1

Paquin
Emma Paquin
Professor Davis
English 2089
18 April 2015
Inclusive Democracy as a Means for Justice
Let me tell you a story about a great nation called America, a democracy
conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, to
borrow from Abraham Lincoln, one of its greatest presidents (Lincoln). From its very
founding this nation has, as another such president, John Kennedy, iterated, vowed to
pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe
to assure the survival and the success of liberty not just of its own citizens, but of people
everywhere (Kennedy). American democracy has come to be a beacon of hope and a
bastion of liberty to the whole world. Americans look to the future, proud to live in the
greatest, most powerful nation on Earth.
Yet according to The Washington Post, one in three American children grow up in
poverty (Ingraham). The nonprofit called Feeding America reports that twenty percent of
American children grow up in households without consistent access to food. Does this
poverty make Americans ashamed? One wonders, especially when lawmakers in Kansas
and Missouri are even now passing laws to take the luster off social welfare programs
by limiting daily withdrawal amounts and the kinds of food recipients can purchase.
Perhaps America is a democracy devoted to the idea that all men are created
equal. But it is also a nation scared of the disadvantaged, a country where the poor and

2
Paquin
oppressed are routinely dehumanized by the legal system. The people suffering the
consequences are not just down-on-their-luck individuals, but also children; this suggests
that oppression is historical and systemic. Our ingrained inability to hear the voices of the
downtrodden as anything but a threat is causing us to fail our children and our future.
This is why I believe that the best last hope for the future of American democracy is to
address the mechanisms of oppression implicit in the current system of government.
To pursue this argument further, it is necessary to consider the meaning of
democracy. Contemporary Americans define democracy as a system controlled and
guided by the common people for the management of (a) society through the
promulgation and execution of laws and policies. Yet this definition is not as clear-cut as
it might seem. We can view American history as a battle over the meaning of democracy,
a battle whose sea changes have coincided with the greatest successes and most
contemptible failures of this nation.
In The Lessons of History, Will and Ariel Durant point out that many of the conditions
that gave rise to American democracy have vanished (Durant 77). However, one constant,
as the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on democracy points out, is that a successful
democratic government must convince a substantial portion of both the people and the
leadership that democracy is the best possible form of government (democracy). The
Declaration of Independence, besides officially declaring the independence of the
American colonies from British rule, also served to consolidate support for the American
Revolution by giving the fledgling a distinctive moral purpose: the innate equality of all
men and the unalienable Rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (US
1776). The Declaration of Independence indirectly addressed Americans as well as their

3
Paquin
British rulers; Anne Marie Dube, associate curator at Independence National Park, reports
that twenty-four American newspapers published the Declaration of Independence before
it was engrossed, or officially published (Dube). One of the biggest successes of
America is its tradition of legal documents created to persuade the governed, and thereby
obtain their just consent. This tradition places the power and responsibility of American
democracy in the hands of the people. In his book The Zinn Reader: Writings on
Disobedience and Democracy, American historian and social activist Howard Zinn
advances an argument about the basis of law in a democratic society:

Obedience to the law is not innate but is drilled into people at an early age
This rote obedience displaces moral responsibility from citizens to the state
Yet the state is only a means to a moral end; citizens should take back moral
responsibility from the state by making their obedience to the law an active,
ongoing consent conditional on their own consciences (Zinn 399-410).
By writing the Preamble in the name of We the People and ratifying the new

constitution with democratic ratifying conventions, the founders asserted the peoples
right to change their mind as events unfolded, states Constitutional scholar Akhil Reed
Amar (Amar 12). This allows the American people to exercise active and ongoing
consent in the governing process.
Yet for decades, American democracy failed to recognize the rights of large
portions of its people. Slaves, women, and people without property had no vote and, in
the case of slaves, no citizenship. By denying them supposedly universal, inalienable
rights, American democracy questioned their very humanity. In this way, mechanisms for
inclusion became mechanisms for exclusion. The sweeping inclusive language of the
founding documents was left to slumber. It was this inclusive language at the heart of our

4
Paquin
documents, however, that eventually led to amendments ensuring the abolition of slavery,
neutral citizenship for every child, and the enfranchisement of African-Americans and
women. Our most potent mechanisms of oppression are written in inclusive language,
and therefore carry the seeds of their own destruction within themselves. Because of this
strange duality, both Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in his I have a dream speech on racial
equality and Alabama governor George Wallace in his racist 1963 inaugural address
could quote the preamble of the Constitution. Wallaces speech is one of the most
eloquent defenses of inequality in America: If we amalgamate into one unit we
stand for everything and nothing (Wallace). Dr. Susan Karr, historian and legal
scholar at the University of Cincinnati, puts it more succinctly: As soon as everyone has
rights, theyre not special anymore. Dr. King argued eloquently against this mentality
when he said, Many of our white brothers have come to realize that their freedom is
inextricably bound to our freedom (King). Because of the actions of Dr. King and many
others, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which desegregated schools and
outlawed the grandfather clauses that barred so many African Americans from exercising
their right to vote.
The fight for the meaning of American democracy is ongoing. There are new
methods of exclusion, such as the disenfranchisement of convicts. These injustices have a
long American pedigree. As Dr. Karr says, Everyones equal outside of government but
people are unequal inside government. Its in our documents. Our rights stand on the
backs of others (Karr). Perhaps that history makes Americans cynical and complacent.
Fair Vote, the Center for Voting and Democracy, reports that only about 60% of the
voting eligible population votes during presidential election years (Fair Vote). Yet, we

5
Paquin
also have a competing heritage of using the mechanisms of democracy to recognize the
rights of others.
The next chapter in this historic fight for American democracy must draw on that
heritage of rights recognition to address the mechanisms of oppression implicit in our
current system of government.
However this position also has its detractors. George Wallace, as well as many
others, argued that we need restrictions on participation in democracy because not
everyone is fit for the responsibilities of society (Wallace). However, such restrictions
presuppose the fitness, and thus superiority, of those making this decision and undermine
the equality necessary to a democracy. Others argue that destroying legal mechanisms of
inequality would limit the governments ability to enforce laws and ensure security
because such action would loosen the governments control of the population. However,
the dangers of expanded democracy are dwarfed by the dangers of oppression.
Historically, legal inequality has always been considered one of the greatest
dangers facing our country. At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, George Mason
argued that slavery made the United States vulnerable to slave rebellions and that it
bring[s] the judgment of heaven down on a country (Antifederalist Papers 162).
Abraham Lincoln believed that the American Civil War would continue until every drop
of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword (Lincoln).
Inequality is an insidious danger. By qualifying the rights of some people, it makes the
rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness by definition alienable and
threatens the freedom of every American (Declaration of Independence A3).

6
Paquin
Our legal system is set up so that humanity is relative and can be easily qualified.
Even before the American Revolution, property law in North America was designed to
deny the property rights of indigenous peoples, establish the competing property rights of
white settlers, and replace the humanity of black people with a property status that would
allow slavery. In her influential article Whiteness as Property, law professor Cheryl
Harris describes how in protecting settled expectations based on white privilege,
American law has recognized a property interest in whiteness that, although
unacknowledged, now frames the background against which legal disputes are framed,
argued, and adjudicated (Harris 1713-11714). The primary characteristic of this legal
privilege is the right to exclude (Harris 1714). The language of our laws was built on
inequality, and built specifically to facilitate the propagation of inequality.
The modern-day presence of illegal aliens in the United States illustrates how the
law still defines personhood narrowly and opens up the possibility of a new kind of
slavery. Prejudicial enforcement of laws, such as police brutality perpetrated
overwhelmingly against people of color, demonstrates how some groups of people have
less protection under the law than others. Our difficulties meeting the needs of the
homeless also show how we implicitly equate property ownership with human agency.
The residential address required for checking accounts and voter registration make it
incredibly difficult for the homeless to participate. As Colleen McTague and Bryan
Wright observe in their article Day Labor Halls as Spaces of Containment and Control,
homeless people drop out of the legal system of protections by not owning land
(McTague and Wright). Because of the above-demonstrated inequality in representation,
we do not have a just society. But what we do have what the constitution gives us, as

7
Paquin
Americansis the moral and legal opportunity to take responsibility for this, and attempt
to change it. Democracy is a system for the management of (a) society through the
promulgation and execution of laws and policies, controlled and guided by the common
peopleby us. Thats the greatest gift, and the greatest curse, of the American legal
system, and it weighs heavily upon us. If we are wise, we will see the destruction of
democracy in the injustices faced by our fellow Americans. As Martin Luther King, Jr.
once wrote from the Birmingham jail, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice
everywhere (King, "Letter From A Birmingham Jail"). The founding fathers asked if we
were brave enough to believe that democracy is the best form of government. In every
generation since, Americans have asked whether we are brave enough to believe that and
follow through on that belief.
In order to continue the fight for democracy against the systemic oppression that
has shaped the history of America, we must first ensure that the voices of our most
vulnerable populations can be heard. One potential first step toward this would be a
constitutional amendment positively defining enfranchisement as a right of all adults (18
years or older) who currently reside, and have resided for at least 5 years, in the United
States. The purpose of such an amendment, Dr. Karr said, Would be to humanize
overlooked populations (Karr). Therefore any plan to pass this amendment must begin
with an intensive grassroots campaign comprised of educational outreach, organized
demonstrations, and letter writing campaigns to gain the support of ordinary citizens.
Once that step is accomplished, such citizens could pressure Washington to propose such
an amendment by a vote of at least two thirds of both Congressional houses. After its
proposal, the amendment could be ratified by favorable vote of at least three quarters of

8
Paquin
the state legislatures, making it law interpreted by the courts and enforced by the
executive branch (US Constitution A12).
Of course, the likelihood of the passage of this amendment is slim. Our society
would have to change drastically before it would accept such an utter rejection of
exclusion. We are still a nation that can accept disenfranchised prisoners and hungry
children, a country ashamed not of poverty but of our poor. However, we can hope that
such a proposal draws attention to the inequities we now accept as normal and the potent
dangers such inequities pose to every American. Perhaps this proposal will draw scrutiny
to the myths we tell ourselves and pushes us to reexamine our history and the part of that
history we want our children to inherit. The best last hope for the future of American
democracy is to address the mechanisms of oppression implicit in the current system of
government. We must recognize that every person in America plays a role in our society.
We can no longer use the privilege of exclusion to justify shirking our responsibility to
any member of society. Instead we must embrace that responsibility which democracy
gives us as our greatest privilege.

9
Paquin
WorksCited
Amar, Akhil R. Americas Constitution: A Biography. New York: Random
House, 2005. Print.
This book on the American Constitution is written by one of the worlds foremost
scholars on Constitutional law. The author goes through the document clause by
clause to examine the layers of meaning history has attached to the words. It is
important to my paper because it discusses the way the preamble to the
Constitution changed the way democracy had been understood up to that time.
TheAntiFederalistPapers;AndtheConstitutionalConventionDebates.New
York,N.Y.:SignetClassic,2003.Print.
Thisbookcollectsboththeantifederalistpapersandthetranscriptsofthe
Constitutionalconventiondebates(Iamusingtheconstitutionalconvention
debatesfromit).TheConstitutionalconventiondebatesrecordwhatthestate
representativesarguedoverwhiledraftingtheconstitution.Thisisimportantfor
mypaperbecausetheconcernovertheslaveryattheconstitutionalconvention
showsthatoppressionhasalwaysbeenconsideredathreattoAmerica.
ChildHungerFactSheet.FeedingAmerica.FeedingAmerica,n.d.Web.18April
2015.
ThisfactsheetwascompiledbythenonprofitorganizationcalledFeeding
America.ItlistsstatisticsaboutchildhungerintheUStodemonstratetheneed
forFeedingAmericasnetworkoffoodbanks.Itisimportanttomypaperbecause
itstateshowmanychildrenintheUSliveinfoodinsecurehouseholds.

10
Paquin
"Democracy". Encyclopdia Britannica. Encyclopdia Britannica Online.
Encyclopdia Britannica Inc., 2015. Web. 12 Mar. 2015.
This work is an encyclopedia entry on democracy. It focuses on the general
aspects of democracy and is important to my paper because of its clear
generalizations on the conditions necessary for, and questions raised by,
democratic government.
"Declaration of Independence." The Struggle for Democracy. Ed. Edward
Greenberg and Benjamin Page. 3rd ed. New York: Longman, 1997. A3-A5. Print.
The Declaration of Independence is an official document ratified by the
Continental Congress in 1776. It has since transcended its original stated purposeto declare the American colonies independent from British rule and justify that
statement- to become a key document for American democracy. It is important for
my paper because it outlines essential purposes of the nation.
Dube, Anne Marie. The Declaration of Independence. A Multitude of
Amendments, Alterations and Additions. Web. 11 March 2015.
This source is an online book published by the National Park Service (specifically
Independence National Park) about the history of Americas founding documents.
It examines how they helped to create and maintain American nationalism and is
important to my paper because it discusses the early distribution of founding
documents and the persuasive role they played in the early days of the nation.
"FairVote.org | Voter Turnout." FairVote. The Center for Voting and
Democracy, n.d. Web. 25 Feb. 2015.

11
Paquin
This webpage is run by the Center for Voting and Democracy. It discusses the rate
of voter turnout in federal elections and includes a graph of the turnouts of
elections from 1948 to 2012. This is important for my paper because it illustrates
contemporary Americans lack of engagement.
Harris, Cheryl I. "Whiteness as Property." Harvard Law Review 106.8 (1993): 1707-791.
JSTOR. Web. 01 Apr. 2015.
This influential article by law professor Cheryl Harris was originally published in
The Harvard Law Review. It discusses how ideas about race are built into the
American legal definitions of property, and thus the entire legal system, and in
fact play a large role in contructing race. This is important for my paper because it
shows how mechanisms of oppression are implicit in the American legal system.
Ingraham, Christopher. Child Poverty in the US is Among the Worst in the Developed
World. Washington Post 29 October 2014.
This Washington Post article was written by Christopher Ingraham. It discusses
the findings of an international report on child poverty released by UNICEF,
which reported an alarmingly high rate of child poverty in the US. This is
important for my paper because a high rate of child poverty is a good indicator of
problems within our democracy.
Karr, Susan, Dr. "Democracy." Personal interview. 10 Mar. 2015, 1 April 2015.
This interview with University of Cincinnati history professor Dr. Susan Karr
focused on the problems facing American democracy now and the historical
conflicts behind those current problems. Dr. Karr discussed the conundrum of
defining rights and the oligarchical tendencies of the current democracy. This

12
Paquin
interview is important to my paper because it illuminated some of the
fundamental conflicts over the definition of rights.
Kennedy,JohnF.TheInauguralAddress.Washington:Colortone,1965.
Print.
PresidentJohnF.Kennedygavethisinauguraladdressin2961.Generally
acknowledgedtobeoneofthemosteloquentspeechesbyatwentiethcentury
politician,itcallsforgreaterAmericaninvolvementintherestoftheworld.Itis
importantformypaperbecauseitmakesacompellingcaseforAmerican
exceptionalism.
King, Martin L., Jr. I have a Dream. Speech. Lincoln Memorial, Washington, D.C. 28
Aug. 1963. American Rhetoric. Web. 11March 2015.
This famous speech by Martin Luther King, Jr,. on the steps of the Lincoln
Memorial, lays out the best arguments for equality. King also demonstrates the
historical foundations for equality in American democracy by going back to the
founding documents. This is important for my paper because it represents a
watershed moment in American history where Americans chose the narrative of
equality over the narrative of inequality.
King, Dr. Martin Luther. "Letter From A Birmingham Jail." 16 Apr. 1963. American
Identities. N.p.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2005. N. pag. Print.
This open letter by Martin Luther King Jr. was written in response to an article by
white clergymen, while King was in jail. It lays out the argument for nonviolent
resistance by claiming that we all have a moral responsibility to disobey unjust

13
Paquin
laws. It is important for my paper because it eloquently argues that injustices
against minorities threaten everyone.
Lincoln,Abraham.TheGettysburgAddress.Champaign,Ill.:Project
Gutenberg,1999.Print.
ThisfamousspeechbyAbrahamLincolnwasgivenatthededicationceremony
forGettysburgCemeteryduringthecivilwar.Inafewwords,Lincolnreframed
notonlythepurposeofthecivilwar,butthehistoryandpurposeoftheUnited
States.Itisimportantformypaperbecauseitelegantlyandconciselystatesthe
guidingphilosophyofAmerica.
Lincoln,A.(1865).TheSecondInauguralAddressofPresidentAbrahamLincoln,
Washington,D.C.,March4,1865.PresidentialAddressesandMessages(Lit2Go
Edition).RetrievedApril01,2015.
ThisspeechbyAbrahamLincolnwashisinauguraladdressforhissecondterm.It
framesthecivilwar,notasabattleofgoodagainstevil,butasdivinepunishment
forthewrongsofslavery,andpavesthewayforpostwarreconciliation.Itis
importantformypaperbecausethenarrativeofthecivilwarasdivine
punishmentforslaverydemonstratesfurtherthethreatoppressionhashistorically
posedtoAmericandemocracy.
Mctague, Colleen, and Bryan Wright. "Day Labor Halls as Spaces of Containment and
Control." Dialectical Anthropology 34.4 (2010): 539-44. Web.
This scholarly article was co-written by Dr. Colleen Mctague, a former professor
here at UC. It describes the strange system of day labor halls in Cincinnati which

14
Paquin
promise temporary employment to people with no other options, such as the
homeless and ex-felons. It is important for my paper because it articulates some of
the difficulties that prevent vulnerable populations from being protected properly
by the legal system.
US Constitution. The Struggle for Democracy. Ed. Edward Greenberg and Benjamin
Page. 3rd ed. New York: Longman, 1997. A7-A17. Print.
The Constitution of the United States of America is the living legal document that
records how the government works. It functions as a mandate from American
citizens from which the US government derives its power. For my paper, the
preamble of the Constitution is particularly important because it both identifies
the people of the US as the founders of the government and lays out the
expectations they can have of that new government.
Wallace, George. Inaugural Address. 14 January 1963. ADAH Digital Collections.
Web. 11 March 2015.
This 1963 speech by George Wallace was his inaugural address as the governor of
Alabama. In the speech, Wallace lays out the most convincing arguments against
desegregation and racial equality. This speech helps my paper because it discusses
the historically entrenched American opposition to equality.