Dreamers: The Metics of America

Immigration is one of the hot topics in American politics right now, especially since the 2016 election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy (DACA) is one of the issues that is included in these immigration debates. DACA allows illegal immigrants who came to the US as children to receive a renewable two-year work permit. This policy has helped many children today, who have come from nothing, giving them a chance to pursue the ideals of the American Dream, which encompasses civil rights, equality, and opportunity. In ancient Athens, the similar issue of citizenship for metics was a polarizing issue for many Athenian residents, as people who had been living in Athens their whole lives were not considered citizens. History repeats itself, and it is easy to see that metics and people who are protected under DACA (aka “Dreamers”) suffer under similar circumstances that pose a tough moral dilemma for our electorate.

The issues that people have/had against Dreamers and metics are similar. Many Athenians thought in a bigoted way that metics wouldn’t be loyal to Athens and they wouldn’t be fully committed to the success of our country. Similarly, today there are many people that are against Dreamers because of xenophobia. America has always had a problem with discrimination against foreigners, and it’s no different with Latin Americans; many people know about “Jim Crow” laws, but the less known “Juan Crow” laws posed many of the same discriminatory issues against Latinos, such as segregation in schools (Mendez v. Westminster deemed this unconstitutional in 1947). Given the US’s history of discrimination, it’s not a stretch to think that prejudice fuels some people’s opposition to Dreamers. However, many of these Dreamers have only ever known the US as home, these Dreamers are, as former President Obama described in his statement regarding DACA, “young people who grew up in America — kids who study in our schools, young adults who are starting careers, patriots who pledge allegiance to our flag. These Dreamers are Americans in their hearts, in their minds, in every single way but one: on paper. They were brought to this country by their parents, sometimes even as infants.” Similarly, metics were Athenian in every sense of the word until Pericles declared that only people with two Athenian-born parents were Athenian citizens. Just like these Dreamers, many metics were just as committed to Athens as any Athenian, but a law was the only thing standing between them and citizenship.

In one of Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign rallies, he famously stated of illegal immigrants that, “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” This is a statement that many people agree with, but I believe that there is more than just “some” good people, especially when we are talking about the Dreamers. How much of a difference does it make if someone was born on this country or came here as a toddler, knowing nothing of their birth country? These people just want to seek the same opportunities that people have in the US, what is so bad about that? Lysias, over two-thousand years ago told his immigration story: “My father Cephalus was induced by Pericles to come to this country, and dwelt in it for thirty years: never did he, any more than we, appear as either prosecutor or defendant in any case whatever, but our life under the democracy was such as to avoid any offence against our fellows and any wrong at their hands.” (Lysias, 12) This story shows how just like the metics, the overwhelming majority of Dreamers just want to play their part as American citizens, and peacefully enjoy the same freedoms that American citizens have.

The question of the legality of Dreamers is a moral question. When we’re making decisions about these people’s legal status, it’s important to consider the effects this has on their lives, their families’ lives, and friend’s lives. When we kick these people out who are American in every sense, other than the required documents, we’re ruining lives. Like Obama said in his DACA statement, “They are that pitcher on our kid’s softball team, that first responder who helps out his community after a disaster, that cadet in ROTC who wants nothing more than to wear the uniform of the country that gave him a chance. Kicking them out won’t lower the unemployment rate, or lighten anyone’s taxes, or raise anybody’s wages.”

-Kevin Smith

Word Count: 573

Filling the Power Vacuum

The Roman Empire was reaching new heights under Caesar. He was popular amongst the people, made reforms to solve problems that had been plaguing the Romans, and forgave his enemies. He was charismatic, strategic, and powerful. Yet, the Senate decided that he was too powerful, and ended up assassinating him, leaving no children and the only relation being a great-nephew that was still only in his teens. Caesar’s rivals saw this as an opportunity, to either seize power or to take advantage of the new, possibly easily swayed heir. Yet, Augustus proved to be more than they expected, being absolutely brilliant as a politician and a leader and establishing himself as one that could not be taken advantage of.

Similarly, when Kim Jong-il died, it was at first, unclear who would take full power. Kim Jong-un was named the heir, but what his exact role was unknown. Due to his inexperience, it was assumed to Kim Jong-un would have a regent to rule for him. Yet he was able to fill the shoes of his father and to solidify his position as the Supreme Leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. He even went as far as to eliminate the competition for his position and to any dissenters through purges. His uncle, who was assumed to fill the position of regent was arrested and executed for treachery. His very existence was attempted to be erased, as his close and extended family were also executed. Multiple political purges happened, resulting in the deaths of different members that could threaten Kim’s position as the Supreme Leader.

When Caesar’s great nephew, Octavian, first came to power, other members of the Senate assumed that they could take advantage of him and attempted to do so. Yet he quickly proved his competence by forming the Second Triumvirate with Mark Antony and Lepidus, which was an official alliance between the three that made the most of their military, political, social, and monetary power. He then proceeded to take revenge against those that stood against Caesar, through actions such as driving them “into exile, punishing their crime through the proper-law courts, and afterwards, when they made war on the state, defeated them twice in battle.” (Augustus 2.1) He was nicknamed the Teenage Tyrant as a result of his willingness to exact revenge on those involved in the plot against Caesar through various executions and murders.

Kim Jong-un followed in very similar footsteps to Augustus following the death of their predecessors. Their ability to rule was questioned and attempted to be taken advantage of, and their retaliated with quick and brutal methods that showed their competence and how much they deserved the throne. The quick power struggle which is involved in new rulers proving themselves able to fill the shoes of those before them can be seen as a rite of passage, to ensure that these people are capable of leading the country to greatness. Through our experiences of the past, we can use it to test these leaders and see the strength of these heirs through the trials that they are put through.

-Eugene Om

Word Count-492

From Philip II to Robespierre: No Leader Is Great On Their Own

It is one thing to have your name remembered in history, but a whole other thing for “Great” to be part of that name. Alexander the Great was a truly remarkable leader by the success of his military and political campaigns to dominate one of the world’s largest and richest regions. These military campaigns, however, were made possible only because extremely high level of training and tactical expertise of the Macedonian Army. Alexander’s father, Philip II instituted key changes to mold Macedonia to the position which led Alexander to his success. Although Alexander was by many means “Great,” he couldn’t have done so without his father.

Before Philip II, the Macedonian political landscape consisted of a mess of warring aristocratic clans. When Philip gained power, that all changed. Not only was everyone unified, but the culture around the military changed. Traditionally, the method of fighting was through the use of a Hoplite Phalanx. Hoplite armour, however, was extremely expensive, so it essentially restricted warfighting to wealthy landowners. Phillip reformed the military to fight with light, cheap armour, and sarissae (long spears) in order to allow a much greater number of people to serve and fight. Philip’s leadership transformed the Macedonian people from “helpless vagabonds … clothed in skins” to wearing cloaks and “a match in battle for the barbarians on [their] borders”(Arrian, Anabasis 7.9.2-4). Philip was seen as this great unifier who was revered by his troops. He used this power to train his troops to fight extremely efficiently and be among the best armies in the world. Alexander the Great won several battles in which his forces were greatly outnumbered, but the superior tactics and training of his troops were the only thing preventing defeat. Without Philip’s military reforms, Darius would have likely defeated Alexander making him not so great after all.

Napoleon led very successful campaigns to take control of almost all of Europe in the early 19th Century. Napoleon’s rise to power, however, would not at all have been possible without the radical actions of Maximilien Robespierre a decade earlier. Robespierre led the Reign of Terror which began with the execution of the monarch King Louis XVI. The absolute chaos which ensued, ending with Robespierre’s death, caused a massive power vacuum. This enabled Napoleon to step in and be so influential. The radical ideology propagated by Robespierre was instrumental in setting the French up to engaging in a campaign as ambitious as Bonaparte’s. Despite his excellent skill as a general and leadership charisma, Napoleon would not have been able to do what he did, or at least not have the same success, if it were not for Robespierre’s leading of the Reign of Terror.

Nobody can ever do something truly great on their own, including the most legendary historical characters. Alexander and Napoleon alike could have not earned their empires and historical reputations without having their paths paved by Philip II and Robespierre, respectively.

-Ben Stanish

475 Words

Kim Jong-Un and Alexander the Great

While many leaders, both modern and ancient, like to claim some connection to divinity are all mortal. Therefore, this brings forth the need for hereditary leaders to find an heir to succeed them. This is a problem for powerful kings and dictators, as sometimes they die without leaving an heir, or if they do leave an heir, that heir may be weak and be challenged. In this, the succession crises following the deaths of Philip II and Kim Jong-Il are alike in that they were both powerful, established leaders whose sons had to establish that they were strong enough to take control upon their fathers’ deaths.

Alexander the Great was the first-born son of Philip II of Macedon. Philip was “excessively fond” of Alexander and gave him power starting at a young age, including leaving him as “regent in Macedonia and keeper of the royal seal” at sixteen years old when he went on an expedition to Byzantium (Plutarch 9). As he grew older, Alexander established himself as one of Philip’s generals, participating on campaigns and commanding men in battle, including commanding the other half of Philip’s Macedonian forces at the important Battle of Chaeronea. Yet, when Philip married Cleopatra, Alexander’s right to succeed Philip was challenged when Attalus implied that the marriage would lead to the birth of a “legitimate successor to the kingdom” (Plutarch 9). Alexander quickly addressed this, challenging Philip and humiliating him by demonstrating how drunk he was. When Philip was murdered and Alexander took control of the Macedonian kingdom at twenty year old, it was “exposed to great jealousies, dire hatreds, and dangers on every hand” (Plutarch 11). Alexander handled this through continuing to establish military dominance and strength of will by refusing to “abate his dignity even a little” by giving up control of the Greek states like his advisors recommended (Plutarch 11). In this, Alexander handled the succession crisis by using his already established military reputation to demonstrate his strength.

On the other hand, Kim Jong-Un did not have an established military reputation to rely on when his father, Kum Jong-Il died. While Kim Jong-Un was established as the Chairman of the Worker’s Party of Korea (WPK) in 2011—the political party of the dictatorship—his ability to rule and the stability of his regime was called into question when he was appointed as the Great Successor and Marshall upon Kim Jong-Il’s death. American political analysts questioned whether the “process can hold in the absence of Kim Jong-Il, because he has really been the glue that has held the system together” (Gershwin and Snyder). They also pointed out that Kim Jong-Un had not established himself on the international stage before his father’s death, saying that “he was being groomed for leadership, but this is still in the early stages” (Gershwin and Snyder). As well, he was only twenty-eight when he took control, which automatically put him a disadvantage, as the North Koreans value age and experience. Yet, through support of the WPK and through development of North Korea’s nuclear program, Kim Jong-Un has internationally established his regime.

In this, both Alexander the Great and Kim Jong-Un used military prowess to address instability and doubts about their ability to succeed their fathers. Therefore, the need for heirs to demonstrate strength during a succession crisis in a common thread between the ancient and modern world.

-Hanna Prince

Word count: 491

Plutarch. Parallel Lives: The Life of Alexander.

Gershwin, Bernard, Snyder, Scott A. “North Korea’s Uncertain Succession.” Council on Foreign Relations. 12/19/2011. Accessed 03/02/2019. https://www.cfr.org/interview/north-koreas-uncertain-succession.

Augustus and Hitler, more alike than different

When comparing the rise of Roman emperor Augustus to modern history, Hitler’s rise in Nazi Germany draws many parallels. In Rome, Augustus’s reign saw many changes to the political landscape of Rome. The Roman Republic was already starting to fail, beginning with the dictatorship of Julius Caesar. After Caesar’s assassination, August was the heir. In order to ease the chaotic socio-political climate of Rome, Augustus established the Roman Empire, which dramatically shifted power from the senate to the emperor. Similarly, in Nazi Germany, Hitler began his rise to power after Germany’s defeat in World War I. The Nazi party rose out of the economic chaos created by the peace treaty of WWI. Thought the Nazi party, Hitler gained enough support to become chancellor of Germany and upon gaining this title, Hitler turned his rule into a dictatorship. By looking at the rise of Hitler in Nazi Germany, similarities can be drawn to Ancient Rome’s transition into an Empire. This is important because the similarities of how the two dictators came to power point to the effect social-political chaos can have on a nation’s government structure.

Augustus’s rise to power is seen in The Deeds of the Divine Augustus. Augustus started his rise to dictator when “[Augustus] raised an army with which [he] set free the state, which was oppressed by the domination of a faction” (Lewis and Reinhold, I:561–72). Then, Augustus “drove the men who slaughtered my father into exile with a legal order” (Lewis and Reinhold, I:561–72). After effectively taking complete control of the Roman government, Augustus began his dictatorial rule. Upon becoming dictator of Rome, Augustus began to pack the Senate with his supporters. The reforms of Augustus shifted the Roman Republic to an emperor-controlled state.

Similar to the rise of Augustus, Hitler followed a similar agenda. The first major similarity was Hitler used the chaotic socio-political environment of post-World War I Germany to seize control, much like Augustus used the chaotic environment of Rome after Cesare’s assassination. Another similarity between Hitler and Augustus was once Hitler became chancellor of Germany, he began to eliminate his political enemies, similar to how Augustus exiled those who conspired in the assassination of Caesar.

The similarities between Augustus and Hitler demonstrate history does repeat itself. Under similar circumstances, similar outcomes happened. Both dictators were able to come to power because of a chaotic socio-economic environment. Under the chaotic environment, society looked for one person to have absolute power in order to pull society back to order. This desire for a hero to emerge and guide the country back to glory leads to dictatorial rule. Then, once a dictator has taken power, the dictator uses his power in order to eliminate possible political opponents. Ultimately, the dictator’s rule shifts the political system of a country, often from one where power is in the people, to one where only one controls all.

Mark Rogerson 441

Ancient Athenian vs. American Citizenship Laws

The similarities between the Athenian laws on Metics and slaves becoming citizens and America’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy (DACA) are overwhelmingly clear. In ancient Athens, Metics and slaves were originally not allowed to become citizens based solely off of their heritage. If they weren’t full-blooded Athenian, they were denied citizenship. No “half-bloods” allowed. Also, slaves were not able to be considered citizens because they were property to the Athenian people and lacked legal rights. Slaves were also unable to control the path of their life. Although the laws of modern America are not as severe, they are still comparable. In America, you must be born on American soil or live in the country using a green card or VISA for 5 years to gain citizenship. In both cases, where you originate from is a key determining factor in whether you are granted citizenship or not.

One prime example of the unfairness of this rule in Athens was of Lysias. Even after all the good deeds and benefits he brought to Athens, he was still not granted a spot to vote in the assembly. His fate was ultimately determined by his heritage and where he came from, which he obviously could not control. In ancient Athens, if you weren’t a citizen, you couldn’t vote in assemblies or political matters. This was grossly unfair to the slaves and Metics, as they lived in Athens but couldn’t vote for matters that would affect them directly.

In modern America, the DACA is a step in the right direction to correct the unfair nature of immigration laws. Like Lysias, the children that were brought to America illegally and raised in America were put in this situation beyond their control. The logical train of thought would be to let the DACA protected children gain citizenship as long as they do not demonstrate traits that are detrimental to the country such as terrorism and crime. However, in my opinion, there should be a line. For example, if the child is directly related to a known terrorist or something of the sort, he may not be allowed into the country. Another alternative is to place them in a program that would assimilate them into American society smoothly.

Ancient Athens and modern America have many similarities concerning their immigration laws. The black and white citizenship policies in Athens restricted many types of people, including slaves and Metics. In America, if you weren’t born on American soil, you cannot become a citizen until 5 years of residency. Both of these policies are unfair in the sense that the person cannot control whether they become citizens or not. It is not a merit-based policy.

-Peter Lohrbach

Word Count- 446

Sources:

https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/Print/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartH.html

Athenian and American Citizens

The fight for citizenship for slaves and metics in the Athenian assemblies has a closely linked struggle to the children fighting for citizenship in the United States through the Deferred Action for Childhood (DACA) program. Although one should not over generalize and identify children that are living in the United States illegally as slaves (as in ancient Greece), we can still make a close comparison between the citizenship struggles of the two.

In ancient Athens, metics and slaves were not considered citizens. There was controversy over this fact through Athens’ existence; however, no matter how much legislation was presented, metics and slaves remained non citizens due to their nature. Metics were non-Athenians who found living in Athens more appealing than their own hometowns. Likewise, slaves were property of their owners and were not given citizenship rights. “This was not the treatment that we deserved at the city’s hands… when we showed ourselves men of orderly life, and performed every duty laid upon us; when we had made not a single enemy, but had ransomed many Athenians from the foe” (Lysias 12.20). This quote refers to the struggle that slaves and metics felt. After proving themselves, in war as rowers and civilized counter parts of Athenian citizens, they were still struggling for citizenship. Even though metics and slaves may have functioned much like legitimate Athenian citizens, they were never classified as such because of the fixed definition of an Athenian citizen: one coming from two Athenian parents.

In the United States, children of immigrants have a similar story to metics and slaves in Athens. Dreamers are not necessarily brought to the United States because of the appeal as metics are brought to Athens; however, as a result of their parents or guardians, they are brought to the United States illegally most likely in hopes of a better future. This is a program that provided amnesty to children that came to the United States under the age of 16. In 2016, DACA faced major opposition from President Trump, much like the metics and slaves did in ancient Athens. President Trump argued (Schallhorn).

Both illegally immigrated children, metics, and slaves have similar issues regarding citizenship among their nation. As a result of predetermined traits, these groups of people have been denied citizenship due to the very definition of what it means to be an American or Athenian. The debates we had in class opened my eyes to the dedication and work that slaves and metics put into the namesake of Athens. Whether they contributed to the Athenian economy or served in wars, they were an integral part of the Athenian society. This is also typical of most illegal immigrants. They want to work, raise a family, and contribute to American society just as everyone else does.

Word count: 463

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/what-is-daca-and-what-does-the-trump-administration-want-to-do-with-it

Alexander the Great in Modern America

Alexander the Great’s unstable rule of Macedon, ultimately seen in his insecure administrative structures and habits and his inheritance of a chaotic kingdom, parallels President Trump’s presidency in the United States. After Alexander’s father Phillip died, Alexander did not immediately inherit the throne; the way that he ultimately came to power was violent, a result of his murdering any possible threats to his aspiring kingship. Even when he did inherit the throne, his rule wasn’t immediately accepted. Although he was Philip’s legitimate child, he was technically only half Macedonian, and, at the time, being “full-blooded Macedonian” was widely viewed as an incontestable trait in the king. Even throughout his reign, Alexander was never completely accepted and supported by the people. His ability to “win over” the people came through a strength that was projected as violence. Consistently, any opposing party was violently murdered, Macedonian or not, as in the case with Darius II and with those who initially threated his inheritance of the throne. Additionally, Alexander inherited a throne that did not yet have stable control of its conquered states. Plutarch studied the story of Alexander, writing, “Alexander was but twenty years old when his father was murdered, and succeeded to a kingdom, beset on all sides with great dangers and rancorous enemies”(Plutarch). Alexander, therefore, as if not facing enough political opposition, inherited no shortage of enemies, and the revolts endured throughout his rule.

America’s current political leadership similar issues today. Although we are not necessarily in a “regime change”, we did have a recent change in presidency after 8 years under the leadership of Obama, who had considerably different tactics than our current president. The parallels lie in the presidential race between President Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. While there was no violent battle for who would ultimately win presidency, the election was about as politically dirty as an election can get. Presidential debates were cluttered with personal digs, to the point where sabotaging the other became embedded in both candidate’s platforms. This mirrors the violence seen in Alexander’s rise to the throne, and Alexander’s continued violence against opponents, considering we still see President Trump taking digs at political opposition, like Kim Jong Un. Furthermore, President Trump was elected by such a small margin that his presidency has remained continuously contested, as was Alexander’s leadership. Although President Trump has not faced any literal revolts, he has been faced with firm opposition by the democratic party, as seen with the current debates on funding to build the wall and the possibility of presidential impeachment. This opposition is hopefully where Alexander the Great’s reign and President Trump’s presidency will diverge. We currently do not know the outcome, as politics are in a deadlock and President Trump is technically in the “winning” position with the national emergency still in place. He has, similarly to Alexander the Great, implored an aggressive tactic that Congress is struggling to overturn as a result of the divide in the Senate. This divide puts the Republicans in the majority, but only by a narrow margin, making it difficult for both parties to achieve their goals.

However, the similarities in Alexander the Great’s reign and President Trump’s presidency can inform us of possible outcomes to America’s current political situation. Ultimately, Alexander the Great’s violent tactics made him come out on top of every battle. He was unstoppable, killing (or, in the case of Darius, hunting down to kill) all of his enemies, facing continuous opposition and yet still managing to dominate at all times. Hopefully, because of the nature of American politics and our checks and balances systems, President Trump does not have the same type of unyielding power as Alexander did. However, the possibility exists merely by the nature of his rule.

–Katie Mackle

Word Count: 600

Sources:

The Internet Classics Archive | On Airs, Waters, and Places by Hippocrates, classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/alexandr.html.

Editors, History.com. “Alexander the Great.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 9 Nov. 2009, http://www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/alexander-the-great.

Dreamers, Metics, Slaves and Arbitrary Power

The legality of the citizenship of Dreamers protected under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy, or DACA, draws similar parallels to the argument over the citizenship of the metics and slaves of ancient Athens, due to the constraints placed on these individuals as a result of the arbitrary characteristics they possess.

Metics and slaves in ancient Athens were not granted citizenship due to their lineage. An Athenian citizen was declared as such due to being born an offspring of a mother and father who were both Athenian citizens. This measure was arbitrary in nature for it relied on predetermined qualities and characteristics about the individual that were beyond the individual’s control. Thus, any merit achieved by the individual for the greater good of Athens had no reflection upon their ability to gain status and prestige via Athenian citizenship. Lysius remarked how “this was not the treatment that we deserved at the city’s hands, when we had produced all of ur dramas for the festivals and contributed to many special levies” (Lysius, 12.20). Despite the good works and charity performed by Lysias, he was not given a vote in the assembly. The injustices of his situation is derived from a lack of recognition for the works that he was in control of. Instead, he was defined by a predetermined trait given to him by nature and subsequently was deemed unfit to vote.

Similarly, Americans assign citizenship based on the arbitrary circumstance of being born within the geographical boundaries of of the United States, however they strip citizenship from those who are in a similar bain. The children who are brought to the United States illegally by their parents are not cognizant of the illegal nature of their doings or at a minimum to immature to fully understand the severity of their actions, for the median age of these children is six years old and the average is three years old (Parlapiano). As such, the Dreamers are subjected to illegal activities by the whims of their parents. Thus their parents act as an arbitrary force governing their geographic location. Therefore, the plight of the Dreamer and that of the natural born citizen are congruent with one another for they are subjected to an arbitrary force, whether it be nature or man, to decide the region and nation-state boundary in which they live and are raised.

Both the metics and slaves of ancient Athens and the Dreamers of modern time are defined by the opposition to granting citizenship as unworthy due to characteristics beyond their control. Ironically, government systems such as the direct democracy of the Athenians and the representative democracy of the United States were designed to limit the influence of arbitrary power upon the individual. Direct democracy attempted this via their willingness to give citizens equal portions of the vote, and representative democracy attempted this via the check against the arbitrary power of the majority in the form of representatives. However, stripping citizenship from the Dreamers, metics, and slaves is antithetical to the mission of diminishing arbitrary power in government. It’s hypocritical nature subsequently legitimizes the stated purpose of the two societies government systems. So it brings about the question: are we really dedicated to ridding government of arbitrary power, or is it a facade to justify the rule of those in power?

-Jackson Garber

Words: 554

Alicia Parlapiano and Karen Yourish, “A Typical ‘Dreamer’ Lives in Los Angeles, Is from Mexico and Came to the U.S. at 6 Years Old,” nytimes.com, Jan. 23, 2018

from Lysias with an English translation by W.R.M. Lamb, M.A. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1930.

America and Athens- One in the Same

America and Athens- One in the Same

Albeit taking place in late 400 BCE, the overthrowing of the thirty tyrants and establishing the Athenian democracy can parallel the American regime of democracy. Despite acting in a certain manner, they are not one in the same, but follow similar patterns with certain differences.

The overthrowing of the authoritarian regime of the thirty tyrants and replacing it with a democratic Athens called for a major regime change. With the citizens of Athens divided in wanting a form of democracy in which every vote mattered or having an electorate system of democracy, conflicts arose. People who supported the true democracy constantly clashed with those supporting the electorate system and a long standing debate arose to see which government would be implemented in their society. Although the American regime of democracy does not have these two different democracies, the American regime has two political parties which face this struggle. Just like the Athenian society, the Republicans and Democrats have different views on nearly every aspect of society, with few beliefs aligning. As a result, the American regime has experienced severe feuds between the two political parties since the beginning of the regime with the Republicans and Federalists.

Furthermore, in the modern day American government, the arguments between the two parties has led to government shutdowns and major movements in society to try and sway the parties. For example, in light of recent immigration struggles, Senator Lindsey Graham has said “We’re not going to put any offers on the table as long as people in charge of these negotiations accuse all of us who want a wall of being a racist”. By saying this, Graham embodies the fundamental similarities and differences between the two parties. Each party is too stubborn to cooperate with one another, thus resulting in a government shutdown because no party is willing to budge. In this manner of debate, the two regimes hold constant this similarity. Unfortunately, this similarity will likely hold true until the end of the American regime. Despite being similar in this manner, there is a major difference between the Athenian regime and the American regime. In the Athenian regime, the two sides with opposing views were able to come together and cooperate. They eventually were able to come to an agreement and structure their democracy. On the contrary, the modern day American government faces many struggles in this aspect. It is very rare for the two political parties to come together and agree on certain topics, such as education and abortion rights. Instead, the two political parties find ways to push their agendas back, resulting in a never ending debate amongst these issues. This push back is negative as it does not establish certain policies, which is something the Athenian regime was able to do.

Although the American government is not overthrowing an authoritarian regime like the Athenians were, the American government can learn a lot from the way the Athenians handled their crisis. In a perfect world, the American government would come together, like the Athenians did, and resolve many long standing conflicts that have plagued the country for decades. The American government should do as the Athenians did and cooperate to get things done. This could potentially save the American government from any future endeavors, as it did with the Athenian regime.

– Pablo Loza

Word Count: 524

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/01/06/lindsey-graham-shutdown-goal/2495719002/