Jane Addams
Hull House provided many impoverished individuals of various nationalities: housing, education, and other opportunities to establish roots and build skills for life. So far up to this point in American history (late 1880s), have we established anything this extensive to help out individuals or groups in society?
Not to this scale (Shows leadership qualities from someone who didn't have the right to vote yet, who can spread messages and unify so many people)...Maybe the Underground Railroad with William Still and Harriet Tubman
"Ideals of America" (1901) was a dozen years before Woodrow Wilson became president, but 125 years since the Battle of Trenton (Washington crossing the Delaware). He mentions our country showed Britain and France that it could succeed without a King/monarch. What have our leaders done differently that supports this idea?
Our greatest leaders (many of the ones we have mostly discussed in class so far) have been leading by example rather than ordering people around like bosses. They have inspired citizens and government alike to continue to strive for more and "explore new frontiers."
Roosevelt understood that he was in a privileged/wealthier situation. He also believed that those with wealth should be productive with their money and resources rather than just accumulate more of it. He also designated over 200mil acres to nature conservation. Are there any virtues of Franklin that Roosevelt exemplified with this understanding or any that the wealthy have failed with?
TR Exemplified - Resolution: Follow things through.
Sincerity: Don't be deceiving.
Justice: Don't purposefully hurt others
Wealthy Failed...Temperance: Don't or drink a lot
Frugality: Waste no money
Industry: Be productive with your time
Justice: Don't purposefully harm others
Carnegie basically says that wealth inequality is good for society; it gives people something to strive for. We should strive for competence and continue to work hard so that society continues to function. He mentions that the wealthy should be trustees and help others learn to help themselves. Did Carnegie demonstrate an good leadership qualities in this reading?
Not really; he sounds like a rich jerk the whole time (in my opinion), however he brings up a rare good point that others should teach others to help themselves, because by helping ourselves that can evolve into helping society as a whole.
Bernays talks about how we live in a society of organized chaos; the masses of people have agreed to cooperate to an extent to live in a functioning society. We typically look to our leadership that have propagandized products and ideas that we like and dislike. Do you think that there will be a point or have had a point in which leadership cannot keep the chaos organized?
Civil War - We broke and had to come back together.
I don't think we will dissolve into complete chaos unless leadership used WMDs on it's own people. We have grown and accomplished so much as a country/society that it might be to difficult to be completely torn down.
Jane Addams says that young people seek an outlet for universal brotherhood but accomplish little towards the solution (they set their expectations too high). Who have we discussed so far that Jane mirrors in her more encouraging messages as she forms Hull House, and why do you think so?
Examples:
Booker T Washington - Encouragement thought education. Abraham Lincoln - Unifying to achieve help goals. Alexander Hamilton - Unity as a characteristic of a good executive power (FP70).
Woodrow Wilson compares the government to a living organism in "What is Progress?" He mentions that changes to the government need to be made slowly as we continue to look to our future government. Our government is modified by its environment out of necessity; why make slow changes?
We have to look to the past to better understand how the future will look. Sudden change may be too big of a shock (good/bad depending on circumstances), but it can cause stress fractures as the government continues to evolve and develop.
Roosevelt and Jackson are both considered populists and expanded the power of the presidency. Jackson used the spoils system to fill positions, Roosevelt used the merit system to fill positions...Is one system better than the other, even if goals of the president can be accomplished by both?
I'd prefer the merit/qualifications of important positions so I know it's getting done correctly.
Jackson eliminated Second National Bank, Roosevelt busted up monopolies.
Carnegie makes the point that technically everyone's lives have gotten better compared to the past. Has having major wealth inequality actually been better for society?
Yes - people have striven for equality and better conditions by bosses/wealthy and over time we have raised the standard of living to be that of what wealthy people may have had back then.
No - It is hard to maintain a basic standard of living for many. Many need multiple jobs and live paycheck to paycheck. Depends on circumstances.
When talking about New Propaganda, Bernays gives off the message that there aren't really any new ideas. Everything new has already been propagandized by our leaders and government, we just tweak it a little. Do you think there are truly any new ideas, or have we covered all our bases and recycle new material (whether in government or society)?
New ideas can arise here and there, that doesn't mean they are good ideas. I think many of the ideas have been exhausted but not put into practice. Ideas have trickled down to us in one way or another.