Daniel J. Boorstin claims there is a significant distinction between disagreement and dissent in a liberal society, arguing that disagreement is essential to the vitality of democracy, while dissent is effectively its cancer. I agree with Boorstin’s distinction as it applies in a historical context because disagreement promoted the rights of the people, while dissent seriously endangered them. However, I do not believe his distinction holds entirely true in contemporary America because the federal government’s protection of people’s rights is too secure for dissent to significantly weaken democracy.
During the sequence of events at America’s founding as a democratic nation in the late 18th century, democracy relied on disagreement. After …show more content…
Disagreement continues to be a valued principle of democracy, as it permits all citizens to have a protected voice and rights. But dissent is no longer a viable threat to democracy today. America’s government was unstable during the late 18th century, lacking sufficient power to maintain control over its people in the face of dissension. However, America has gradually implemented a stronger federal government that preserves democracy by enforcing people’s natural rights by law, rather than relying on civic virtue. This government provides an ideal balance between personal rights and federal power. Terrorists and white supremacy groups such as the KKK reject the values of equality and cause conflicts while attempting to revoke the rights of many Americans. But this dissent is ultimately defeated in the face of a solidified political structure.. Government has an obligation to enforce the rights of all people, meaning that dissenters now have less influence on democracy. Dissent can still cause discord, but because today’s federal government has much more power and stability than its early American counterpart, dissenters are now unable to seriously threaten American
During the sequence of events at America’s founding as a democratic nation in the late 18th century, democracy relied on disagreement. After …show more content…
Disagreement continues to be a valued principle of democracy, as it permits all citizens to have a protected voice and rights. But dissent is no longer a viable threat to democracy today. America’s government was unstable during the late 18th century, lacking sufficient power to maintain control over its people in the face of dissension. However, America has gradually implemented a stronger federal government that preserves democracy by enforcing people’s natural rights by law, rather than relying on civic virtue. This government provides an ideal balance between personal rights and federal power. Terrorists and white supremacy groups such as the KKK reject the values of equality and cause conflicts while attempting to revoke the rights of many Americans. But this dissent is ultimately defeated in the face of a solidified political structure.. Government has an obligation to enforce the rights of all people, meaning that dissenters now have less influence on democracy. Dissent can still cause discord, but because today’s federal government has much more power and stability than its early American counterpart, dissenters are now unable to seriously threaten American