Haynes 1

Kia Schluetz

Mr. Haynes

A.P. Government

August 30, 2011

A Conflict in Opinion; Hook and Zinn

The question of whether the American government is truly, in it's center-most intentions and in it's highly pervasive actions throughout the world and at home, a democracy, brings forth other questions in turn. Many of these questions consist of asking by what standards a democracy can and should be judged. As well, others travel even further into this mired philosophy to inquire what the basic nature of a democracy even is. Howard Zinn and Sidney Hook analyze these inquiries and their answers, as well as delving into the roots of the society and ideals of America to support their positions. Zinn clearly is of the intellectual position that America is not a true democracy, while Hook believes just the opposite.

Zinn appears to harbor a deep disapproval of many of the features of the American way of life. He attempts to define a democratic society as one with total equality in “access to information which they need,” legal matters, material “goods necessary for health” and other concerns, education, and expression of “individuality in private life,” as well as a culture that supports all of these things. Zinn also contends that the people of a society wishing to call itself democratic, should constantly protest unsatisfactory happenings (such as the American hypocrisy between selfish materialism and idealistic talk of freedom) to the point of near anarchy. Lastly, he insists that any so-called democracy must “measure [itself] against an ideal,” in order to improve itself to the furthest extent and not become complacent in its current state of progress. He concludes that until these things become a reality in America, the current system of government is too inadequate to truthfully call itself a democracy.

Hook writes a contemptuously opposed response to Zinn, expressing the view that Zinn has wrongly defined democracy as “a political product” (or in other words, that he is confusing a method of government with an entire society of perfection), and is suggesting the imposition of reforms that have little to do with democracy, and “could be introduced under a dictatorship”. Hook also seems to find Zinn's idea that under a democracy all should be completely equal, to be ludicrous because “there cannot be absolute equality even in a classless society.” He believes that variety in access to certain things is desirable, because, for example, some citizens may be ill-equipped to learn certain mental or physical tasks, and training and information should not be wasted on them. But more forcefully than his objection to total equality and wrongly defined democracy, Hook indignantly rejects comparisons of America to an unattainable ideal as being discouraging, and argues that it disregards the progress that has been made. He says that America's past “shows us that progress is possible.” All in all, Hook appears to adamantly support American democracy as a strong, morally correct system.

Hook and Zinn both argue intelligently and impassionedly for what each sees as correct; however there are some flaws in each argument. Zinn states repeatedly that he would only accept as a democratic system, one that has none of the flaws he has outlined. But such a task as fixing each of the named issues would be impossible, and American democracy can and should only be looked at in the framework of reality. In order, also, to reach or even to compare current American government to such an ideal, the elements of the perfect government should be clear. Unfortunately, values for such a thing can never be entirely agreed upon. Hook, while unburdened by nonspecific ideals and unrealistic expectations, also has a few questionable ideas. He claims that Zinn's proposition of non-stop citizen protest would be near anarchy, which is reasonable, but then continues on to suggest the severe restriction of those who ought to be allowed to protest, calling the majority of protesters “fanatics.” The point of protesting is to bring attention to injustice, but if it is illegal to protest certain things, many issues with the most need of reform will never be brought to light.

So with Zinn arguing that America does not employ true democracy in its government, and Hook believing the opposite, it is difficult to say who is more correct. However, the horrible hypocrisy between American ideals and actions is too much to ignore, and so it seems that Zinn has a better point.