The duties of the people and the duties of the government can only work hand in hand. The people, who create and develop the government, dictate how the government runs; and the government, as the latter, dictated how the people live. Although they seem linked together, as inseparable clauses both the government and its people hone complete opposite tasks. Neither condones one another; they work as opposites until times where they must run together as one. Three of the most inspiring leaders: John F Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln all spoke about the obligations of people in society and how much we must work together to form “a more perfect union”. All in all, I am in accordance with these leaders and agree that acting together as a nation is the overall duty of the government, the individual and society as a whole.
As an individual under democracy, I see first-hand how much power is in the Americans grasp and all of the things we must do in order to help the government prosper. John F Kennedy, in his inaugural speech, perfectly listed what obligations we have as citizens of a democratic-republic nation. All throughout his speech, he discoursed on the fact that Americans must work together toward the greater good, for the government cannot make peace with the enemies if not all of the people are in accordance. He pinpoints how we are able to use our power to create good in the world, but again, a nation cannot be divided. More specifically, he says that “divided there is little we can do -- for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder… or begin anew the quest for peace” (page 1-2). This statement finitely sums up what both I and John F Kennedy believe to be the true onuses of an American: that a divided country cannot bear the burdens of a world power or create the peace necessary to progression. All in all, as Americans (and even as a member of an adverse society) we must stand together as a whole because without peace, there is no victory for anyone; for victory lies in the accordance of individuals for the greater good.
As previously stated, the government and the individual run two diverse paths of growth towards the same basic goals of development. Although the people do play a large part in the government – such as democracy - the government will usually have the final say of things. Abraham Lincoln, in the Gettysburg Address, was able to further the meaning of government by pressing forward its obligations and what it should be doing. He explained from beginning to end how the people must be a part of society and keep the government alive. However, he unexpectedly throws in the part the government must play in the clamor for nationalism. As a closing he stated “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” (page 2). As a reader, I take the non-perishable government task to be a large task to hold as an individual – so I interpreted it as a duty of the government overall. From this, I believe that the one main obligation of the government to the individuals would be to continually remind them of our strong past experiences and how they brought us to freedom today. I also believe that they must take hold of their citizens to reminisce on the prosperities of the country: the times where the United States – or any nation, for that matter – was successful and how they were able to achieve such success. With these constant reminders of how much the people of a nation must fight for their rights, nationalism grows which eventually bleeds into the individuals obligations to join as a nation and working towards triumph.
Although different, the government and society must correlate; one must depend on the other, but not absolutely. I believe that with a government in place, the people must follow its fair rules and with the people as part of the government, the government must listen to their requests so to still have people as a part of the infrastructure. Martin Luther King elucidated the connection between the government and society and how one must work with the other – even if they may seem corrupt as individual sectors. He showed us that even though the government let the African Americans down initially, they “refuse[d] to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt [and] that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation” (page 1). I found this to be extremely interesting and enlightening because he showed me that the individual’s obligations mesh with the government’s obligations when either one is in need of the other’s aid. As for Martin Luther King, in his case, the African American people needed their rights, so they used their obligation of free speech to change the obligations of the government from segregation to liberation. As the latter, in John F Kennedy’s situation, he used the power and duty of the government of informing the people to change the people’s obligations from fighting to making peace with enemies.
As a whole, the duties of the nation and the duties of its government are seen as two separate outlets of freedom. However, the liabilities of both eventually cross paths when one half, or both halves, of what make up a nation are in need. So I believe that the obligations of an individual and it’s overrule must work as one because “a house divided … cannot stand” or work towards overall success.
No comments:
Post a Comment