleasure of Hating” expresses a unity of hatred among the people. Hating the same things can create friendships and unite whole countries. Hating is one thing that all people have in common. I don’t care if you consider yourself to be the most open-minded, kind-hearted person. There is something (or someone) that you hate, and that’s not a bad thing. Hating on the things that grind your gears is perfectly normal, and it’s good to express your frustration. Hazlitt introduces the idea of hatred in his essay with the hatred of a spider that is crawling across the floor. Hazlitt says that even though he hates the spider, he will not harm it. In fact, he lifts up a mat that may be an obstacle for the spider. In class, Akanksha said that the spider may be a metaphor for liberalism; despite people’s ill thoughts towards liberalism, there is an agreement that it should not be harmed. Hazlitt says that “a child, a woman, a clown, or a moralist a century ago, would have crushed the little reptile.” However, Hazlitt considers himself to be an intellectual, and he has matured past these acts of violence and infringement, but the hatred is still there. Liberalism strives to reach the pinnacle of human rights, tolerance, and equality, and the majority of people would agree that is a good thing. However, in practice, people are angered by liberalism. Some would say that we’re taking toleration too far. Some would argue that the line should be drawn to prevent gay couples from marrying, but isn’t that an advancement of equality and tolerance? Should liberalism be limited because this type of equality offends or bothers a portion of the population? Their resistance and outcry against the furthering of equality is a bashing of liberalism and its progression. I have also recently noticed a hatred of liberalism on my social media feeds regarding others’ rights and the rule of law. I am from Charleston, and I know many people that were upset when Dylann Roof’s trial was postponed from February 2016 to July 2016. The trial was delayed because the prosecution is still not sure if they want to seek the death penalty. Many people were outraged and demanded that he did not need a trial and should be killed right away. This anger is completely understandable, but Dylann has the right to a trial. The Constitution gives every individual the right to a trial and jury. People are angry (and rightfully so), but their emotion is not reason enough to compromise the rights granted by the Constitution. Compromising these rights would be in direct conflict with the liberalism that supposedly guides our nation. People hate on liberalism when it doesn’t benefit them or align with their beliefs. Liberalism does not care what your opinion is, and it shouldn’t. The goal of liberalism is not to improve one specific life but all lives, and this can cause a lot of hatred in those that feel that liberalism has hurt or hindered. But are these people going to try to take down liberalism like they would a small spider? No, they’re going to look at liberalism with disdain and keep right on hating. 

Capitalism Causes Poverty!

We have talked about capitalism throughout this semester but we never really focused on the critiques. I normally like play the devils advocate role on topics and I'm going to continue playing this role. Capitalism is often though as the best economic system in the world. Many people believe those who are poor did not work hard enough. This is not true; capitalism creates poverty. Rather than being designed to provide economic wellbeing for everyone, from the beginning capitalism was organized to allow a small elite to control most of the wealth produced by working people. The capitalist system as practiced in the United States today, with regulations and tax loopholes expanded, gives a massive share of total wealth and income to a small elite (a.k.a big businesses) and leaves the remainder to be competed for among the rest of the population. You essentially have the losers and the winners. Capitalism has created this model  that greed is good and that isn't acceptable. Because the decision of what to produce is driven by considerations of return on investment, the effect that product or service has on the larger society is never considered. For example, corporations create unhealthy food products and contribute to climate change while spreading  lies and misinformation to the public to protect profits. What's even more mind boggling is how the political parties respond the income gap problem in the United States. Liberals want to help the individual, to give them access to public programs, until they can get on their feet and get back into, or join, the capitalist system. Conservatives, pointing to the failure of government programs like welfare and food stamps to lift people out of poverty, want to cut those programs claiming they cause laziness and dependency. Both liberals and conservatives avoid looking at the capitalist system itself as a primary cause of poverty. Individual effort is a factor in economic and social success, but we all participate in a capitalist system. Leaving the system itself out of public policy discussion completely ignores capitalism as a driver of poverty. It’s time to have an honest discussion about how capitalism really works, and for whom it works, not how we imagine it works, or wished it worked.