In this journal entry, I would like to discuss Walt Whitman’s Democratic Vistas, and the various points that I have taken from it. I found after reading through this essay on time that it was extremely confusing, but after reading through it a second time, and struggling through certain points, I found the article to be very thought provoking. I may be misinterpreting what exactly Whitman put in his essay, but from his words I found very interesting views, and have incorporated them in with my own. Rather than quote what Whitman says, I will offer up my interpretation of what I think he is saying.

First off, and probably most interestingly, I enjoy Whitman’s shallow and personal definitions of democracy. He states that the purpose of democracy is to maintain a high quality of freedom for people through a vast amount of laws to control both personal aspects and relations to other individuals. This alone is not so impressive, nor worth a poets words. Walt instead goes on to explain democracy in its personalities. He goes off talking about men going to war to defend our American flag through hell and back, but why? This democracy seems to be developing more loyalty and pride than any “feudal lord, Greek or Roman breed” could ever have accomplished. This comes in part because Walt’s shallow definition of democracy leaves out too much that must be implied. People protect our democratic state because of what it allows them and all, which is possibility. Our government encourages us to do whatever we can with our lives, with little restriction, and that is what democracy is all about. If this is not worth raising a fight over, what on this continent is? Also Walt goes on to explain how democracy allows every person a soul that places all people on an equal level. This fact in turn leaves every one of these souls a chance to expand their happiness. By voting these souls can cast a vote without worry of how others could react to these convictions or opinions, because we know one vote pulls no more weight than another.

Through this flat out equality, we encourage a cold, calculating, and passionless process. No matter how much we believe in something, without the support of the masses, it does not mean squat. And what about the support of the masses, for who’s sake do we give them so much power, surely not for the better good, but for the sake of the individual, and possibly communities. This forms a kind of paradox because the individual has control of his/her fate, informed or not. We are imperfect, and the wrong choices will inevitably be made because of our nature. Going back to democracy being cold, calculating, and passionless, no matter how hard we work for a goal or believe in something, in the end the only thing that will matter is the total number behind you.

Now Walt also discusses how religion is at the core of democracy because at some point it is religion and the spiritual aspects that bind all men. Consequently, I hold quite a different view. If ever we wish to hold the entire global community on an equal playing field we will need to put our religious convictions aside. Take a look at the world and its obvious divisions; we separate our communities and ourselves by our beliefs. We hold spiritual beliefs that we see as truth, and the rest of the world be damned. The thought of trying to get the entire world to find common beliefs in religion is just ridiculous. Religion has caused far more trouble between differing groups than it has ever helped. I just disagree with Walt’s view on spirituality and its relationship with democracy. As far as bringing the 2 together, I think that they mix as well as alcohol and sleeping pills.

Another thing that Walt mentions that just plain sucks is the corruption and personal gain sought in our political system. He cites a quote by a foreigner who observes various people who came into office more or less by the pull of a political party and their manipulation rather than the popular vote of an informed majority of the public. One would have to be naïve to believe that this does not still go on today, but how do we call this a democracy and allow this to happen? Perhaps the answer comes in the long run, even Walt concedes to this idea. After putting a political figure in the eye of the media and the public, we will reduce him/her down to who he/she is. Those who live up to the expectations we choose to hold them to will reap the fruits of their labor in the form of another term and public opinion. As far as the election process goes, you gotta love Walt’s views on that, “I know nothing grander, better exercise, better digestion, more positive proof of the past, the triumphant result of the faith in human kind, than a well-contested American national election.”

In the closing of this essay, Walt praises democracy as a system and its room for improvement. I love how he said (at the time) women could surround themselves in the “stormy political life”, just as soon as they realize that they can. What about who democracy serves, it is a great tool beneficial to all, and worth the thought and effort of anyone. He goes on to mention how the history of democracy is yet unwritten because we are still enacting it, and as far as Walt or any good hearted American is worth in the future. Just like Walt says, democracy is a great word and has fruitful consequences and repercussions.

Personally, I really enjoyed reading this piece through. Like I said, it was terribly difficult getting through the first time, but it was worth reading over again. For the most part, it just seemed like Walt was making his opinions known, while at the same time asking people to think about the institution of democracy. He accomplished this with me, and I do not think that this was a propaganda piece either. Walt put many different ideas around such a simple word with drastic implications, and maybe it was a poet who had the words to explain democracy.