What is democracy and is it a good idea?

Milwaukee Anthropologist is now soliciting essays on the next issue's question: How central is music to the human experience? Email queries to the contact info below by the end of May 2011.


- - -


Thank you for your patience. This issue is much delayed due to a number of factors, all of them ultimately my responsibility. I also beg the indulgence of my gracious contributors, who in addition to their boldness in approaching the topic displayed admirable patience during the delay.

Tony Gibart discusses how the word democracy is used to legitimize political regimes regardless of their respect for their constituents’ equality and unpacks the so-called democratic peace theory used as one justification for the war in Iraq.

Ben Klandrud, a captain in the U.S. Army and student of military history, reminds us to cherish the hard-fought freedoms of our democratic society and that the price of freedom is constant vigilance against many insidious tyrannies. He also laments the voter apathy of many Americans.

Michael LaForest, perennial third-party candidate who in 2010 is a write-in candidate for U.S. Senate, criticizes the two-party political system as a structural deficiency made possible and encouraged by our representative democracy. He suggests that democracy is a good idea but in practice it is flawed and co-opted by powerful minorities—the two major parties, moneyed corporations, and special-interests.

Election Day is Tuesday, Nov. 2, so surely this is an appropriate time to reflect upon the nature of democracy.

Michael Timm
31October2010

P.S. The next issue will consider the topic of music as relates to the human experience. It will be published sometime in 2011. Contact me with your essay ideas at platypus [[dot]] found [[at]] yahoo [[dot]] com.

Also, if you're new to the site, please scroll down and read the many engaging essays from past topics. Thanks for reading.

Please also note that the name of this site may change in 2011--many of you have noted, and I agree, that the "anthropologist" part of the magazine title is a bit of a misnomer. It remains the case, however, that I'm interested in collecting diverse opinions about topics of human import and that interest in exploring what it means to be human can be considered anthropological in a loose sense.

Democracy, used by the powerful to create narratives of hegemony, is a loaded term that requires deconstruction, particularly with regard to “democratic peace theory”

By Tony Gibart

Democracy: What is it, and is it a good idea? The question for this issue reminds me of the oft-quoted quip Gandhi made when asked by a reporter what he thought of Western civilization. He said he thought it was a good idea. With this remark, he was not just saying that the ideals of Western civilization were never fully realized in Western countries, although he certainly was making that point.

To me, what makes the exchange noteworthy is that when Gandhi diffused the reporter’s question by saying Western civilization was a good idea he demonstrated something else: that the phrase “Western civilization” was not simply representative of an idea. Consider the context. The reporter is a colonizer asking the colonized (Gandhi) to comment on the colonizers’ image of themselves as civilized. When the question was posed, I am sure Gandhi couldn’t help but think about what the colonialists’ self-image meant in real terms. In fact, he must have seen the reporter’s question was one of many rhetorical deployments that attempted to mark the civilized from the uncivilized, the superior from the inferior. Gandhi probably perceived the word civilization as the cornerstone of the rhetoric used to justify colonialism—the domination over his people and the pillaging of his land.

Therefore, whether the reporter realized it or not, his question was loaded, even aggressive. With his comment, Gandhi exposed the hypocrisy. He showed how the assignment of who is civilized and who is to be made civilized is on one level arbitrary, and on another level, a function of brute power. By using the idea of civilization to justify domination, the British emptied that word of any real content. Gandhi made obvious the utter inconsistency between how the British use the word civilization and the idea it potentially represents.

With Gandhi’s insight in mind, for me, the question about how to define democracy and the question of whether democracy is a good idea are secondary to an analysis of how the term democracy is used. I use the word secondary not to mean necessarily less important, but to suggest that the real-world consequences of the word democracy, rather than its definition and democracy’s normative value, have greater immediacy. Moreover, if the answers to the other questions are to be sought with reference to empirical data, then the question of how the word democracy is used deserves a position of logical priority.

However, to get at this question I would like to take a path through a claim that some make about the value of democracy. People often extol the value of democracies using the democratic peace theory, which holds that two democracies have never gone to war with one another, or very rarely go to war with one another. As with the claim that colonialism spreads civilization, individuals use the democratic peace theory to justify wars by democratic states against those that are viewed as undemocratic.

The most significant deployment of this claim for my generation was the defense of the American invasion and occupation of Iraq. As it became clear that American forces would not find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the Bush administration was forced to shift its explanation for the war. In November 2003, while addressing the British media, President George W. Bush said: “The United States and Great Britain share a mission in the world beyond the balance of power or the simple pursuit of interest. We seek the advance of freedom and the peace that freedom brings. We cannot rely exclusively on military power to assure our long-term security. Lasting peace is gained as justice and democracy advance...If the greater Middle East joins the democratic revolution that has reached much of the world, the lives of millions in that region will be bettered, and a trend of conflict and fear will be ended at its source.” This is without a doubt a clear articulation of the democratic peace theory. While the sequence of events and ever-changing excuses for the war in Iraq cast serious doubt that this was ever a main reason the United States invaded that country, the rationale could not be easily dismissed if the democratic peace theory were potentially true.

In  examining this proposition, another recent conflict is instructive. Before the inauguration of Barack Obama in January 2008, Israel lunched a massive bombardment against the Palestinians in Gaza. Although not necessarily framed as such in the American media, the offensive in Gaza certainly can be considered a war. 1,444 Palestinians and 13 Israelis lost their lives. Israeli forces pounded civilian and civilian infrastructure for a three weeks.

What does this conflict mean for the democratic peace theory? Israel has a democratic form of government. In fact, in the American and foreign media, Israel is often described as the Middle East’s only stable democracy. Imagery of that nation as a shining beacon in the darkness of Arabic despotism is somewhat commonplace. On the other hand, Gaza is governed by Hamas, which is classified by the United States and other countries as a terrorist organization, and its position in Gaza is typically not presented as that of a democratically-elected leadership (I avoid the term government as an acknowledgment that the conditions under which the Gazans live stifle the full potential for governance). However, while it does not go unmentioned that the Palestinians elected Hamas in an American-supported election, the war between Hamas and Israel was not presented as a war between democracies, when by all appearances it was.

Although the killing in Gaza suggests the democratic peace theory is wrong because two democracies went to war, on another level it suggests that perhaps the theory is simply self-justifying. As the word is used in American public discourse, democracy denotes that a regime is legitimate. The democratic credentials of America’s ally in the region, Israel, are unquestioned, even though Arab citizens of that nation are not afforded equal rights, especially the right to hold and own property. Moreover, Palestinian inhabitants who are not Israeli citizens live under military occupation in lands that Israel claims as part of its territory. Needless to say, these facts are inconsistent with the idea of Israel as a shining democracy.

Although the dissonance between the picture of Israeli democracy in American discourse and the reality is particularly strong, it is just one example. In the classic, Manufacturing Consent, Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky take the 1984 elections in Nicaragua and El Slavador as case studies that demonstrate the malleability of democracy as a label. The authors document quantitatively how the American media highlighted the democratic characteristics of the election that ratified the El Salvadorian regime, which was preferred by the U.S. establishment, even as the country was marred by violent, often systematic, political repression. Despite this, the elections were characterized as a victory for fledgling El Salvadorian democracy. In contrast, in American political discourse, the election of the Sandinista government in Nicaragua was portrayed as deeply flawed and phony, even though opponents of the regime benefited from greater political freedom in Nicaragua than existed in El Salvador.

The democratic peace theory is never wrong because only legitimate regimes are portrayed as strongly democratic and rarely are two combating countries seen as legitimate from one point of view. Saying two democracies never go to war is like saying that a civilized nation never colonized another civilized nation. The colonized is never counted among the civilized. I don’t mean to suggest that the word democracy is as problematic as the word civilized. For instance, it might be perfectly reasonable to call a government undemocratic. Whereas, calling a nation uncivilized would likely be an expression of ignorance or bigotry.

However, the word democracy doesn’t have a good track record as a signifier of true legitimacy. Without the 19th Amendment to the Constitution or the 1965 Voting Rights Act it is impossible to classify the United States as a democracy. But according to the standard narrative, this country has been democratic since its founding. The problem is, as Chomsky and Herman show, if a regime bothers to hold an election, one can always point to the formal trappings of the democratic process to legitimate a government. But, democratic formalities reveal very little about where power lies.

The outlook for the word does not seem promising either. The United States will mostly likely always be proudly considered a democracy by its people even though many feel unrepresented and powerless. Yes, we do like our elections—to the point that the drama of a presidential race and inauguration swallows the coverage of virtually all other news (the U.S.-subsidized invasion of Gaza being a good example). Yet, after the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Citizens United, elections are likely to become more and more dominated by corporate and special-interest money and less a mechanism by which politicians are accountable to average citizens.

If democracy is not a very useful descriptor, in closing, I suggest a focus instead on equality. In an essay on constitutional interpretation, Catherine MacKinnon wrote “...in a democracy a constitution also has to legitimate itself with the people, and for women, it has a lot to answer for.”

Core to the concept of democracy is the idea that a government gains its legitimacy from the people. However, the history of our country shows that certain people—the poor, blacks, women—are thought not to be important to the legitimating function of democracy. MacKinnon’s simple but brilliant point is that an evaluation of democracy starts from the perspective of these people. “...[T]o the degree the Constitution is not equal, it is not legitimate...” A search for equality may be more complicated than a fixation on forms of democratic government, but by the same token, it may be less susceptible to misappropriation.

---

Tony Gibart lives in Madison, Wis. with his dog Blue.

American democracy should welcome third-party perspective, but doesn’t

By Michael LaForest

Is democracy a good idea? It may be, but I have some reservations about the way democracy plays out in American society and specifically in American politics. For now, let’s assume that democracy is a good idea, at least in theory, but we must also consider that the failings of American democracy are rooted in a bipartisan political arena, political ineptitude, corporate-controlled mass media, and a largely apathetic and/or ignorant population.

Entrenched Two-Party System

The primary problem with democracy is that a minority of citizens still control the agenda of our national, state, and/or local governments. This problem is the basis for all of the other failings of a democracy. If we take, for example, the current two-party system of government that comprises our federal and state governments, we don’t have to go back very far in history to get some very good illustrations of how the tyranny of the minority (Democrats or Republicans) can and will, if given the chance, enforce their myopic agenda on the whole of society.

The Bush White House is probably the most blatant example of self-righteous politics that I can think of in modern times. The paranoid, narrow-minded agenda that was unleashed on America between 2000 and 2006 eclipsed the McCarthy debacle. But I would be remiss in my essay if I didn’t also draw attention to the current state of our country that has been orchestrated by the Democratic Party. The Democrats currently control the White House, both houses in our federal and state legislatures, the Wisconsin Governor’s Mansion, and the Milwaukee and Madison mayoral seats. Yet, with all these “progressive” Democrats at the helm of every level of government, our country, our state, and our state’s two largest cities stand at the brink of economic catastrophe.

If democracy worked, one can assume that political leaders—currently in charge of directing, enforcing, and correcting every facet of our society—would, by virtue of their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution, repeal laws that don’t work, direct their subordinates to enforce existing laws that do work, and pass legislation in the best interest of the whole of society. But, the current state of democracy in America seems just the opposite.

Our American political infrastructure is entrenched in a two-party system, presumably because through the democratic process, a two-party political system is what the majority of Americans want. We can just as easily presume, too, that if a bipartisan, democratically-elected government really works, then all the pervasive and persistent problems we have would be corrected by the people elected to correct them. But the problems aren’t being corrected, and they seem to worsen every day.

I submit that the problems we have in this country are deeply rooted in our current two-party system. In fact, the problems are so deeply grounded in a bipartisan political arena that nothing short of a political paradigm shift will fix the fundamental problem that pervades every facet of American politics. That problem is our current election process. If we are ever going to fix all of America’s social, economic, and international problems, the only way that it will ever happen is if our federal, state, and local elections are reformed to the extent that third parties have an equal political field upon which to run their respective campaigns. Equal, that is, to the Republicans and Democrats.

As things are today, the Republican and Democratic parties have so much money and power at every level of our federal, state, and local governments, combined with a dedicated “team” following, that third-party candidates have almost no chance whatsoever of being elected. Additionally, each state has its own ballot access rules, which generally do an excellent job of keeping third-party candidates at bay.* One all-encompassing change that should be instituted on behalf of a more democratic American government is to standardize ballot access rules and procedures for every state. This would provide an avenue through which any person who wanted to be on any ballot for any position could do so with minimal obstruction.**

Entrenched Incumbents & Political Polarization

Wisconsin is no exception to the false ideal of a level political playing field. Having run three partisan campaigns, I can state with absolute conviction that the ballot access requirements give the incumbent an unfair advantage over all of their opponents and the two major parties hold an unfair advantage over every third-party candidate. The incumbent has the power of incumbency and with that, name recognition, and subsequently, DNC or GOP funding. Unless they are complete imbeciles, incumbents almost always get reelected. It is not uncommon to hear of an incumbent getting reelected even after they died or went to prison.

As long as incumbents continue to get reelected, they have no vested interest in change; in fact, they have an implicit mandate to continue doing exactly what they have been doing, since getting reelected is presumably evidence that they are doing exactly what their constituents want.

Democracy can set the stage for career politicians to populate the political landscape for generations. Here in Wisconsin, two of the longest serving politicians in American history have dominated the state and federal legislatures. They really should have left the political stage three decades ago, to let other civic-minded Wisconsin citizens test their political prowess. But just like the vast majority of Democrats and Republicans who get elected and reelected, they have maintained a strict vigil over their own personal political fiefdoms for generations for personal as well as partisan gain.

Who really benefits from having one person legislate for several decades? The real answer is nobody. Democracy is predicated on the premise that everybody has a voice in our government. When so many people maintain positions of power in our legislatures for so long, few people have an opportunity to lead our government. Our legislatures should change consistently to allow for new and fresh political perspectives that would allow for new and better legislation.

In fact, we don’t actually have a “democracy” in America. Our government is a constitutional republic. The difference is that the former mandates that all citizens have an actual voice in our government, while the latter gives way to a representative democracy. This would actually work if our congressional representatives actually listened to all of their constituents, rather than just the loud and obnoxious fringes—polarized zealots with individual and special-interest aspirations. Appeals to single-issue voter fundamentalists now dominate our political discourse. Democracy is very adept at polarizing the citizenry along “anti” lines, i.e. anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-gun, etc.

Voter Apathy & Incumbent Bias

Voting is the most powerful act we have in a true democracy but about half of Americans ignore, or worse yet, blatantly and deliberately forfeit, their right to vote. A vast number of Americans don’t vote, and most who do vote like it was a team sport or a civics exam for which they are relying on rote memorization to pass the test of how many incumbents they remember. Even though only about half of Americans who can vote actually do vote, we still had about 130 million voters cast ballots during the 2008 presidential election, which attracted significantly more interest that past presidential elections. Almost 57 percent of the voting-age population voted in 2008. Mid-term elections have fewer voters, but still a sizable number, hovering around 80 million. Only 37 percent of eligible voters voted in the 2006 mid-term.

When there are so many voters, individual votes are meaningless: Democracy dilutes the will of the individual, for the benefit of the whole and rightfully so. But a lot of people vote from a team perspective—like complacent lemmings. Straight-ticket voters want to win and will vote for their team just like they support their favorite football or baseball team. Living vicariously through a sports team is one thing, but voting for people who make incredibly important decisions based on what “team” they belong to is, to me, just plain stupid.

Ask yourself, “Do I really want anybody making decisions that directly affect my personal wellbeing, who is a coward, self-serving, or stupid?” Why then do we continue to elect and reelect people who make decisions that directly affect our personal and collective wellbeing who so obviously make those decisions based on what is either politically or financially advantageous for themselves or one of the two major political parties?

There are many rules and regulations that could govern a fair and equal electoral process, if those in positions of authority had the wherewithal and/or courage to implement them. But incumbents won’t change because in our system there is no reason for them to change. When a person gets elected to public office, regardless of how well meaning they might be, the first decision they tend to make is how to get reelected. The next decision is how to tow the party line. The next decision after that is how to keep their base happy and then, and only then, the last decision is how to satisfy the constituency. So go the priorities for every Democrat and Republican.

To me, the first priority for every elected official should be [italic] to make decisions that benefit the whole of their constituency regardless of how difficult those decisions are and whether or not they are good for their respective parties and whether or not they will get reelected.

Remedy in Reform, Action

We the people have to accept responsibility for our monumental governmental failures. The people elected by the citizenry are a direct reflection of the apathy and ignorance that define the general populace. If we want change to happen in our government—in our democracy—then, we have to change not only the people who are elected to our legislatures, but also the way we elect them.

I submit that one of the answers to correcting the glaring errors of our current democratic government is to institute Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) in every state and for every election. This isn’t perfect either, but at the very least it ensures that those people getting voted into office directly reflect the will of at least 51 percent of the people who vote. This would help to legitimize our democracy. My hypothesis is that IRV would encourage more voter participation as well, if people actually learned how it worked.

In our current “democracy” most people won’t lift a finger to educate themselves about the issues or candidates. Their only political education stems from who and what they see most on TV commercials.***

American democracy will not change until the people change it. And that will only happen if and when every American citizen starts exercising their constitutional right and responsibility to educate themselves about the candidates and issues, and then vote accordingly. Corporate media fear-mongering must stop and the gates to an equal, open, and honest political arena must open. Democracy can work for America, but only if Americans start working for and by the guiding principles of fairness and equality that define a true democratic nation.

---

Michael LaForest is a political novice who has campaigned for partisan office three times in Wisconsin and has been involved in third-party politics for over 20 years. He is running a write-in campaign for U.S. Senate and is a registered write-in candidate. He is a licensed counselor and works for a nonprofit program helping homeless veterans obtain permanent housing. He lives in Milwaukee with his partner, their foster children, and their little dog, Pinto.

Notes

*Keep in mind that the U.S. House of Representatives can circumvent any state election law and it doesn’t take much of an imagination to discern the real reasons that election laws seldom change. They don’t change unless they are advantageous for the Republicans or Democrats. This is most likely the only political ideology that the two major parties really agree on.

**Again, the U.S. House of Representatives has the authority to do this, but gives absolutely no consideration to this very simple democratic concept and instead consistently caves to the false notion that all Americans have the same opportunities to run for political office.

***This then leads to another failing of American democracy—the dumbing down of our population. There really is no incentive for Americans to learn who the candidates are or what the issues are, especially when the mass media force-feeds them with useless, political rhetoric on every channel for most of every hour of programming for months prior to any major election. Our democracy is nothing more or less than what corporate media institutions and powerful political parties want us to hear and believe.

Democracy requires service, sacrifice, education to make a good idea into reality

By Ben Klandrud

This July 4th, 2010, we celebrated our 234th national birthday. For most, this was a festive day marked by parades, concerts, and fireworks. It meant a day off of work, summer sun, and cookouts with traditional foods, like the beer brats and cold watermelon enjoyed by my family. American flags were prominently displayed, adorning homes and T-shirts. Independence Day has become more of a commercial holiday, like Halloween or Valentine’s Day, instead of a joyous time of remembrance and respect for those who’ve sacrificed to preserve this democracy and its freedoms.

I was asked by a friend to write about democracy. At first, I felt reluctant to share my perspectives on the topic because national ignorance and apathy is so pervasive that one in four Americans are unaware of what empire our founding fathers boldly declared independence from by signing their names to that pivotal document in Pennsylvania on July 4, 1776 (Note 1). But, how will awareness and appreciation for the American approach to government—democracy—increase if those who are knowledgeable don’t pass along our past?

By definition, democracy is a form of government that is “by the people and for the people,” (Note 2) meaning citizens elect their leaders. America is a republic, which specifically means citizens vote for representatives at both local (i.e., state) and national (i.e., federal) levels to run the government. Unlike most of the world, the freedom of speech in America encourages exchange and debate of ideas. This is not Iran; there is no reason to fear deadly retribution for those who openly oppose the establishment. Such freedom welcomes extremely opposite opinions on government.

Some American citizens believe in and promote reforms that will mean huge government oversight of, or control over, our personal and professional lives. These reforms are a slippery slope to socialism, where the entire community (read: the government) owns and controls the people’s means of production. Have such proponents forgotten the lessons of history? Have they not gleaned the grizzly lessons of Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany, Mao’s China, Kim Jung Il’s North Korea, Castro’s Cuba, Pot’s Cambodia, and Chavez’ Venezuela? Socialist governments have all too often set the stage for totalitarian regimes antithetical to the principals of freedom we purport to cherish as Americans. When considering such reforms, we must guard against any that endanger the individual liberties fundamental to our democracy and guaranteed in our Constitution.

It is not enough to be labeled a democratic nation—her people must continuously maintain the spirit of democracy by challenging elected leaders to fulfill constituents’ wishes. Whenever ignored and/or defied, the population must be willing and able to enact consequences, namely removal from office. When citizens accept such responsibility for their democracy, government is at its most effective. As an Army officer, it is my responsibility to train and prepare soldiers for battle. That means we study war history, the enemy, and our equipment as we train our bodies and minds to function as a team for the ultimate goal: victory. Similarly, Americans either contribute to the success or failure of this country through their level of preparation for patriotic participation. From my viewpoint, Americans are responsible for the country’s progression in the following five ways: 1.) voting, 2.) personal integrity, 3.) sacrificial nature, 4.) commitment to education, and 5.) reliance on the creator.

The cornerstone of democracy is the people’s right to vote. The 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence acknowledged voting as fundamental to freedom. Unfortunately, low voter turnout appears to be an ever-increasing trend in America. Even with impressive numbers of young people casting ballots, particularly for the charismatic and compelling Barack Obama, less than two of three eligible voters participated in the 2008 presidential election (Note 3). Concerning local elections not held in November, turnouts are typically abysmal.

It saddens me to report that voter apathy exists in the military as well. Many of my soldiers, mostly fresh out of high school, frankly confess that they choose not to vote because 1.) politics don’t interest them, 2.) they are uninformed about the issues and candidates, or 3.) feel one person’s vote is irrelevant. Incredibly, some of these have fought to liberate Iraqis from tyrannical rule, paving a path to their historical election of leaders in 2005.

Going to the polls and exercising one’s right to vote must be impressed upon our youth and exemplified by elders as the primary way to protect our democracy from decay through corruption. Of course, personal integrity among voters ensures high moral standards are set for chosen officials. When lying, cheating, and stealing are overlooked in national leaders’ lives and offices, citizens passively permit a shift in the balance of power, from themselves, the voters, to the government, via untrustworthy representatives. John Quincy Adams said it best, “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”

Another hallmark of a successful democratic nation is that its people are sacrificial. Every generation since the American Revolution has made the ultimate sacrifice to ensure freedom reigns. From the bloody battle at Bunker Hill to the brave firefighters who stormed the crumbling World Trade Center towers on 9/11, willingness to sacrifice one’s ordinary life for the greater good has always defined American heroes. Whether by military or public service, the need for volunteers is great. Without the work of courageous and unselfish patriots, democracy could not have been established here nor could it persist unto today. Remember JFK’s charge to citizens: “Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.”

Even before declaring independence from England, the literacy rate for adult white males in the 13 colonies was a minimum of 70 percent (Note 4). High literacy rates are connected to the country’s religious heritage; most people were Christians and regularly read the Bible. Prioritization of widespread, personal education carries on. Of countries that send their children to secondary school, the United States is among the top. For example, 94 percent of American children are enrolled in secondary school compared to just 32 percent in Africa, 55 percent in Asia, and 73 percent for Latin America and the Caribbean (Note 5). Citizens of this democracy need basic education, particularly for reading and comprehending our Constitution. Knowing it will undoubtedly inspire informed voting decisions as well as make charlatans, who seek public power for illegitimate purposes, easily recognizable.

Guardians of American democracy should humble themselves to seek wisdom and discernment from the Creator, just as George Washington, John and Abigail Adams, Frederick Douglas, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Ronald Reagan. At the nation’s inception, Judeo-Christian beliefs and values were at the forefront of framer minds and writings. Recognition of God is clear when the founders concluded, “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 them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” It is this acknowledgement of God’s prominent place in our lives that pushes followers to live for God by loving one’s neighbors and enemies, choosing good over evil, and strengthening society through godly standards for everything—including governance.

If American democracy, as designed by the founders, is to persist for future generations, then today’s citizens must prepare themselves, as soldiers for battle, to defend our unique freedoms. Victory comes through informed votes cast by citizens of integrity who are willing to sacrifice time, comfort, and even life to preserve and protect rights endowed by God. Abe Lincoln encouraged mourners to keep to their cause of increasing freedom for all when he spoke the following in 1863 at Gettysburg: “It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Seriously consider the significance of Independence Day. Allow the spirit of patriotism to reside within you; demonstrate it through submission to God, service for fellow man, and defense of American democracy. Express love of country by flying the flag always and wearing red, white, and blue more than once a year. Educate yourself by regularly reading the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States. Vote every chance you get! Share our sacred history with family and friends. When citizens are dedicated to democracy, America continues to be “a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere” (Note 6).

---

Ben Klandrud is a captain in the U.S. Army.

Notes
1 Marist Poll taken on July 3, 2010.
2 Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address given on November 19, 1863
3 Andy Barr, 2008 turnout shatters all records, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15306.html (November 5, 2008)
4 Lawrence A. Cremin American Education: The Colonial Experience, NY: Harper & Row, 1970.
5 UNICEF, The State of the World’s Children Special Edition: Celebrating 20 Years of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 2009.
6 Ronald Reagan, 1974, echoing John Winthrop, 1630.