America: A Nation of Critics

Sarah Reyner

November

Chris Brunt

English 102

We accuse police for racist motivations when arrested, want to impeach the president in
economic downturn, and create detailed conspiracy theories of corruption prevalent throughout
Washington D.C. Why is it that we automatically associate these people, or any person who hold
power, with corruption? When our leaders make important decisions or put their rightful power
to use, Americans find themselves squirming restlessly in their seat. The majority of America
encompasses this mindset and has an uncontrolled craving for conspiracy; the investigation and
discovery of our executives crookedness seems to be the only way to scratch this itch. We can
attribute our presumptions of administrative corruption to common beliefs present in American
Culture. Senses of hostility that possess the minds of many is camouflaged by our fatuous
justifications. Many of us have subsequently become numb to any acute awareness of such
assumed judgements. The blindness of mistrust has been a parasite that has slowly eaten away at
our countrys moral and has anchored down American success.
Such American ideologies are portrayed by Michael Greenberg in his article New York:
The Police and the Protestors, a personal account of the Occupy Wall Street movement which
was shut down by New York Citys law enforcement. American skepticism is not limited to our
borders. Masha Lipmans article The Pussy Riot Verdict provides an account that displays
American cynicism towards a foreign authority. In her argument, Lipman condemns the Russian
indictment of three young women for defaming a church by practicing their cause they referred
to as Mother of the Lord, Chase Putin Out inside of a Russian Cathedral. The sentencing to
three years in prison is argued as cruel and unnecessary, claiming it to be a denial of freedom of
speech and assembly by Russian authority. These two situations which took place on different
continents by contrasting power sources each uniquely portray American apprehension towards
the leaders of society.

Americans werent merely born with innate suspicions, such imaginative, theoretical
situations had to originate from definite source. American culture is a main ingredient in the
creation of our thirst for conspiracy. Such ideas were originally injected into the conscience of
young minds starting in early childhood. Many fairy tales, nursery rhymes, and fables portray
characters who hold power to be the bad guy or antagonist and stars the common people or
peasants as either the hero or damsel in distress. Who would have thought that when Mom
turned on Snow White or when you learned about David and Goliath in vacation bible school,
you would begin form the association of power to evil? As children progress through grade
school they are taught the history of the United states which is based on gallant tales of colonial
bravery and the struggle to overcome the domineering control of suppressive superiors: Great
Britain. Many accounts as such are inculcated into young American minds as they are exposed
to numerous depictions of the people overcoming totalitarian forces that previously suppressed
freedom. These historical accounts eventually led to the rise of the ultimate symbol of autocratic
suppression: the American democracy, a style of government that places numerous restrictions
on leaders such as the checks and balances and elected officials to prevent any type of ascendent
rule.
As adolescents develop into adults, their disclosed predisposed thoughts about authority
metamorphose into popular political discontent as they enter the world of social media. I think
recession is when your neighbor loses his job, depression is when you lose yours, and
recovery is when Barrack Obama loses his, is an example of many bias opinions young minds
are exposed to early in development. This quote from the anti-obama Facebook page, is easily
accessible and influential to all ages. Popular social media sources such as Facebook and
Twitter, set the stage for easily influenced minds to be brainwashed by biased opinion. Could the

media be the supreme factor that has caused skepticism of our country's leaders? From the day
we turn eighteen and register to vote, we are taught to dissect the lives, motives, and actions of
our superiors. The quest to identify the best candidate has overflown into the office term; people
continue to seek wrongdoings and misjudgments and pounce on the privilege to reveal any
potentially inaccurate accusation.
Maybe it isnt just the U.S. that has apprehension, maybe it is within human nature to be
inquisitive of our leaders motives. Even though a majority of us refuse to admit it, the thought
of being ruled by an all-powerful higher being is unsettling. The most devout believers find
themselves skittish when pondering being held accountable by someone besides themselves.
Some blame what the Christian bible refers to the fall of man kind and humans sinful
nature, others blame human genetics for such predisposed hypersensitivity.
So why doesnt Russia portray such innate characteristics as Americans? We cannot
automatically eliminate human nature as a potential cause of skepticism because the Russian
citizens were indifferent to the verdict of the Pussy Riot trials whereas Americans were eluding
indignation. It is not within Russian culture to openly voice opinions about injustice nor to
preserver for their rights and freedoms. Either Russia has exasperation hidden deep within their
soul only to be unlocked by the key of popular consent or they have an alternative definition of
freedom. Is it possible that one group of people who have no involvement can disagree to the
point of enrage, while the population effected silently allows the refusal of certain freedoms?
So what is freedom? It is a term that many of us claim to fully comprehend, something
we conceive as concrete, yet it is insubstantial and indefinite. The truth is that what seems
simple in idea is alternatively intricate and in-depth containing many exceptions. The Occupy
Wall Street or OWS protest recalled by Greenberg is one of many causes who have fallen victim

to the misinterpretation of freedom. Their fatal mistake was ignorance as they followed the
principal: We dont talk to people with power, because to do so would be to acknowledge the
legitimacy of their power(Greenberg 1). When they assumed that they could protest without
limitation they were single-handedly signing their movements death certificate. The petty
disregard of meeting civil requirements caused austere police reaction who pulled the trigger on
their cause. The accountability was not directed at the primary source: themselves, instead they
followed the American habit of turning the pointed finger to the police officers and city officials.
Without understanding our rights and their limitations, we are hindering ourselves and failing to
value what so many around the world lacks and desperately desires.
Sadly, America continues to confuse this ambiguous term as rights without limitations.
Greenberg defines it as a concept, not a fixed law, a shifting proposition that is constantly being
challenged, if not entirely redefined (3). We tend to take the Declaration of Independences
description of freedoms as unalienable rights much to literally, freedom is not indefinite.
When we fail to follow such stipulations and are denied certain rights, we place blame on our
superiors who conceive them or the enforcers who prosecute them. We need to wake up realize
that there is no such thing as complete and absolute freedom. If we do so we will be allowed to
use our rights to our advantage.
If our leaders are responsible for granting freedom, why do we remain skeptical? The
answer is simple yet perplexing to comprehend. Along with allotting freedom, leaders invent
and enforce laws and to us laws represent restrictions. Even if we have no intentions of breaking
a certain law, the fact that we are restricted by the government peeves the free spirit in America.
Police take the brink of persecution. As law enforcers they represent the restrictors. NYPD
that controlled the OWS protest were condemned by the protestors for restricting their cause.

Even though both parties were at fault, (protestors failed to acknowledge certain legal guidelines
and a percentage of police went buck-wild when allowed to release aggression) the protestors
still failed to see the full picture. Greenberg recognizes the alternative spectrums as he recalled
many blue-collar officers expressed sympathy for [the OWS] message...[and] disapproved of
the aggressiveness of some of their superiors and colleagues. Not looking at situations in their
entirety is what characterizes our hostility towards our own leaders and is extended to foreign
states as well.
When Lipman criticized the Pussy Riot trial as the crushing power of the state over the
individual, servility over independence (1), only the American single-dimensioned viewpoint is
exposed. The fact that Russia was indifferent or even agreeable with the court decision is mind
boggling when comparing it to the outrage inside American borders. This situation does not
effect us individually nor does it effect our country, so why has it caused us to accuse Russia as
being a nation of oppression when the majority of the supposed oppressed are apathetic? What
would be seen in the U.S. as an asinine cry for attention or potential misdemeanor for trespassing
has placed three young girls in a dramatic conflict with the Russian government, yet Russian
outcry is continuously absent. The history of Russia is considerably contrary to that of the United
States. Historically, Russia has been an omnipotent and suppressive state, where a Soviet man
had to be quiescent, unquestioning, and submissive (Lipman 2). This is the environment upon
which a majority of citizens are familiar with, it is the safe option to follow. However, we must
ask ourselves again: just because they are acquainted to this lifestyle, if human nature resents the
shackles of oppression, why is Russia silent?
The real mystery is what ignited the American fury over the Russian verdict. Is it simply
another example of the U.S. butting into foreign affairs or is a more meaningful spark behind our

fury present? The decision struck a sensitive spot: the denial of freedom of speech and assembly,
two of our most sacredly held rights. Our sensitivity is traced to our cynicism and mistrust of
authority; these specific freedoms are a means to limit governmental authority, and when denied,
the threat of oppression escalates as does public rebuttal. The news of the Russian government, a
stereotyped oppressive force, and Russian church, a common controversy over right to rule,
making an indictment that is believed to have denied such rights, causes us to fear for the safety
of our own rights. Such stories force us to think hypothetically about our own future which is
why we are threatened to such degrees about foreign decisions.
We dont need to confide fully in our leaders motives, it is still important to hold them
responsible, but we must also acknowledge the good that they have done for our country. The
relationship between the people and the government should ideally compare to a healthy dating
or marital relationship by associating the citizens of this country to the female role and
government to the male role. Neither party should outweigh the other and both should make
equal contributions. However, when making the final decision when at stalemate, we should trust
the males (the governments) judgement to do what is right.
The suspicion that infects a majority of our minds has converted us into the nagging
girlfriend in the relationship. Im sure we are all acutely aware of the damage that lack of trust
along with continuous pestering has on couples, it forms a never-ending, love killing monster.
An infinite circle is created as the inflicted becomes weary and resorts to sneakiness, dishonesty,
and potentially deceit which ultimately leads to the hounderss suspicion. By being a nagging
girlfriend to our government officials, we have been the root of our own skepticism. We are the
factor that can be traced back to the origination of governmental secrecy. Neither party is
innocent; the governments lack of communication is not pardonable but we also fail to

recognize why they have chosen to do so. Would you be fully informative if your significant
other questioned your every motive? I think we can all empathize and be understanding as we
reflect on the memory of our own ludicrous exes.
The truth is we are the only threat to our future. Isnt having a structured government
better than no government at all? You may have to pay ridiculous taxes, be banned from
smoking marijuana, and forced to drive at achingly slow speeds but you are living in a well
structured society and not an uncivilized barbaric state. We are unaware how our innocent
inquisitions are detrimental to the American political system. If we get in the mindset of if our
leaders are for it, we oppose it, a vicious circle will form. Leaders installed into office become
preordained for failure: they refuse to make the much needed difficult decisions due to public
opposition and assign their efforts to impression management rather than fulfilling appointed
responsibilities. Suspicion accomplishes nothing. It is cowardly to silently spur with animosity
and frustration when you could legally protest your concerns. People have given their lives for
us to have these freedoms. Instead of being a stubborn asshole who slanders through his mouth
or his fingers on a keyboard, try using your rights to your advantage and actually accomplish
something. Thats what they are there for.

Works Cited
Lipman, Masha. "The Pussy Riot Verdict." (n.d.): n. pag. News Desk. The New Yorker, 17
Aug. 2012. Web. 18 Oct. 2012.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/08/the-pussy-riotverdict.html.
Greenberg, Michael. "New York: The Police and the Protesters." (n.d.): n. pag. Nybooks. The
New York Review of Books, 11 Oct. 2012. Web. 18 Oct. 2012.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/oct/11/new-york-police-and-protesters/