Teen Forums - Teen Chat, Teen Help, Teen Advice & Support

Society in America today is considered to work like a salad bowl, and back in the late 1800s, it was considered to work like a melting pot. Which do you think America works best as and why?

I personally believe the "melting pot" theory is better because unity is what holds a country together. I just like the idea of all the different cultures and races working together to form one unique creation. I just feel like the salad bowl theory isolates everyone. And even though there is an X amount of people with the same culture in one area, those people are going to cling to each other because it is only natural to cling to what you can relate to the most, therefore secluding all these different groups of people in categories. I mean race, culture, and religion shouldn't define everything you are as a person. I just don't see why people see race or religion first and automatically conclude that this person isn't like you. Idk how to put exactly what im thinking into words right now, what do y'all think?

If we are talking about what works best, I would say that neither of them is without their flaws and neither better than the other. Rather, a mixture between the two would probably be the best way to go. A melting pot leads too much to homogeneity. Too much of the same thinking, culture, and beliefs will lead to a mess politically. It would virtually weaken the checks and balances that make legislation difficult (which is a good thing). On the other hand, a salad bowl doesn't have enough unity. Without a shared "common ground", we become more divided and separated. We won't be able to get behind a national movement or rally support for a common cause. That won't work so well either. American government and society run on a balance between extremes and acts as a reaction against those extremes. Of course, this is evident in the design of the Constitution as well as the tendencies of U.S. Society. The most clear examples are in government in my opinion (2 party system, Federal vs States rights, industrial vs agrarian interests, etc).

well, for everyone to have the same way of thinking is nearly impossible, however let's say we did all have similar beliefs, how is that worse than having two parties that think radically different?

I'm not saying exactly the same. But, theoretically, there is a threshold where checks and balances between the branches of government would be weakened. Checks and balances play into the two party system that we have where the parties are radically different.

Okay, so let me try and explain this (which is not my strong point). If all the people believed similarly enough, the people that they elect would have very similar political beliefs to one another. This political belief may be a bad one or a good one. Now taking a paradigm that our government uses often, let's worse case it and say that this political belief that the majority of the like minded politicians that were elected by a like minded populace would harm the country greatly. They decide to enact this belief into legislation. The executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch all believe that this legislation will make the country run better, although it won't. It passes without careful examination and without raising possible objections. Suddenly, our government, specifically designed to make laws difficult to pass no longer works the way it is intended. Bad laws are passed without controversy and possible objections are not raised (there are psychological reasons for this). And, indeed, this has happened in history and there has always been a reaction among the people against this.

Now, take the opposite. Two radically opposed political parties. While this is bad, I would posit that it's not nearly as bad. They take opposite stances on certain issues. For discussions sake, let's say that Party A holds the executive branch and Party B holds the legislative branch and the judicial is split pretty evenly. Now, let's say party B passes a bad law. Party A vetoes it. The bad law doesn't get passed. Let's say it's a pressing issue. Now, in order to get something passed, the two branches need to enter a dialogue. A compromise situation. Now they can talk between each party and find the flaws in each of the plans. As a general rule (witha few exceptions), compromises in the government have by and large been better than either of the proposed plans by either of the parties. As a fail safe, the judicial branch can decide if the compromise is not legal and a bad idea. This allows the government to work the way it was designed to. Laws are difficult to pass. It requires compromising and discussion between different extreme ideologies. Checks and balances are preserved. Of course, there are cons to having such polarized parties (see: After the Civil Rights act passed and the coalition fell apart).