FEDERATED “WAR ZONE”

Let me play teacher. For homework, you are to Google “Promise Zones.” You will find an entry: President Obama's announcement of establishing five “Promise Zones” in which the federal government is organizing local people and groups to provide assistance to low income people in five different localities around the country. You are to view the President's presentation. The purpose is to hear about a program that I would argue is based on federal ideals and principles. Why do I say this? Because the Promise Zones get local business people, government people, and non-profit people to develop and implement a plan to meet the comprehensive needs of a low income population. These parties, in effect, federate with each other to accomplish ambitious goals. They want to help these people turn their lives around – that is, people who find themselves in poverty or near poverty. The federal government provides initial funding which can be substantial and organizing services to get the thing going. At least that's my understanding of how it works.

In the last posting, I mentioned that in our national political world, we have undue influence by large corporations. I also mentioned that these corporations are overly populated by self-centered actors who are advancing only their personal ambitions. Of course, this does not refer to all those who work and even lead these corporations. There are those who view their involvement in corporate activities as an associational effort; that is, they define their roles as ones in which they are federated to their fellow workers to accomplish corporate goals and they, in turn, see their corporate roles as ones in which they see themselves as partners with their colleagues. Yes, they compete for advancement within the corporate structure, but they do not do so in such a way as to hinder the health of the corporation. In addition, they perform their duties and support those corporate policies that bolster the communities in which their businesses function. Business personnel who engage in such efforts, like the one the President announced, reflect a federalist approach to corporate action. Unfortunately, my view of corporate activity today does not reflect many examples of this type of approach.

The President's announcement was given on the day after the fiftieth anniversary of President Lyndon Johnson's State of the Union message in which the late president announced his initiative, the War on Poverty. While quite a few programs we associate with LBJ's initiative are still with us, we can't say that we, as a nation, have been fully engaged in this “war” during the last fifty years. Yes, we have cut the rate of poverty by more than half, but quite a few historical developments since 1964 have sidestepped our efforts to eradicate poverty. There was the Vietnam War and its costs, the administrations of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and those of the two Bushes which, to varying degrees, were hostile to the War on Poverty programs. All of these historical developments have put major obstacles in the way of our poverty fighting agenda.

With his announcement, and the President put it in this context, the Obama administration is picking up the mantle, at least in terms of goals, of the War on Poverty. One item that President Obama included in his remarks was that the Promise Zones would be subject to demanding reviews and evaluations. They, the efforts, have to work in order to survive. The old adage of “if only one child is helped, the effort is well worth it,” does not cut it. Many more than one child has to be helped. The President provided the Harlem Children's Zone as the model for his additional, proposed zones. It serves as an example of what the federal government considers a worthwhile investment. The following is an excerpt from an Atlantic Monthly article regarding the Harlem project:

The Zone, … first began as a one-block pilot program in the 1990s … . Now [in 2012] spread over 90 blocks in Harlem, it takes an intensive and comprehensive approach to child development. At its most basic, the idea is to support children in the neighborhood from the minute they're born until they leave for college. That means parenting classes, intensive kindergartens, high-quality schools called Promise Academies with robust after-school programs, even help with college applications.

In Harlem, it's been a wild success. In 2009, all third graders at the HCZ's Promise Academy tested at or above their grade level in math, outperforming their peers in the city and throughout the state. Over 84 percent of Promise Academy II students at or above grade level in city-mandated English tests, topped the average test scores among all other black students in New York City. And in 2008, 93 percent of Promise Academy High ninth graders passed the statewide Algebra Regents exam.¹

While there has been some concern over how well the Harlem program has been evaluated, the program's costs, by most accounts, have been well worth the investment.

From this short description, we can get a sense of how comprehensive this type of efforts needs to be. It obviously needs the input of many parties – many confederates – some from business, some from government, and some from non-profit organizations. They need to give the effort their skills, time, and, yes, money. And this call for involvement and coordination includes a strong leader. Those were, in the Harlem case, integral elements in their success. And the level of commitment needs to be broad and deep. There needs to be among the participants a compact, an agreement which has an almost sacred quality. Without that, I would surmise, success will be elusive at best. Those involved must feel that failure is not an option.

President Obama's initial plan upon taking office was to pursue these types of programs. Unfortunately, the immediate effects of the severe recession which has plagued the years of the Obama Administration have demanded that the federal government aim its efforts toward providing direct assistance – straight money outlays to a population facing the economic deprivations related to the recession.² Perhaps due to an improving economy, the President's announcement on January 9 indicates he is now ready to pursue this Promise Zone approach. He named five zones for funding. Let's see if these federal arrangements actually develop and achieve the hoped for levels of success.

 

1Erickson, A. (2012). Why hasn't the Harlem Children's Zone been replicated even without Obama's help? The Atlantic Cities, August 16. See http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2012/08/why-hasnt-harlem-childrens-zone-been-replicated-even-without-obamas-help/2968/ .

2Ibid.

WHAT'S YOUR SQUARE?

Perhaps in reading this blog, you might detect a certain political, partisan bent. Believe it or not, that is not the intent. As the introduction of this blog indicates, main goals of the blog are to present, explain, and promote a certain construct. This is a construct that can serve as a guide in the choice of content in our nation's civics classrooms. That construct I have entitled the liberated federalist construct. In terms of that construct's standards of good governance, the main problem today, the condition that hinders our ability to put in place the most prudent public policy, is our adherence to extreme individualism. I am not claiming it's individualism, but extreme individualism. This state of affairs is fed by our adoption of another construct as our main guide to not only civics content, but also to our general view of governance and social relations. That construct is the natural rights construct. If you can accept these general premises, it follows that a blog dedicated to these goals and believing views of our current conditions as I have just described them would dedicate a great deal of space to presenting them and argue for changes that shift our policies from extremely individualistic ones to those that are more collective in nature. Again, it is not extreme collectivism, but a collective posture that resembles that which earlier generations of Americans believed to be best.

“You can't go home, again” is a refrain you might be thinking. And, in its truest sense, that might be true. In any event, I have made a distinction between what I have named traditional federalism and liberated federalism. As the names indicate, the traditional form of this construct, the one that prevailed earlier in our history, is probably the one that is no longer attainable and not advisable to adopt. But I do believe a more “liberal” version of the construct is both attainable and advisable. In order to approach a more federalist view, though, be it traditional or liberated, one needs to overcome those forces that have entrenched our more individualistic posture. That is the overarching power structure that exists in the nation. And here is where a perceivable partisan bias might come through in my postings. I judge the prevailing politics of the nation to be overly influenced – is the term controlled? – by the corporate entities that reign over our economic system. Between the money, property, income, wealth, and lobbying access, the corporatist faction has a near stranglehold over our public decision-making. Consequently, when I prepare to post, I am usually thinking of some resulting abuse or other and my thoughts lead to reporting and opining over a more collective response. While corporations are collectives, they are run by highly charged individuals who view economics as a compilation of individual decisions and actions. The typical corporation is not an association of federated cohorts, but organizations of individual operatives all seeking their personal interests and benefits. Collectivist responses to prevailing conditions probably sound and have the feel of progressive argument. Yet that is not accurate.

So, to clear the air a bit, may I suggest the following conception. Let us say that in terms of this blog, one might be served by viewing our politics not merely as one that can be analyzed by the continuum from progressive to conservative, but also by another continuum, one from collectivism to individualism. And one should keep in mind that, in terms of American politics, the relevant expanse of that second continuum is relatively limited, although as of late, our politics has included factions espousing a more extreme individualism, as in libertarianism. Let us attempt to give this backdrop a more visual description.

If, on a sheet of paper, one were to juxtapose the two continua as perpendicular axises with the collective-individual axis running up and down and the progressive-conservative axis running left to right (how appropriate), then four quadrants are formed. The top left quadrant, the progressive/collective quadrant, would have a list of policy areas favored by those who are both progressive and collective in their orientation. This might include welfare – programs such as the Great Society – national health programs (especially one that is a single-payer type), and housing for the indigent. In the top right quadrant, the conservative/collective quadrant, policies promoting neighborhoods, religion (especially congregational religion), family, and the like might be found there. In the lower left quadrant, the progressive/individualist quadrant, one finds policies that would include civil rights, free speech, and decriminalizing drug use. And the last quadrant, the lower right one, would contain conservative/individualist policies: gun ownership rights, entrepreneurial rights, free trade, and anti-labor union policies. I feel this grid of four quadrants would be a useful tool for teachers to help students view not only how issues are seen and judged, but also help in determining how political alliances are or are potentially formed by the adherents of the different quadrants.

What is also interesting is to consider how dissonance is generated by politically active people over such issues as recognizing the rights of gay and lesbian couples to get married. Where does such an issue fall? Usually that issue falls in the progressive/individualist quadrant, but I have heard language that would shift the perception of the issue to the more conservative/collective quadrant. Different questions can be entertained by the use of the grid. For example, how does the electorate, in terms of numbers, fall? Is there a shift in the general electorate among the quadrants? How do the demographics affect how people will populate the grid in the future? On and on.

But to get to my original concern: if this blog has an apparent progressive bent, it is due primarily to how I see the most fundamental problems of today's political landscape. Again, I see that challenge from the strength of corporate entities to be the most influential and fundamental detriment to our good governance. Their interests reflect the positions of the conservative/individualist quadrant. In most direct opposition would be the positions reflected by the progressive/collectivist quadrant. That's just the way it is.