A Crucial Element of Democracy

This is a blog by Robert Gutierrez ...
While often taken for granted, civics education plays a crucial role in a democracy like ours. This Blog is dedicated to enticing its readers into taking an active role in the formulation of the civics curriculum found in their local schools. In order to do this, the Blog is offering a newer way to look at civics education, a newer construct - liberated federalism or federation theory. Daniel Elazar defines federalism as "the mode of political organization that unites separate polities within an overarching political system by distributing power among general and constituent governments in a manner designed to protect the existence and authority of both." It depends on its citizens acting in certain ways which Elazar calls federalism's processes. Federation theory, as applied to civics curriculum, has a set of aims. They are:
*Teach a view of government as a supra federated institution of society in which collective interests of the commonwealth are protected and advanced.
*Teach the philosophical basis of government's role as guardian of the grand partnership of citizens at both levels of individuals and associations of political and social intercourse.
*Convey the need of government to engender levels of support promoting a general sense of obligation and duty toward agreed upon goals and processes aimed at advancing the common betterment.
*Establish and justify a political morality which includes a process to assess whether that morality meets the needs of changing times while holding true to federalist values.
*Emphasize the integrity of the individual both in terms of liberty and equity in which each citizen is a member of a compacted arrangement and whose role is legally, politically, and socially congruent with the spirit of the Bill of Rights.
*Find a balance between a respect for national expertise and an encouragement of local, unsophisticated participation in policy decision-making and implementation.
Your input, as to the content of this Blog, is encouraged through this Blog directly or the Blog's email address: gravitascivics@gmail.com .
NOTE: This blog has led to the publication of a book. The title of that book is TOWARD A FEDERATED NATION: IMPLEMENTING NATIONAL CIVICS STANDARDS and it is available through Amazon in both ebook and paperback versions.

Friday, February 5, 2016

WHO’S RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCCESS?

I have to this point, over the last several postings, described three orientations concerning equality.  I thought a review at this time would be useful given that a prominent candidate for president is an avowed socialist.  To many Americans this might sound bizarre and un-American.  One way to couch any consideration for Bernie Sanders would be to compare his position or views against the views of others.  Socialism is primarily concerned with equality.  In this blog, I have described socialist ideas and ideals as they pertain to critical theory – a vying construct in the study of curriculum. I pointed out that critical theorists hold equality as their trump value.  So the question I have been addressing is how socialist views compare with other views Americans have held concerning equality through their history.  Previously, in the last three postings I have described three orientations about equality; they have been genetic elitism, earned elitism, and equal condition. 

Each of these orientations, in turn, is a view of social structure starting with the most elite and working toward the most egalitarian.  There are two more orientations left.  While each orientation has been in the past supported by significant numbers of Americans at one point or another, one can generally say that at any given time, there are people in this nation who will ascribe to any of these orientations.  This posting will look at the next more egalitarian view and I have given it the name regulated condition.  You can also call it regulated equality or, more descriptively, equal opportunity/limited rewards.  As with equal condition, the view has some philosophical justification for its stance on equality.  Let’s see what that might be.

First, let me give this view a definition.  Regulated condition is a general belief orientation in which individuals who enjoy superior human assets (e.g., intelligence, physical dexterity, humor, etc.) do so due to effort for the most part, but also are “blessed” in having been exposed to favorable conditions – more on this below.  Their superiority entitles them to above normal consideration and limited only to areas associated with their earned accomplishments.  Any entitlements are time limited as a recipient must continue to demonstrate his or her worthiness, but said rewards, other than status, must be purchased.  Monetary rewards – compensation or income – are paid in exchange for the individual’s labor and are calculated by reasonable standards to represent that labor’s contribution to the welfare of the society.  In actuality, reward relies generally on market forces but can be manipulated to reflect that contribution through mostly taxes or minimum wage provisions.  This orientation allows the individual to negotiate his compensation, but this process is regulated in some fashion – either by law, by custom, or some other expectations which are broadly accepted as being legitimate.  Sometimes regulations limit compensation by the nature of the labor involved; does it, for example, relate to essential services (medical, religious, educational, or security related services such as serving in the armed forces)?  If so, the general feeling is that such services cannot charge whatever the market allows.  Another example would be if market determined salaries are too exorbitant.  Such considerations take into account how much of the national income is going to the various income groups.  The question would be:  is there, for the health of the economy, sufficient distribution of income to sustain functional levels of consumption?  In other cases, compensation can be bolstered in cases when market determinations would render less than a living wage to some workers.  There might be other considerations such as whether concentration of wealth and income is providing inordinate levels of political assets to certain groups at the expense of others and distorting the democratic quality of a given polity.  Most policies governing manipulations of income are or should be conscious of their effects on supply; that is, distortions can arise and supply can become too limited if prices including compensation are too low.  For example, if the salaries doctors receive are below market price, fewer will provide their services, as is presently the case with Medicare.  As one would suspect, policy that has so many ramifications would need to be justified, especially when you are limiting a person’s income derived from his/her labor or property.

Since in a moneyed society, income is the source of determining how economic goods and services are distributed, the topic of income is highly related to justice.  A number of years ago, a prominent philosopher passed away.  His name was John Rawls.[1]  He thought and wrote about justice and his arguments have been used by what we currently call liberals or progressives.  His main argument is best understood, I feel, by looking at what he felt justice to be.  He doesn’t give us a straight definition, but instead gives us a mental exercise. 

Rawls asks us, in this exercise, to think of a group of people starting a society (the “original position”) with a particular limitation.  That is, no one in the group, ahead of time, knows what his or her position will be in this new society (“veil of ignorance”).  Therefore, the individuals in this exercise will not know if the advantage in the new society will fall to the talented, the strong, the swift, the dullard, or to any other person with a particular asset or detriment.  Their job is to set up the basic rules for this society.  You might be able to think of practical problems with such an experiment, but Rawls' point is that without knowing how one will fare in such an arrangement, each participant would seek to establish the fairest system possible which includes providing the most equal opportunity on the off chance that he/she will not have an advantaged position.  Under such conditions, according to Rawls, a just society can emerge.

While this line of thought addresses equality to a certain degree, Rawls went further.  He questions the right of anyone to claim any advantage, even those advantages that are accrued through personal effort.  Generally, Rawls is concerned with how responsible an individual is for his or her good standing, status, or level of success.  He asks a set of basic questions.  How responsible is a person for his or her talents and skills?  Are they inbred, in which case the person is not responsible at all?  Are they the product of having the good fortune of being raised by parents, households, and communities that nurtured such development?  Or is it the result of attending adequate schools?  Again, the individual has, at best, a limited say in how he or she will turn out.  Therefore, the responsibility a person has for his or her success or lack of success is, at best, limited.  Another source of success is the endeavor a person chooses to pursue.  Does the person just happen to be interested in a skill that is in high demand and short supply?  These, again, are conditions outside the person's full control.  Even when the development and execution of such talents and skills are derived from hard work, how much is the person's disposition toward such work the product of the appropriate family and other social milieus, the right neighborhoods, the right schools, the right churches, and so forth?  All in all, even if hard work is involved, in a just society how much is the person entitled to receive in terms of compensation, status, and other rewards?  Seeing advantages through these lenses, one might come to the conclusion that such rewards should be limited.

Rawls was not a socialist.  He believed in private property, self-initiative, and receiving rewards from property and other resources.  He even wrote about moral hazard, a result in which people who are rewarded without warrant, as in the case of illicit behavior, will learn lessons leading to unproductive behaviors and strategies since rewards lead to repeated actions.  But he felt we needed to be realistic.  We need to be honest when it comes to what can be truly attributed to a person and, therefore, how we view a person's rewards.  There is a multitude of factors that determines how a person's career and other endeavors will turn out and, in reality, a person has little control over those factors.  All in all, therefore, there should be limits to the rewards a person can garner. 

I think Rawls’ argument gives us the rationale for an orientation about equality that I am calling regulated equality or conditions – the fourth orientation I am presenting.  Here are its beliefs:
1.Some people develop talents and they should be rewarded according to how they use those talents to help society.  Society should be set up so that those who have demonstrated the abilities and intelligence to do a job should be rewarded in equal value to their contributions.
2. Laws should be passed that guarantee that only the skills and knowledge needed for a job should be taken into account when people are trying to find work.  Another way to express this belief is to say the orientation is for equal opportunity in its most literal sense.
3. Those who have sacrificed to become talented should be judged by the same standards as the rest of us.
4.  Laws should be in place that put limits on compensation so that several social ends can be accomplished.  These include a functional distribution of income to allow sufficient demand for goods and services and an avoidance of concentrated political assets that undermine the ability of portions of the citizenry to reasonably compete for favorable governmental decisions.

5.  Poor people are generally those who have not been granted the appropriate opportunities to either develop a useful skill or have been unwilling to develop that skill due to social circumstances.

This orientation emphasizes those practices that promote equal opportunity.  It recognizes that the influences of wealth, no matter how justified by the conditions of its accumulation, give some people opportunities over others and that that offends our commitment to equality.  This orientation does not give much credit for past contributions.  Yes, past contributions can be cited as proof that a person has certain skills and knowledge, but that evidence has a “short shelf life” and, as with equal condition, the general attitude is:  what contributions has the person achieved of late?

Our current political discourse, to a great degree, seems to be split on the differences between the last two orientations I presented.  Conservatives and the Republican Party seem to support the equal condition, unlimited rewards orientation.  Liberals or progressives and the Democratic Party support the regulated condition or equal opportunity, limited rewards orientation.  The last orientation, regulated condition, is also sensitive to historical conditions that have affected members of groups in negative ways – such as the effects of discrimination – and that pose competitive obstacles in the present.  In such cases, the orientation would support remedial policies that are aimed at eliminating the obstacles, if possible, or reasonably ameliorating their effects.  Therefore, past discrimination might lead to policies that provide advantages to affected group members such as quotas in which a certain percentage of employment or educational positions are reserved for members of victimized groups.  This is done for a set amount of time or until the discrimination and its effects are deemed to have ended.

The former orientation, equal condition, unlimited rewards, places a higher degree of adherence to raw liberty, the merits of competition, self-initiative, and the sanguine benefits given to individuals who deal independently with the harsh realities of life.  Advocates believe to a greater extent in a government that protects but does not, as they see it, coddle its citizens.

The latter orientation, regulated condition, places a high allegiance on liberty, but softens that devotion with a consideration for what truly constitutes real opportunity. Along with a belief in government protecting us, the orientation promotes a government that is capable and actually provides an agenda of compassion and nurturing policies to assist people, especially those who cannot fend for themselves. The advocates of regulated equality see success as having a corresponding obligation; that is, the expectation that those who are successful are willing to support societal efforts to provide those programs and institutions that genuinely level the playing field, as far as that is possible. Why? Because such a commitment furthers the health of the society by promoting justice as Rawls would have defined it.  It also acknowledges the observation among those advantaged that “there but for the grace of God (or nature), go I.”




[1] A good overview of John Rawls’ theory of justice can be found in Kukathas, C. and Pettit, P.  (1990).  Rawls:  A theory of justice and its critics.  Stanford, CA:  Stanford University Press.

No comments:

Post a Comment