Great Gatsby's: From Rags to Riches

     Interestingly enough, I just wrote my essay on the American Dream's ever-changing nature throughout history and how presidential candidates were a reflection of the importance of it. So I had to read the chapter titled "The Politics of the American Dream, 1980 to 2008" by Michael C. Kimmage in The American Dream in the 21st Century, as it really related to the essay I just wrote. Kimmage's main claim in the chapter is that "[t]he political party in closer touch with the American Dream is more likely to acquire and to hold on to power" (28). And after reading the chapter... heck yeah, it totally makes sense.      Kimmage analyzed many elections from the past, going as far back as the 1930s, where Roosevelt was elected. Not only did Roosevelt embody the American Dream in terms of how he "contracted polio and persevered" (29), but he was extremely optimistic. His optimism was key to his success, and Kimmage maintains that remaining optimis

     Early on in the semester, we wrote about what the American Dream means to us, and the responses were varied and unique. Walter Fisher sums up the differences in the American Dream quite nicely, arguing in his speech, "Reaffirmation and Subversion of the American Dream". He breaks up the American Dream into two, broad interpretations: that there is a materialistic version of the dream, and a moralistic version of the dream, and that the two candidates in the 1972 election represented each aspect of the dream.      Fisher analyzes how Senator McGovern, the candidate viewed as being moralistic, "aroused feelings of guilt, fear, and threat", making him "susceptible to the traditional charges made against such leaders" (163). He claims that all these moralistic leaders fall prey to these claims. Those charges include being seen as "utopian", "radical", and "unrealistic" (163). In short, people weren't buying into his

         Whatever circumstances life presents to us, we have to make do and figure things out. People view the American Dream as something that anyone can achieve, no matter what their circumstances. A poor person from a poor family can become wealthy, and that person is respected by our society. A person who is faced with limitations that would be unbearable for most to face, whether they be physical or situational, who overcomes those limitations, is regarded as the ideal American. Having had a lot of physical obstacles in my life (scoliosis, wearing a brace for 7 years, 2 fractured vertebra, 2 sprained ankles, a dilated aorta), I used to think that I deserved good things to happen to me. "Oh, I've had all these things happen to me, I deserve this, I deserve that, etc. etc." No, I don't deserve anything. Yes, these situations are unfortunate, but life sucks sometimes, and you have to make do. When Althen described how "Americans admire people who have overco

     I'm going to be honest, when I first saw all that I had to read in this academic article, I thought I was going to fall asleep, especially after reading the first few sentences. The diction was so formal, and my first impression was that it was going to be a drag reading it. I was surprised to see myself enjoying this article, and I was actually really focused on it. I think a big part of it is because I knew that her advice was going to directly help me in my writing, and considering she is very educated and qualified to be writing about this, I wanted to make sure I took in everything she said.      It certainly was not an easy read. As I mentioned previously, the diction was hard to understand at times, and looking up words disrupted the flow of my reading. Also, there were words that were joined into unique phrases which I had not seen before, so I had to stop and think a lot about what exactly they were saying. Another challenging aspect was the integration of long

           The 7th principle that Chomsky discusses in Requiem for the American Dream discusses how corporations engineer elections and are the main influences on policies as well. But this is a democracy! People have a say in these elections, they are the driving force behind them, right... right? It would seem not.      Chomsky begins by citing the Supreme Court decision, Citizens United , which essentially gives corporations unlimited freedom of speech, just like your average American. That's right, a company has as much, if not more, freedom to speak their minds as you and me. He then brings in the 14th Amendment, and points out how it really wasn't used for the people it was supposed to aid (slaves), but was then used as an excuse to give businesses the same right, This doesn't make sense, and makes the audience realize how unorthodox it is. This law, that was meant to give liberated African Americans the same rights as everyone else and which didn't real

     Well, so much for looking at the glass half full instead of half empty. Chomsky's view of the American Dream is a punch to the gut for a lot of people. And I want to say that he's wrong, that America is a place of equality... but it's not.       His analysis of the battle between the elites of society and those on the bottom wanting more democracy, dating back to the founding of the country, really hit me hard. The fact that James Madison, a founding father, wanted the government to "secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation" (Madison, qtd. in Chomsky, 10) is quite disturbing. He wanted to "prevent the danger of democracy" (Chomsky 3). Isn't this the form of government they sought to institute in response to another that sought to repress it? That's counter-intuitive. Granted, I know Madison thought this was in the best interest of the country, and he did not seek to make the lives of the laborer difficult. It