Within progressivism philosophy, civil liberty has always been a significant part of progressivism. However, in case the leaders in America were to be questioned on how they contributed to progressivism, almost all of them, in the present or the past would be considered guilty for trampling civil liberty. According to progressivism, all forms of social advances, technological, economic and scientific ought to be focused on improving the conditions of a human. Yet, when considering American history and the current context, it is quite evident that the government indeed feels obliged to trample, without consideration, the rule of law.
In her article "Trading Liberty for Illusions," Wendy Kaminer relates to these facts and asserts that Americans are too frightened of questioning the government intentions as well as the value of security measure implemented. On the other hand, the article “If looks could kill,”-the economist analyzes surveillance advancement in technology. These two articles both provide a relevant concept with their focus aimed at one thing, security, and privacy. Accordingly, while designing of progressivism was done with the aim of securing civil liberties in America, the right to both security and privacy are in fact the most trampled.
The right to equal treatment and due process is currently a term in books of law that is not actualized. Individuals are looked for in ways that breach their privacy and contravene the law. For instance, electronic surveying by the government, mandatory medical test as well as invasive faux safety measures are among the privacy and security issues that all the Americans have had to deal with all along. In her "Trading Liberty for Illusions," Kaminer, argues that the notion of American liberty is not a misnomer. Instead, it is an illusion because, American can believe in promises as long as they have security, even though they only have it as a delusion. Amerian's have traded their privacy for security. A fact that no privacy is provided to people and they are bugged in their house wired. Technological surveillance currently is a norm while cameras for video surveillances are cameras are fixed everywhere in the name of assisting "corps cat criminals." She provides an argument that "taking into consideration the manner in which facial recognition system have been utilized and abused so far, it's a fair judgment that they constitute a threat –on to liberty, privacy, and even physical safety – and not the intended promised security." (Kaminer, 2014)
The Economist provides a clear understanding that hard-core criminals who are skilled for “fooling” intelligent surveillance systems, do the same through holding back their emotions, characters and facial expression hence they defeat the “intended inaccuracy” that the government employs in its surveillance technology (The Economist, 2014). For this reason, lie detectors have turned out to be almost outdated, as they only stick to measuring, or attempting to measure the psychological correlation of stress. According to the economist, various lie detector technologies have both controversial and a patch history and other innocent individuals have been manipulated while practiced liars are freed. The legislature is isolated between utilizing law as it was planned or twisting law to meet special interest or giving security inside and without attacking protection, and breaching security of the general population it should ensure its protection.
If you ask me, American seems to have very little choices to make, as levels of threat increasingly continue to grow, yet the citizens need privacy and security as well. The government in itself has a division by the law due to the special interest or for the provision of security with or with ought considering the fact that privacy is invaded, as well as interfering with the people's security of whom it is supposed to secure and not interfere with. Evidence from both articles shows that indeed this biasness is an issue that is worth consideration since the arguments prove non-objective, authoritative and balanced as an article intended for the public.
Undeniably, while the economist purports that surveillance technologies might not prove perfect considering the fact that the conducted experiment, almost 20 percent of the results were proved incorrect. While at the same time Kaminer indicates that Americans have traded their liberty for simple security illusions successfully. Perhaps it is almost a significant fact that instead of the false promises, the government should instead consider a pragmatic and successful approach to privacy as opposed to the unreasonable dreaming. Despite the significance of precaution, it is not right to exploit the innocence of the citizens in the quest safety, because very soon, rebels will be on the verge of criticizing the credibility of American philosophy.
In the past, American dissents have been mistreated, persecuted and prosecuted for standing up for their rights. This provokes everyone to question the purpose of the rule of law within the American society if at all it is the government itself going against the law. Therefore, in as much as the two articles look at the distinct aspects that civil liberty entails, it is evident that they both believe that the American government has failed in the progressive notion more particularly for privacy and security
The journey for American government towards obtaining the goal of progressivism is halfway, especially for civil liberty. There indeed should be room for dialogue, disclosure and if possible, modification of the constitution that is currently in place for addressing the higher handedness of the government in the proposition to providing security to the citizens of America. Essentially, in as much as advancement technology gears to improve security, they ought not to be relied on as the one of the perfect approaches to delay with threats. All the citizens should as well be empowered and not afraid of the government measures since the upper handedness has brought about the erroneous display of behavioral and emotional, traits that can easily be confused and misinterpreted.
Finally, it is important to take into consideration that despite the false promises that the government provides for security and privacy, their effort might as well be thwarted by the technological equipment they often utilize as the actual culprits are aware of the way to handle the surveillance system. In fact, there is a necessity for a sober approach to security and privacy and not the current laws and technology.
Reference
Kaminer, Wendy. "Trading Liberty for Illusions." Trading Liberty for Illusions. Free Inquiry Magazine-Volume 22, Number 2., 13 Feb. 2004. Web. 06 Mar. 2014. .
The Economist. "If Looks Could Kill." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 25 Oct. 2008. Web. 05 Mar. 2014. .
