The Patriot Act (And final blog!)

I remember the first time I seriously researched the Patriot Act. It was for my government class during my senior year of high school. I remember that I had a crazy conservative Republican teacher who I constantly argued with. We had to write a position paper on the Patriot Act. I wrote that I supported it because I was scared of terrorism. I still am scared of terrorism, but my viewpoints have changed slightly. 

I don't support the Bush Administration. I think it's been a complete failure. However, I really don't see what my fellow Democrats are making such a big deal out of. I want to feel safe when I travel, when my friends and family travel and when I'm in large cities or other "terrorism prone areas." Isn't it the job of the government to protect its citizens from hard? 

I really don't think that an obscenely large number of my civil liberties are being compromised. The way that I think of it is this: Do I have anything to hide? No. My record is clean so I really don't care who traces my phone calls or listens to my voicemail. At best, they'll find a voicemail from my mother reminding me to do my homework and get some sleep. 

It makes me think that the people who are so concerned about this DO have something to hide.

However, I'm a white, middle class girl from rural New York. I don't have to worry about be racially profiled. I think that if that were the case, I would probably completely change my position. I guess it's a little hypocritical on my part.  

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley

After reading Brave New World, the chapters that stick out most in my mind are the final two, in which John Savage and Mustapha Mond have a philosophical argument. 

Mond quotes the French philosopher Maine di Biran. The quote says that religion is in response to the threat of loss, old age, and death. I agree with this statement. Mond points out that in this  World State society, there is no old age, loss or death. Therefore, there is no need for religion. John believes that if the people of the World State found religion, they would give up their pleasurable vices and become chaste and moral. 

John claims that God is the reason for "everything noble and fine and heroic." I agreed with John's views until he expressed this viewpoint. I consider myself agnostic, yet I am definitely a moral person. In fact, I practice a lot of the values that Christianity preaches, I just don't use God to justify my beliefs. They're more personal. 

Mond responds with his belief that, "Christianity without tears-that's what soma is." I think that this is one of the most important quotes of the novel. People in the society are obsessed with soma, to the point that many religious people today are obsessed with their religion. With the amount of radical religious people in the world (Radical Evangelicals in the South and Radical Muslims come to mind automatically), it made me wonder if soma is an acceptable replacement for organized religion. With the amount of damage that humans have inflicted on each other in the name of religion (9/11, the Crusades, to name a few), maybe the whole soma idea isn't a bad one after-all. 

V for Vendetta

I was really excited to learn that we would be watching V for Vendetta in class. I have only seen it once before, and it was during a sleepover where gossip was more important than actually watching the movie. It was nice to be able to see it again when I could actually pay attention and understand what was going on. I loved it.  

One of the quotes that I found to be significant was- 

"The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous." 

-V

To me, V's vendetta proves that people who are wronged in horrific ways by their government will seek vengeance. I think that considering the state of the world at the moment, a similar, but less well meaning threat is also possible.

V wanted to blow up Parliament and wreck havoc in order to free London's citizens from the fear of living under Adam Sutler's oppressive government. However, that is not always the motivation behind acts of terrorism, which is how Sutler's government defined V's actions. While I agree with V's actions because his overall intent was good (I guess in this particular situation the end does justify the means), I think that his obsessive mindset can be immensely dangerous when people with the wrong intentions start thinking that way. 

The plot of this movie is so involved that I would be interested in seeing it a view more times so that I could better grasp all of the minute details of the intent, viewpoints and beliefs of the characters. 

Skinheads and Bob Moser

I've always been taught to look at both sides of an argument, but I don't really think that's possible with this topic. 

The people in this documentary give white people a bad name. I was disgusted when I saw it. The people in this documentary are ill-informed and ignorant. They've developed their beliefs past an ideology into a cult. It's sickening. There is nothing scientific to back up their beliefs. One man said "The Chinese and the Japanese don't interbreed." I'm not an expert on Asian culture, but I would be willing to bet that they're wrong. 

The obsession that this cult has with death is unhealthy. It's disgusting. 

Their interpretation of American history is interesting, to say the least. I wonder how they can tell what "their forefathers" thought about Jews, blacks and homosexuals. 

I guess that the only way I can see the opposite side is in the Moser article. He implies that it is okay for Caucasian clubs to be banned in high schools while other cultured groups are permitted. I went to a high school that was about a forth Native American and they were allowed to have Native American culture clubs, classes, support groups, a private tutor and presentations. However, the white students were not allowed to form a Caucasian club. I was upset by this and I can see how the denial of white culture can lead to the extreme behavior shown in the documentary. I think another issue that causes behavior like this is affirmative action. And while I'm annoyed that I am automatically denied a large amount of big scholarships because I am not a racial minority, I am not ignorant enough to lump everyone who is different than me into one group and then practice hate against them. That's the crucial difference. 

Adolf Hitler

In high school, we didn't study the Holocaust nearly as much as I think is necessary. Most of my knowledge on the subject has come from taking my own initiatives to learn the subject. The only perspective that I've ever gotten is from the side of the Jews who were most obviously the victims in the case. I always have wondered what the psychological issues and the reasoning that Hitler used to justify the atrocities that he committed. These readings from Mein Kampf gave me a little bit of insight but there are still things that I don't understand. I don't anyone ever truly will. 

In Chapter IV he writes, "People who can sneak their way into the rest of mankind like drones, to make other men work for them under all sorts of pretexts, can form states even without any definitely delimited living space of their own. The applies first and foremost to a people under whose parasitism the whole of honest humanity is suffering, today more than ever: the Jews." 

I don't see why the Jews were considered "parasites" and no other group of people were. During the time that Hitler rose to power, the German economy was destroyed and nearly everyone was poor. What differentiated the Jews from the poverty? What made them more parasitic than any other group of people? 

The only conclusion that I can come up with is that Hitler was threatened by the Jews ability to have a nation without a state. He must have seen that as some sort of legitimate threat to his power. 

Benito Mussolini

I had preconceived notions before I read this piece. Ever since I can remember, relatives on my dad's side of the family always complained about how Mussolini ruined our family. My family is very, very Italian and my ancestors lived on a large estate in Sicily before Mussolini took control of Italy in 1925. Our family apparently tried to fight against his party, but part ended up joining the Mafia and the others fled to the US and shorted our last name from Perrello to Pearl. Well, at least that's the story, anyway. I've heard it my whole life from uncles, aunts, great uncles, etc. It always gets brought up at family reunions. To speak well of fascism or Mussolini will get you punched around my family. 

I looked up a definition of fascism online before reading this piece. It's defined as: A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. 

In this piece, however, Mussolini describes fascism as a spiritual conception. He mentions that it is an ethical and spiritual practice. I don't get how anyone could consider what fascist regimes have done to be ethical and spiritual. 

This is What Democracy Looks Like

This documentary definitely gave me a great deal of things to think about. I found it to be very interesting and telling of the motivations of those who were involved in the Seattle WTO protests in 1999. I remember when it was going on being confused about why these people were so mad in the first place. 

A few things really stuck out for me in this documentary. First of all, I found it really unfortunate that those few people decided to break the store front windows and property in downtown Seattle. This is what probably motivated the police to use the measures of force that they did. I also heard it used as justification after the protests were over. It's also sad because not only do the effects of this damage affect the CEO's of copies like Starbucks, but forcing these companies to close down during the protests also hurts the minimum wage workers. These are the same people that the protesters are fighting to protect. 

The other concept that I found interesting is the whole idea of civil disobedience. I don't know if I have enough guts (for lack of a better word) to get arrested and beat by the police for the things that I believe in. Although politics is one of my passions, I also value my clean criminal record and have high aspirations that would nearly impossible to achieve with a police record. I've campaigned for Hillary Clinton and other political candidates that I support.  I actively research candidates who value the same things I do. However, I couldn't picture myself sitting still on the group while police spray pepper spray at me. While I have respect for the people who are willing to do that, I think some people featured in the documentary are protesting for the sake of protesting. 

Anarchy in Seattle

I found this reading interesting because I read about the Seattle World Trade Organization protest in President Bill Clinton's autobiography, My Life. I was 10 years old in 1999 when it happened, so I vaguely remember footage on the news of the violence and protests in Seattle. However, at that age, I didn't understand what President Clinton did to upset so many people so much. 

Later in life, when I discovered my interest in politics, I read President Clinton's autobiography and I remember reading about the WTO protests. So, for me to read Cindy Milstein's prospective on it was interesting. 

To me, a significant quote was by Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta, who defined anarchism as, "a form of social life in which men live a brothers, where nobody is in a position to oppress or exploit anyone else, and in which all the means to achieve maximum moral and material development are available to everyone." 

I've tried to keep an open mind during this unit but I just don't see how a social system like this is possible. I think that there will always be people who try to oppress or exploit others so I don't see how this could ever be implemented in real life. 

"No grades, no masters" by Rebecca Lerner

I find the whole idea of the Ithaca Freeskool very compelling. As a college student, I agree with the founders of the Freeskool that the idea of grading someone on the knowledge that they've gained. So many different factors can affect one's academic performance, and that can make a grade suffer. A poor teacher can lead to poor performance. If that's the case, the student, not the teacher, suffers.

With that being said, I like the idea that Freeskool is against grades and compulsory schooling. I find it extremely interesting that there is a branch of Freeskool in Ithaca, a town with two universities. I like the fact that students at the Freeskool can attend classes that they enjoy to learn more about a subject that they love or are interested in.

However, a bad teacher can ruin a subject for a student if not forever, for a very long time. I had an awful teacher for Economics my senior year of high school and now I not only don't remember anything I learned, but have learned to hate the subject. As a politics and journalism major, that's definitely not a good thing. I think that Freeskool should implement some sort of teaching standard for its teachers, that way they can ensure that they are effective.

The other issue I have with Freeskool is the whole concept of a lack of syllabi. While it's nice to not be tied down to a schedule, people can end up arguing in circles for hours about meaningless things, like the members of the Anarchy and Spirituality did. I know that personally, that would drive me crazy.

However, I love that people in the community are willing to implement a program like this and I'm interested to see how it progresses.

"Fighting for Reforms Without Becoming a Reformist" by Robin Hahnel

I really liked this reading. I think that it's because it was written fairly recently (2005) so I found that I was able to relate to the way it was written better than I was to some of the older texts that we've read for class. 

I think that there are two very telling quotes from this text. The first is, "It turns out that capitalism is far more resilient than revolutionary socialists expected it to be." I think that this is one of the core ideas of studying socialism. True capitalists will always fear and reject socialism as an economic system. American governments have always wanted to spread "democracy" to undemocratic countries, and capitalism usually follows democracy. 

The other important quote from this passage is: "There is nothing wrong with the notion of winning reforms. If reforms are successful they will make capitalism less harmful to some extent. If winning a reform further empowers people, and whets their appetite for more democracy, more economic justice, and more environmental protection than capitalism can provide, it can hasten the democratic creation of an alternative to capitalism. As a matter of fact, that is a concise description of precisely what democratic socialists must be about." 

I think that nearly every political belief or ideology has a similar sort of notion. It's the whole idea of easing people into an idea so as not to scare them. When the people realize that the political belief isn't as bad as they originally thought, they want more. 

Excerpt from: Background on American Anticommunist Propaganda

This reading really got me thinking about the differences between the Cold War and WWII and Iraq and the War on Terror. My parents, who are 56 and 64, have lived through the Cold War era and have mentioned many times about the differences between the wars of their generation and the wars of mine. My dad served in Vietnam so I respected what he had to say from a war veteran's experience, but it never really dawned on me what he was trying to say. 

I know that there is quite a bit of anti-terrorism propaganda out in the media today, but I don't think it's anywhere near as bad as the propaganda that was produced during the Cold War. The part that I found especially interesting was the section that described the movies that were made during this time. The only two terrorism war movies that I can think of that have been produced lately are Stop Loss and The Kingdom (they were both excellent and I recommend both of them). The Kingdom had more to do with the culture and beliefs of Islamic extremists and Stop Loss was about how the US Military is poorly treating war veterans and the effects it has on soldiers. Neither one of them was overwhelmingly anti-Muslim or anti-terrorism. 

And then there's the movie W, which is about President George W. Bush's life. While it was a lot more compassionate toward him than I think he deserved, it did criticize the President during a time of war. I think that a movie like this would have never been made during WWII or the Cold War. It's interesting how things change. 

Berstein and Luxemburg

Overall, I found this reading pretty confusing, but I found one part of Luxemburg's passage to be particularly interesting. 

Luxemburg's writes: 

"The scientific basis of socialism rests, as it is well known, on three principal results of capitalist development. First, on the growing anarchy of capitalist economy, leading inevitably to its ruin. Second, on the progressive socialisation of the process of production, which creates the germs of the future social order. And third, on the increased organisation and consciousness of the proletarian class, which constitutes the active factor in the coming revolution." 

I find this quote to be interesting because any time in the past that I've heard the word "socialism," the word "revolution" seems to follow closely behind. Even now in the United States, conservative Republicans have "guaranteed" that if Barack Obama is elected as president, that the country will turn to socialism. However, as stated in the above passage by Luxemburg, the "scientific basis" of socialism rests on the anarchy of capitalist economy, leading inevitably to its ruin. While the economy is by no means doing well at the moment, I doubt that the recession that its going into will lead it its demise. 

Socialism by Heywood

This reading helped clear up a lot of questions that I had about socialism. Before I read this piece, I knew that socialists wanted equality among groups of people. I also knew that as a liberal, I wanted equality for others too. So did that make me a socialist? No. This quote helped clear up that misconception on my part. 

"Liberals, however, are committed to equality, but on the grounds that all individuals enjoy an equal moral worth and are therefore entitled to equal rights and respect... Liberals therefore favor the equality of opportunity, but see no reason why this should, or will, lead to social and economic equality." 

To me, this makes complete sense. There will always be classes in the United States. People should have the opportunity to move up in class if they work hard and receive an education. I realize that there are plenty of hard working people in the country now who are living in poverty. This greatly saddens me and I wish that there was a way that we could start everyone off on an "even playing field" so that people could move up in life if they work hard enough. Unfortunately, no one has found a way to do this without going socialist. I think that this is why some conservatives often call liberals socialists. 

Phyllis Shlafly and the "Positive Woman"

When I discovered that we were reading a piece by Phyllis Shlafly in class, I knew I'd hate it. Generally, I try to keep an open mind, but I saw her on a documentary last year called Running in High Heels. She spoke out against women being able to hold office and vote, so I knew that I wouldn't agree with a single word she wrote about in "The Power of the Positive Woman." 

I consider myself a feminist, so I really didn't appreciate being called a "militant" in this piece. I don't consider myself a militant by any means. In every political group there are some radicals, and Shlafly seems to constantly focus on them. I don't disagree with her that there are women (and men for that matter) who take the feminist movement to the extreme, but I am not one of them, and I would say that they're in the minority. Maybe it's just because the radical ones seem to be more vocal and outspoken about their beliefs. 

The most ridiculous quote in this passage is,"The 'liberated' Roman matron, who is most similar to the present-day feminist, helped bring about the fall of Rome through her unnatural emulation of masculine qualities, which resulted in large-scale breakdown of the family and ultimately of the empire." I don't even see the correlation here. I haven't taken European history since my sophomore year of high school, but I am pretty sure Schlafly's history is a little off on this one. 

 

Conservatism...

In my mind, when I picture the "traditional American conservative," I picture a crazy evangelical Christians, usually Southern, protesting gay marriage, abortion, or any other of the various "evils" liberal government has brought to the country. Images from the documentary Jesus Camp (which is a terrifying documentary to watch-- if you haven't seen it. Go rent it. You won't know whether to laugh or cry) immediately spring to my mind. I can hear the sound clips of interviews with the children saying that "fags" are sinners, that Harry Potter is evil, and that abortion is killing God's children. They also don't believe in evolution and want intelligent design and Genesis to be taught in public schools. All of these conservatives absolutely advocate change, and drastic ones at that, to the government. So, why are they called conservatives? 

In the Andrew Heywood reading on Conservatism, he starts out with the most commonly stated definition of conservatism that I've ever heard, "The fear or refusal to change." This is the working definition of conservatism that I've always used. Why, then, haven't I ever realized that the American conservatives that I always picture in my head don't follow that definition? They advocate for change. 

A more complex definition, for conservatism, therefore, must be used to describe American conservatism. 

Burke- Conservatism

Although Burke's piece, Reflections on the Revolution of France was confusing and tedious to read, I think that I managed to pick out the core beliefs that Burke was trying to explain. 

Burke emphasized the importance of family and family structure in this passage. He wrote, 

"But one of the first and most leading principles on which the commonwealth and the laws are consecrated, is lest the temporary possessors and life-renters in it, unmindful of what they have received from their ancestors or of what is due to their posterity, should act as if they were the entire masters; that they should not think it amongst their to cut off the entail, or commit waste on the inheritance, by destroying as their the whole original fabric of society; hazarding to leave to those who come after them, a ruin instead of a habitation- and teaching these successors as little to respect their contrivances, as they had themselves respected the institutions of their forefathers." 

This quote builds on the belief of conservatives that the tradition family is the cornerstone and the fabric of a society. Everything that the government does should ultimately be in the best interest of protecting the traditional families in a particular society. 

This belief is consistent with a book I read in one of my politics classes last semester called It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good by Rick Santorum, a conservative Senator from Pennsylvania. In his book, Santorum describes his beliefs on how important family is to a society as well as his politics that attempt to "preserve" the traditional family. 

School Voucher Reflection

The articles by Covaleskie and Coulson really got me thinking about the school voucher debate in the United States and my opinion on it. In high school I never really paid much attention to it because I figured nothing would have happened to drastically change the way I was being educated. And while I was right, I find this debate to be especially interesting now, probably because I am researching it with the mind set of a high school graduate. 

A little bit of a back story on the high school that I went to-- I live in a small rural area just south of Buffalo. My high school was awful. It wasn't awful in the "ghettoized" way that Covaleskie wrote about in his piece, but it was still bad. We had a beautiful, brand new library and gym, all the funding we could ever need, but our quality of education was atrocious. And by atrocious, I mean that when Business First Magazine rated the 100 high schools in Western New York, my high school came in 89. We were even considered worse than Buffalo City Schools who do not have adequate funding. When this ranking came out, school officials and teachers tried to brush it under the rug. 

However, I realized what such a poor education would do for my academics. Despite being at the top of my class, I knew that my high school was not properly preparing me for college. I applied to one of the most prestigious private schools in the area. However, I couldn't afford $10,000 a year in tuition and still have a prayer at being about to afford college tuition too. My family isn't poor, we live comfortably, but that was an added expense that we couldn't swing. So, I stayed at the awful public school, and when it came time to apply to colleges, I was told that as a graduate of my high school, community college would be my best option. There is nothing wrong with community college, but I aspired for more than that. I can say fairly certainly that my high school's poor reputation hurt me when applying to more prestigious universities such as Notre Dame and Cornell, but luckily enough, I did get into Ithaca. Ithaca's reputation helped me finally get into USC, my top choice, but it makes me wonder. 

If I had gone to a better high school and had the same grades, would I have gotten into more colleges? 

Probably. 

Would I have been better prepared for college once I got here?

Absolutely. 

So, while I think both systems have flaws, I wish I had had more of a choice when deciding where to go to high school. While there are great public schools out there, unfortunately, mine wasn't one of them. I don't think students should be judged on a financial basis when gaining admission to schools, but more on academics, involvement and willingness to work hard. 

William Graham Sumner: What Social Classes Owe to Each Other

In this reading, Sumner makes the argument that government programs to help the poor are abused and that rich people should be able to keep their wealth. To a certain extent, I see where he's coming from. When I see how much money gets taken out of my paychecks for taxes, it makes me sick (and I am definitely not considered rich), but, this guy has absolutely no sympathy. 

I know that some people do take advantage of the systems set in place in the United States now, and I'm sure it happened then too. However, there are some legitimate reasons why some people live below the poverty line. I try to exercise as much sympathy as possible in this situations and not judge people. Sumner, on the other hand, is completely insensitive. He writes,  "Labor organizations are formed, not to employ combined effort for a common object, but to indulge in declamation and denunciation and especially to furnish an easy living to some officers who do not want to work." 

Over the summer I worked at a drugstore that sold groceries. The area where I live doesn't have a very high level of income in some areas. I'm lucky enough to have a family that has always been able to live comfortably, but I know that some people that live on the other side of town aren't so lucky. A lot of people that came into my work used food stamps to pay for their purchases. Most seemed to actually need food stamps for their purchases. These customers seemed embarrassed of  their situations, and some even explained their situations (lay offs, difficulty finding new jobs, etc). To me, these people hardly seemed to not want to work, most just couldn't find a good job that was close enough to our village to be financially worth it gas wise. And while there were some people that paid for extra frivolous things with money or a credit card and then bought food with food stamps, they were definitely in the minority. 

Declaration of Rights of the Women of the United States

I found this reading particularly interesting because I'm also taking Introduction to Women's Studies this semester. As discussed in class, like Frederick Douglass, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony first complimented and praised the progress that the United States has made so far. The Declaration of Rights of the Women of the United States was written 24 years after Douglass gave his speech, "What to the Slave is the Forth of July?" The writing techniques, however are very similar. They give praise and compliments first and then continue on to make passionate and convincing arguments for their cause (abolition of slavery and women's rights, respectively). 

A point that Stanton and Anthony use a great deal is that "sex is a crime" in the United States. The women point out that the word "male" is added into all State constitutions. This denied women the right to vote. This also means that women are denied a jury of their peers. Women have had to answer to juries made up entirely of men. Men, especially in those days,  just simply do not understand women's issues such as rape, domestic abuse and adultery. There was no other woman's voice to aid a fellow woman in defense. 

As a feminist, the unfairness of the way that women were treated not only makes me angry, but sick as well. I think that modern United States culture has gotten lazy when it comes to women's rights. A women is still making $0.75 for every $1.00 that a man makes for the same job. A women's right to choose whether or not she can terminate a pregnancy in her own body is in jeopardy. In conclusion, I think that it's important for the people of the United States to remember the hard work and dedication that people like Douglass, Stanton and Anthony had for their respective causes. While we may have made a lot of progress, we have a long way to go.  

Frederick Douglass Reading

In the Frederick Douglass reading, What to the Slave is the Forth of July?, Douglass makes a compelling and passionate speech about the hardships, unfairness and unjustness of slavery. He starts his speech off by praising the bravery, determination and intelligence of the founding fathers. This is a particularly effective tool to use, considering the fact that his audience was probably made primarily of white people who had their freedom and took it for granted. 

Douglass then goes on to say that, "the eye of the reformer is met with angry flashes, portending disastrous times; but his heart may well beat lighter at the thought that America is you, and that she is still in the impressible stage of her existence." This lets the audience know that he understands the difficulties ahead for those who believe in abolitionist causes, but he believes that the United States is new enough in its existence as a nation to be able to make a positive change in such a hot button and important issue as slavery. 

Overall, I really believe that the speech is powerful and moving. If I had been there when it was delivered, I think that I would have been inspired. Just reading it was inspiring. I just find it extremely interesting that Fredrick Douglass, a man who was born into slavery and later escaped, to speak at a Forth of July celebration for the President of the United States and other important officials. Did they not see the hypocrisy in asking a man who spent the beginning of his life legally treated like an object to speak about freedom and liberty? Nevertheless, I think that the speech was eloquent and well written. 

Mill Reading

I found the activity that we did at the beginning of yesterday's class to be a very interesting tie in, especially considering the political climate of Ithaca. So many people at IC claim to be "hardcore" liberals, but I'm curious to see how many people could actually define liberalism. Despite the fact that I'm interested in politics and working on making it my second major, I'm not entirely sure that I could completely and thoroughly define it either. 

Both John Stuart Mill and Thomas Hobbes examined and wrote about how much control citizens were willing to give up to their governments or sovereigns. Both focused on the relationship between the ruler and those being ruled, but came up with different ideas about how that relationship should be. 

Hobbes wrote about an absolute monarchy in which the ruler, or sovereign, would have supreme power. The people basically give up all power and rights when they agree to the terms in the covenant. They have no power to overthrow, disagree with or challenge the ruler. The sovereign is all powerful with no system of checks and balances. 

Mill, however, believes that the only time individuals or society as a whole can interfere with individual liberty is for self protection (www.bartelby.com)  He believes in a more democratic approach to government. 

Liberty, or the quality or state of being free, is a core idea of liberalism, according to in class discussion on September 3rd. Therefore, Mill's core political beliefs according to On Liberty, share a liberalistic view of government, whereas Hobbes promotes a very oppressive and totalitarian government. The 2 different writers develop completely different political ideologies based on the same question.