When pondering upon the notion of democracy, the vast majority of people will inevitably think of the United States of America. Since the US declaration of independence in 1776, the state itself became the synonym with the idea of the public will. In fact, researchers who spend years on investigating American history, claim the US to be one of the few equivalents to the notion of sovereignty and the “will of the people” cliché (De Toqueville, 2019). One of the many reasons behind such a conviction lies in the fact that it was the common duty of the American people to intervene in the state legislative system in order to claim their freedom. However, the question is whether such a tendency was always present in American culture and society.
One of the most notorious American literary figures to discover these patterns of civil-governmental relations paradigm was Henry David Thoreau. In the course of this paper, an attempt will be made to come to a conclusion to which extent it is a public duty to intervene in the face of justice. The major argument of the essay will be justified by the quotations of the Thoreau’s Resistance to Civil Government and Slavery in Massachusetts.
To begin with, it goes without saying that the US is seemingly one of the few countries where public opinion actually matters for the legislative bodies. However, in Slavery in Massachusetts, Thoreau points out the thought that gives one food for thought even nowadays. He mentions that “who can be serene in a country where both the rulers and the ruled are without principle?” (Baym & Levine, 2012, p, 1164). In fact, this statement provides the reader with the question of whether the high level of public interference is always a good idea in terms of governance. Moreover, being an American idea, such interventions jeopardize the overall national safety due to the country’s population rate.
Another important issue elaborated in the Thoreau’s works concerns the extent to which the American government respects and considers one’s willingness to serve the native land. In Resistance to Civil Government, he denotes that “he who gives himself entirely to his fellow‑men appears to them useless and selfish; but he who gives himself partially to them is pronounced a benefactor and philanthropist” (Baym & Levine, 2012, p, 969). This quotation reflects the idea that both the government and the public do not seem to reach a consensus any time soon, as there would be no happy medium in terms of this relationship. If to take a closer look at today’s American society, it may be noticed that the author had a fair point in the 19th century. Americans, being united by diversity at an unprecedented rate compared to the previous decades, still experience the dissonance between their government being the democracy canon and slavery leaders in the past.
Thus, taking everything into consideration, the matter of public interaction in political life has always been a topic for a continuous discussion. However, since the late 19th century, with the works of Henry David Thoreau, it became clear that while public opinion matters, it is sometimes not the most optimal notion to intervene in the legislative process. With the extending influence of democracy across the globe, it is now a public duty to make sure everyone is being heard to such an extent the world order is not absorbed by chaos.
References
Baym, N. & Levine, R. S. (2012). The Norton anthology of American literature: Volume B: 1820-1865 (8th edition). New York, NY: Norton & Company.
De Toqueville, A. (2019). Democracy in America. Kyiv, Ukraine: Strelbytskyy Multimedia Publishing.