BETTER TOGETHER?

With the idea of secession popping up from time to time, a civics teacher might want to address this issue straight on. Not only is it something that is mentioned on the news, as when Governor Rick Perry who back in 2009 stated that his state, Texas, might secede from the union, but it is a topic that reflects the very reasons that smaller governmental entities join together – when they become federated. Of course, we fought a Civil War over this issue when southern states attempted to cut their political ties with Washington back in 1861. But it also brings to the fore the basic set of issues that a relatively small jurisdiction takes into account when the question is: should we join (or stay part of) a larger jurisdiction? When a civics teacher entertains this issue in class, it is the next best thing to having his/her students be able to attend the Constitutional Convention or the ratifying conventions of the late eighteenth century that resulted in our constitution. Further, to aid such a study would be a look at a contemporary example and there just so happens to be one.¹

The people of Scotland have an upcoming election. There is one dominant question on the ballot: should Scotland remain part of Great Britain? Scotland became part of Great Britain as a result of a messy process that took about 100 years and ended in 1707. In that year, the Acts of Union were finalized and Scotland formally joined England, Wales, and Ireland to form what we now call Great Britain – of course, most of Ireland has since broken away leaving only Northern Ireland remaining in the British union. The Scots have had a healthy segment of their population maintaining a desire to regain independence. But a desire for separation is not unanimous among the Scots. The upcoming vote has already proved to be contentious with vigorous debate, name calling, and active campaigns by both sides. The current momentum seems to be heading in the direction toward independence. But there is sufficient time for either side to win.

The side that is working to keep Scotland in the union seems to be stressing economic arguments. An independent Scotland faces many uncertainties. Will it be able to use the pound as its currency? If not, will Scotland adopt the euro – assuming the European Union will allow this? Will it be able to establish and maintain public pensions and public assistance programs? How about its very popular national health care? Will Great Britain maintain common market relations with the new nation or will it set up tariffs and other hindrances to trade between the two nations? If there are hindrances, what will that do to what promises to be – at least for the initial period – a fragile economy?

And what of the new nation's political standing? Domestically, will the smaller polity fall victim to single or limited faction politics about which James Madison warned us? That is, if the jurisdiction is small, it is very likely to contain one or two relatively large factions that will be able to control its politics for the benefits of the limited interests factions. Or, stated another way, the politics of that state will be highly undemocratic.

Internationally, a new nation faces challenges. Yes, I believe Scotland will readily get recognition from all European nations and from the US. And I don't think anyone sees any problems with it being allowed into the United Nations. But how about NATO? How about the European Union – what if the Scots want membership? Apparently, one of the issues driving the Scots toward separation is a desire to escape the more conservative government of the British and get politically closer to more liberal Europe. If so, how will London respond to this potential drift? No, I don't see any danger of armed conflict or anything like that, but a new nation needs active support from its historical neighbors and partners in order to meet the daunting challenges of establishing a new independent state.

But voting citizens might not take all of these concerns into account, because I believe the final decision will be more reflective of emotions than reason. If you are a Scot, the pride in establishing your own independence is a heady proposition. You will be part of the founding generation. So what adds enough emotional impetus for such a move? Do the majority of Scot voters feel sufficiently that they are a different people than the rest of the population making up the British union? Has the discussion over whether to break from London maintained a rational language or has the debate reached the point where an aura has developed and whatever is said both sides will manipulate it to mean what they see as being favorable for their position? For example: “[The] 'no' [pro independence] campaign emphasizes the negative, and the sense that the English are patronizing the Scots as ineffectual and incompetent also feeds the independence campaign, stirring indignation.”² When the debate reflects this type of interpretation, then added discussion just further solidifies and even intensifies whatever leanings a particular person might initially have.

Just to let you know, the vote is scheduled for September 18. There is still time for either side to launch a winning argument. But this debate symbolizes what is at stake when the question of whether a small jurisdiction should join or remain within a larger jurisdiction occurs. Seeing what is happening in Scotland is probably highly similar to what happened in our original states as each had its ratifying convention and debated over whether to join the proposed federal union of the United States. As in Scotland, those concerns were varied and included: by joining, how much of a people's way of life is in danger of being compromised or eliminated? What are the benefits in terms of that smaller entity's economy – more stable economic institutions and a larger unobstructed market? Or is the political union between a larger entity and a smaller one a way for certain vested interests to exploit the business interests or labor groups of the smaller jurisdiction? Why would the smaller entity join such a union if the aim is exploitation? The “marriage” could be pulled off by bought out interests who have inordinate influence and are in the position to secure or maintain the union. That is one of the claims that pro independence advocates say happened in Scotland and London back in 1707.

One way to approach this study is for students to compare and contrast two histories: one, that of the union between Texas – since its governor suggested secession and there was a previous attempt to secede – and the United States government and, two, the union between Scotland and the government of Great Britain. Of course, such a study could take all year, so teachers, so inclined, need to prepare enough material for students to review and also prepare targeted questions that will guide students to the concerns I have outlined above.

In such a study, certain concepts should be highlighted. I would emphasize that any future proposed breakaways need not lead to war or violent confrontation. Apparently, Britain has developed a peaceful means of deciding whether Scotland will remain in the United Kingdom – they're voting on the question. In the US, there also exists a peaceful way. If Texas or any other state wishes to leave us, it would call for a constitutional amendment. This is not an easy process and is one that is most likely to fail – but that is the way it should be. If the process were to be easy and states would begin to peel off, then the concerns of Abraham Lincoln should be considered. For example, if the South were to have been allowed to unilaterally decide and actually secede from the Union back in 1861, then the future of our democratic experiment would come under serious jeopardy. There is strength in numbers to accomplish all sorts of things and that includes democracy and republican based governance.

1The facts reported in this posting regarding the example in question, that of Scotland, were derived from: Erlander, S. and Bennhold, K. (2014). Scots ponder: Should they stay or should they go? The New York Times, April 27, Front Page/International section, p. 6.

2Ibid.

UNCLE SHOULD HAVE HIS DUE

Short posting this time. I can't let the Rancher Bundy case become yesterday's news before commenting on the federalist issue that his claims bring to the fore. For those of you who have not heard of Rancher Bundy, he is the Nevada rancher who has been using federal lands to feed his cattle. We usually call that trespassing if his cattle is feeding without permission, which is the case. This has been going on long enough to run up a bill for one million dollars that the federal government has issued. Tidy sum. He refuses to pay, claiming that the federal government has no legal ownership to the land. As a matter of fact, he has been quoted as saying he doesn't recognize the federal government and that the only legal authority who has the power to impose any punishment on him or any citizen is the county sheriff. I suppose his thinking runs along the lines that the legitimate government is the state and counties are the extension of state authority to carry out state law at the local level. One begging question is: what is the ownership status of the federal government in Nevada? I live in Florida and I'm not aware of the federal government owning grazing lands. I know we have a national park, the Everglades, and there are national forests. But, as in many eastern states, the federal government's ownership in Florida is limited. Out West, it's a different story.

Nationally, the federal government owns about a third of the land mass of the US. There are states that have more than fifty percent of their land owned by the federal government – e. g., Alaska (98.5 %), Idaho (63.8 %), and Utah (63.6 %). By the by, you might think about that in relation to the national debt. Most of the land owned by the federal government is west of the Mississippi. The basis of that ownership lies with the constitutional provision that state admittance into the union has to be authorized by Congressional action. In the case of most of these western states, as part of its acceptance, Congress made the provision that the federal government would keep ownership of these vast tracts of land. Should that be the case?

As it is, given that eastern states are not so affected, one can argue that this treatment of western states violates the federalist principle of equal treatment. To that extent, Rancher Bundy might have a legitimate point. But his actions in protest, in his refusal to pay his fees, and in his continued use of the federal lands to graze his cattle, all seem unjustified and definitely illegal. Let me add, the government grazing rates, according to the Chris Hayes show on MSNBC,¹ is a mere fraction of what it would cost Bundy on private land; the fact that the federal government owns this land turns out to be a subsidy for ranchers even when they pay. Owners of private grazing land would charge roughly sixteen times more than what ranchers are being charged on these public lands.

Those who have come to Bundy's defense, armed and ready to engage in violent behavior, are way over the line in terms of acceptable protest in that they make it harder to engage in reasonable debate over the prudence of the land-owning policies of the central government. It is this type of claim that gives the “state's rights” position a bad name. But Bundy's position on the legitimate authority of the federal government to enforce its laws has no reasonable, legal, or moral standing. We have a constitution that our ancestors established and defended – with untold sacrifices – for us. That constitution has vested in the federal government certain powers and the authority to exercise those powers. With Bundy's racist remarks that were brought to light today, perhaps his notoriety will come to an end. Perhaps he will be made accountable for his alleged misdeeds – if he owes the government of the people a million dollars, I, for one, want him to pay.

1Chris Hays' show, All In With Chris Hayes, broadcast, April, 23, 2014.

KNOWING IS NOT GIVEN

Suppose you possess something of great value to you. It is something you use, but it doesn't become depleted with its use. By using it, it leads to many other wanted things: places, people, objects, understanding, in all a better life. Your belief is that the amount you have of this thing is unchangeable – you either have enough or you don't, despite anything you might do. You might feel lucky you have it, but you can't increase the level you enjoy, and you can't decrease it either – at least under normal living conditions. According to Carol S. Dweck, this is the image many have of intelligence. Due to this perspective, it has led to some beliefs about education and learning that are counter- productive.

Before reviewing some of these beliefs, let me give this view a name. Dweck calls this notion a “fixed trait” view of intelligence and describes it as the theory of fixed intelligence. According to her research, the belief in fixed intelligence leads to some ironic concerns. If you believe your intelligence level is unchangeable, you live in fear that future challenges will be met with insufficient intelligence. This concern leads to some less than forthright behavior. One is tempted to act smart, hide any insecurity, and go about meeting challenges under a cloud of worry. You tend to avoid real challenges; heck, no one wants to seem wanting or dumb. To ease one's concerns, easy-effort assignments are sought so as to be able to outperform other people. Failures take on a greater threat; they might expose limited capabilities that can't be remedied. Efforts to promote self-esteem with baseless praise, either as a result of engaging in tasks of low level difficulty or being praised for mediocre performance, actually cater to this view of intelligence. Unfortunately, there has been a set of practices in our popular culture that do exactly that in the name of enhancing self-esteem. Dweck shows “… how we encourage vulnerabilities in our students when we try to boost their self-esteem within this system. The well-meant successes we hand out and the praise for intelligence we lavish on them do not encourage a hardy, can-do mentality.”¹ These efforts to bolster self-esteem, based on commonly held faulty assumptions, actually promote an aversion to challenges for they might point out the limit of one's intelligence, a limit that is impervious to improvement.

But what if this common view is wrong? What if intelligence is changeable; what if we are able to improve on our level of this valuable asset? A view that says to someone who mocks one for being a dummy: yeah, I might not know that right now, but I can learn it. Dweck has good news; her research demonstrates that intelligence is not a fixed trait, but an “incremental” one. She presents the theory of malleable intelligence: “[i]t's just that [people] focus on the idea that everyone, with effort and guidance, can increase their intellectual abilities.”² By the very act of learning – an active process in which we apply workable strategies to solve the mysteries we confront – we can increase our intelligence, our intellectual abilities. We can see difficult problems as opportunities to not only seek information and understanding, but also as those experiences that make us smarter, more intelligent, more able. Even those who have low levels of intelligence at any given point can have justified reasons to see challenges as those kinds of opportunities that will lead to higher mastery. Feeling smart is not overcoming easy tasks, but taking on the tough ones, working on them, and eventually solving them. The incremental view, if accepted, can have an enormous effect on not only how we learn, but also on how we teach. It helps us free ourselves from the concerns of looking smart to valuing learning through challenges, effort, and dealing with error.

Under the incremental view the following misconceptions come to light:

• high ability students are more apt to demonstrate “mastery-oriented” accomplishments – remember, given a big enough problem, we are all low ability individuals
• school successes encourage “mastery-oriented” characteristics
• praising a student's intelligence fosters “mastery-oriented” traits
• confidence in their own intelligence is key in promoting “mastery-oriented” characteristics among students

I will in future postings further distill this general view of intelligence – explain how the above is a list of misconceptions – and comment on the effects these misinformed assumptions have on school policies geared at addressing underachievement. After all, underachievement is an equality issue and, as such, becomes something we can legitimately address in civics education.

1Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press, p. 3.

2Ibid.

GRADING THE “END”

In a recent article,¹ the political scientist, John Mueller, gives us an update, of sorts, on the ideas contained in a provocative essay published in 1989. Francis Fukuyama claimed, those many years ago, “the end of history.” Of course, this pronouncement was meant to gain our attention – so he did, at least among the scholarly community. The article coincided with the tearing down of the Berlin Wall and the downfall of communism. Fukuyama was not arguing that that point in time marked the end of things happening – things we would consider history – but his claim was based on a Hegelian notion of history marching by the drum of ideological conflicts (thesis vs. antithesis: old organizing idea vs. new organizing idea). He saw that, with the fall of communism, our collective experience on the planet was at the point that such an advancement had come to an end. Mueller asks the question: was Fukuyama right?

With this posting, I want to begin presenting a number of pieces that will review this concern that Mueller presents, and comment. I will do this because in this blog I have been very critical of the dominance of the natural rights construct – the mental view associated with pure liberalism². I might have given the impression that my antagonism is deep seated in the sense that I find nothing meritorious with this view; this despite my effort early on to put my opinion in a more moderate context. The Mueller article provides an opportunity to further elucidate and more clearly express how I think a federalist should view the prevailing construct. Spoiler alert: the concern is more one of degree in my disfavor rather than one of profound rejection.

To further state Fukuyama's argument, he saw liberalism – belief in democracy/market capitalism – as the last ideology standing. He gives reasons for its longevity. In terms of democracy, the political component of liberalism, he points out that by 1945 the states run under democratic rule had been tested and revised to become a highly workable system. After 1975, it had spread to all of Western Europe with the conversion of fairly authoritarian states in Greece, Portugal, and Spain. With the fall of communism, Eastern Europe made a stunning move toward democracy, while in Africa many states moved in that direction, predominately South Africa, but others as well, e. g., Botswana. In the '90s, the largest Muslim nation became democratic, Indonesia. Mueller summarizes this development as follows:

Democracy is a governmental form, generally compatible with a vigorous and productive society, that functions rather well when people manage, on average, to be no better than they actually are or are ever likely to be: flawed, grasping, self-centered, prejudiced, and easily distracted. That is, democracy does not require a great deal from people; they do not need to be particularly good or noble, but merely to calculate their own best interests or, if so moved, to peacefully express them. There are, however, no guarantees that anyone will listen.³

Who knew? The secret to democracy is having a nation of unrequited complainers. According to Mueller, there is no need for exceptional cultural dispositions – “democratization” is not necessary. This goes in opposition to the “Third Wave” literature headed by Samuel Huntington. Mueller points out that democracy has spread without substantial economic growth or force. People merely have to be ready to accept a system that allows them to complain peacefully and elites to come around to the idea that democratic rule, in the public sector, is the best way to handle the issues of the political world.

As for capitalism, despite predictions from very insightful thinkers – from Marx to Schumpeter predicting some form of socialism to triumph – again, this mode of “doing business” seems to be the most viable, the most productive. Heilbroner is quoted as commenting: “... a market system of some kind will constitute their [socialist economists] principal means of coordination.”⁴ As with democracy, capitalist states vary and nowhere is there a pure form of the economic system. As such, there are ongoing controversies: perceived antagonism between growth and wealth distribution, need for and extent of regulation, role and rights of labor, etc. But these are “matters of degree” arguments. We see the attachment for the market model in times of crises. While changes are made, as after the most recent crisis, you don't see fundamental changes. We have come to the point that we don't consider trade restrictions, wage and price controls, confiscatory taxes on the rich, or nationalizing “too big to fail” corporations. And challenging movements, such as Occupy Wall Street, are mostly impotent. Our current state of affairs is that even in nations that are not so democratic, Russia and China, the capitalist mode of operating is very much in place. But when combined with some form of democracy – liberalism – we see it not only as prevailing globally, but also as the direction the world is moving toward in even greater numbers in the future.

Gone are the days of feudalism, fascism, and communism. Today, we have a growing liberalism or some form of authoritarian rule, which is becoming more and more scarce. I consider liberated federalism a view ensconced within liberalism – a form of it. While the natural rights view is a more pure form of it, it places, for a federalist, too much emphasis on the individual. Liberated federalism does not abandon the notion of a strong individual, but defines the liberty of the single citizen more in line with the obligations of the compact, solidifying them to the whole, as more binding. It shifts emphasis from the ideal of being free to do whatever one wants as long as one does not hurt others, to a liberty more in line with the admonition of being free to do what one should do to advance societal welfare. As such, laws, under this view, should encourage this form of freedom – as the Affordable Care Act does and the other laws we have from the New Deal and Great Society legacies. Free to act as one should does not call for force to implement; it calls for persuasion and modeling. And when coercion of some form is needed, a conclusion arrived at reluctantly, then liberated federalism calls for gradualism – an easing into change. I know that these laws are often not initially popular. After all, we live in a time of natural rights thinking. But, if these programs are, in effect, good for the society, the majority of that society will benefit from their effects and, eventually, become popular – look at Social Security and Medicare.

Yes, I agree mostly with Mueller: Fukuyama was correct; history, as he defined it, might very well be over. The current concerns over Russia's moves in the Ukraine give us pause. But this is not a battle of ideologies as such; it is reflective of one of the challenges liberalism faces today, not from other ideologies, but from more practical ambitions of nationalism, as in Ukraine, and fundamentalism – in those areas of the world not yet converted to liberalism. These will be addressed in future postings.

1Mueller, J. (2014). Did history end? Assessing the Fukuyama thesis. Political Science Quarterly, 129 (1), Spring, pp. 35-54.

2The term, liberalism, refers not to the position on the political spectrum we associate with progressives and the mainstream of the Democratic Party. Instead, it refers to the philosophic position which, as this posting will describe, is a belief in democratic principles and capitalism.

3Op cit. Mueller, p. 38.

4Ibid., p. 38.

JUST THE MEANS, MA'AM

A Family Affair is a 1937 film. It is the first of a series of films known as the Andy Hardy films with Mickey Rooney – whom we recently lost . This first edition also stars Lionel Barrymore and Spring Byington. The plot line concerns a judge, Barrymore, who holds up an aqueduct project that will in the long run be detrimental to the interests of local citizens, but which promises a host of short-term benefits. While the film's basic political conflict is relatively simple – moneyed interests versus the common good – it does demonstrate how political pressure on elected officials, the judge being one, can be strident and difficult to ignore. The film illustrates how decisions by officials, be they representatives or judges, can negatively affect a vast array of people who have at their disposal a wide range of political resources: money, emotional leverage, family ties, friendship, expertise, maybe even brass knuckles, and the like. When the stakes are high, you can count on them using these sources of power. What I want to focus on is the notion that technocratic projects, such as an aqueduct project, seem to have a certain level of inertia simply because they are technocratic.

Part of the natural rights' bias for positivist thinking is a prejudice toward favoring ways to control what is – both in our social and natural environments. This world we live in, for the pure technocrat, is one of objects. Our role, according to this view, is to control it. In order to control it, we need to know it. Hence, after an array of ways to accomplish this aim over the centuries, science has been developed – it has proven itself to be an awesome option to attain that knowledge. “Knowledge is power, and the aim of science is control and manipulation. Nature has no worth or meaning save as an inventory of natural resources.”¹ We, as a people, have drifted toward having an exploited relationship with nature. Nature has no use other than to provide those resources that are instrumental to the way of life we have developed. We have been exploiting nature to ever higher degrees of degradation and term it a good thing, as progress. And we seem very intent on enjoying the short term benefits such exploitation accrues and are oblivious to the long term consequences which promise to be ominous. But just don't blame it on science.

The growth of science in western nations, including the US, has happened in a transnational cultural tradition hospitable to the scientific-technocratic view with supportive religious beliefs. Judeo-Christian dogma is well-steeped in the biblical claim: man has domain over God's creation. The impetus for this posting comes from yesterday's 60 Minutes broadcast. One of its “articles” was about Pope Francis. The pontiff's namesake, St. Francis of Assisi, was known for his concern for the poor and other marginalized people. This present leader of the Roman Catholic church seems be following the saint's example. St. Francis was also associated with a view of nature as the object of his love, not as the target of his exploitation. He has been called the patron saint of ecology. He apparently saw nature as a venue in which to get to know God. Unfortunately, this saint's view of our natural surroundings did not have much of an effect on Christian thinking. Instead, what we seem to have, first, according to Philip Selznick, is a logic of dominance. The world, as stated above, is seen as made up of objects. We are free to pretty much control and manipulate these objects. Second, in our thinking about how to use this world, we treat ends, goals, aims, as given. Our emphasis is on processes to attain poorly conceived objectives. We spend scant interest on justifying these things we seek.² We want something and that seems to be reason enough.

From this perspective, the plot of A Family Affair has a more insightful angle. In its more “Hollywood” treatment, the film attempts to point out that this area of doing business is a dangerous source of short-sightedness. It is the same scientific community that is now beginning to warn us of how this short-sightedness is about to bite us if we don't change our ways. But then again, that is not what we have come to expect from that community. We have come to expect procedures from them, not aims: means not ends.

1Selznick, P. (1992). The moral commonwealth: Social theory and the promise of community. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, p. 54.

2Ibid.

ALL CHIEFS, ALL WORKERS

Authority is something with which we all have to deal: authority at home, at school, at work, and in the political/government world. Authority is a status or quality a person or group of people has to hold legitimate power. A parent has authority over sons and daughters, teachers have it over students, bosses have it over workers, and government officials have it over residents within a jurisdiction. There are laws, customs, and norms that determine who holds legitimate authority. These elements also define acceptable ways by which authority is administered. Basically, authority is justified by the need for leadership in the functioning of collective action. For example, how a family functions – where it will live, where the parents will work, how children will be nurtured and educated, and the like – needs someone to be empowered to make the necessary decisions that will determine the answers to these concerns. So if there is a parallel institutional element in two or more aspects of life – family, school, work, government – then the attitudes we develop as we relate to one element will affect our attitudes in relation to the other ones. A civics teacher who is concerned with the attitudes his or her students are developing in relation to government should be aware of these crossovers. If the teacher wants to develop positive dispositions toward democratic governance and a genuine interest in having those students become active, participating citizens, then reference to these other domains would probably be helpful if not necessary.

In light of this, the work of a group of cognitive psychologists is relevant. They look at subconscious or unconscious biases that people hold that affect how they judge their world or choose to act in related situations. How one looks at authority in the home will likely affect how one sees it at school, at work, or in the political world. A cognitive psychologist who looks into this is George Lakoff.¹

First, Lakoff points out that most people's views about these concerns are based on metaphors that simplify the complexity of each of these domains. What I want to focus on here is how Americans metaphorically view work according to Lakoff. He writes that there are two prominent views among Americans: work reward and work exchange. Chances are that at times a person might view work one way and the other way at other times – given the context of a situation or conversation – but overall, a person will have one of these ways be dominant and when the views conflict will support that one over the other. The view one favors seems as obvious and natural, and therefore the holder of the view will tend to project that particular view onto others. As a default bias, people decide how much they will act in accordance with the favored view and this decision takes on a moral tone. Compliance is considered moral; non-compliance is considered immoral or at least suspect in terms of being the right thing to do.

Here is how Lakoff summarizes the work reward view:

• The employer is a legitimate authority.
• The employee is subject to that authority.
• Work is obedience to the employer's commands.
• Pay is the reward the employee receives for obedience to the employer.²

If seen as principles, the above has implications in terms of the relationship between those in authority and those who are subject to that authority. Lakoff provides the following in terms of these implications:

• The employer has a right to give orders to the employee, and to punish the employee for not obeying those orders.
• Obedience is the condition of employment.
• The social relationship of employer to employee is one of superior to inferior.
• The employer knows best.
• The employee is moral if he obeys the employer.
• The employer is moral if he appropriately rewards the employee for obeying his orders.³

As for the other metaphor, work exchange, these are the principles that Lakoff uses to define its view of authority:

• Work is an object of value.
• The worker is the possessor of his work.
• The employer is the possessor of his money.
• Employment is the voluntary exchange of the worker's work for the employer's money.⁴

As with the work reward metaphor, these principles have implications. Lakoff doesn't give a list of implications, but his description harps on the freely arrived at agreement between the employer and employee. He emphasizes that the agreement signals an exchange of equally valued assets: labor for money. Such a view, as opposed to the work reward view, places the parties of the agreement on a much more equal basis. Obedience is not relevant to this relationship. If one is socialized to view work in this mode, one can safely speculate that such a view is supportive of a more democratic disposition toward other institutionalized relations such as in the family, at school, and in terms of the political/governmental domain, whereas the work reward view lends itself to more vertical or hierarchical orientation.

In this blog, I have argued that a problem we are facing is the increasing disparity in the income levels between employers of large corporations and their employees – check my last posting, for example. But there has been a recent development that might promise, albeit limited, an antidote to this increasingly deleterious state of affairs. And one can easily see that if we encourage, through civics and other socializing agents, a work exchange view, we might bolster the necessary attitudes that can convert our employment expectations. In turn, that might very well lead to alternative approaches that might address labor and income problems that current practices produce. An alternative in line with the work exchange view can address the income problem we are facing. Such an alternative is a new business model that is becoming, to a degree, recognized as a viable option; that is, a business owned by the workers, a cooperative.

Most people are familiar with consumer cooperatives – buyers of a product who come together and set up a business to provide that product, as in apartment buildings in New York City or credit unions. Those have been around for quite a while. But more recently, workers of a particular industry have set up businesses such as restaurants or building supply outlets. When I say “new” that isn't exactly true. Worker co-ops have been around, but recently, they have enjoyed renewed interest. Shaila Dewan of The New York Times reports that co-ops range in size and in the number of workers involved. She points to Cooperative Home Care Associates in the Bronx as one of the largest with a work force of 2,000 and judges that number as being the upper limit of such operations. Generally, it seems that this business model will work best with workers of lower tech skills which just so happens to be those workers who are most disadvantaged by current wage trends.

While this alternative might help some segments of the labor force, it does have its problems. What does the research have to say about worker co-ops? “Research findings about [worker co-ops] are rarely negative – they are either just as good as regular businesses, or they are more productive, less susceptible to failure, more attentive to quality and less likely to lay off workers in a downturn … .”⁵ But it's not all positive. These businesses lag in hiring new workers when business activity increases, have a general inability to hire people with high talent – that's why these businesses are not of the high tech variety – workers lack business expertise – fixable by buying such expertise – and have difficulty acquiring sufficient investment – banks are not used to dealing with co-ops. But many of these problems will prove temporary if the model becomes more prevalent. For this to happen, we need more in our work force to see the opportunities and be willing to take the plunge. They also need the disposition to be able to work and trust other workers in their industry to take such a risk. How kids are encouraged to see authority might be relevant to how many laborers of the future will be willing to join – to federate – with others and start and maintain worker co-op businesses. I, for one, would see such a development as a welcome change.

1See Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral politics: How liberals and conservatives think. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. The Lakoff analysis that is reported in this posting is derived from this book.

2Ibid., p. 54.

3Ibid.

4Ibid., p. 55.

5Dewan, S. (2014). Lose the boss. The New York Times Magazine, March 30, p. 21.

THE MAIN MARKER

What marks inequality, at least more so than any other factor? Some might say treatment before the law. Are the laws administered equally for everyone? Let me highlight an example. With the concerns over security we have today – it's been so long since 9/11 that our concerns in this area don't seem abnormal anymore – we all, upon entering the boarding areas of commercial airplanes, have to go through security scanners and whatnot. These are run by the government, the TSA. We, in an “equal before the law” regime, should all be treated the same. Yet the trend is to allow those with first class tickets or other pricier arrangements to short-circuit this requirement. Please read:

Air travel in the United States has never been a model of equality, but in the first years after the Sept. 11 attacks, there was at least a sense of shared sacrifice, as coach and first class passengers endured longer lines and heightened security together. The moment did not last, and today airport security is poised to become another front in America’s class war, a struggle between frequent fliers and not-so-frequent fliers.

We have all been there. While everyone who flies commercially is required to clear a TSA screening checkpoint before proceeding to the gate, first-class passengers and frequent fl[ers get a special queue, with expedited access to the screening process. Meanwhile, the rest of us wait in long lines – sometimes much longer lines – muttering discontentedly like so many budding Bolsheviks.¹

Now I can't personally vouch for this inequality. I haven't flown since '07 – our last trip was so disagreeable that my wife and I have not done it since then. But between this cited article and others I have read, apparently that source of inequality before the law has become more commonplace. But who is getting preferential treatment? Is it people who value the perks of first class so much that they are willing to fork over the extra dough? Or is it those for whom the value of the dollar is so low – due to the fact that they have so many of them – that they consider the extra cost as inconsequential? I believe the latter to be the case.

So, income and/or wealth, as illustrated by this example, is the basis of inequality, at least as experienced in this country. Some have so much money or access to money that getting on a Delta or American Airlines flight is not something they do. They hop on private jets that bypass all of this queuing and patting and screening that all the rest of us have to put up with if we want to fly. In other words, there is no escaping how inequality in one area – how much money one has – and another area – political rights – can be segregated. One affects the other and this simple airline example merely illustrates it. Another example? How about a judge who gives a lighter sentence to a teenager because the magistrate finds the boy a victim of “affluenza” – a sense of entitlement because his parents raised him under conditions of extreme wealth. Oh, by the way, the young man's drunken driving which led him into slamming his car into a stalled car resulted in the deaths of four people and the paralysis of another. Isolated case? There are forms of this inequality every day. Can someone earn, inherit, or otherwise acquire too much money? Too much for their own good and the good of others?

Here's a related question: what does the historical character – usually depicted as a ruthless financial, monopolist – J. Pierpoint Morgan, have in common with novelist George Orwell, the darling of conservatives, and the business guru, Peter F. Drucker ? They all believed that the ratio of income between the highest paid executive of a company and the lowest paid employee should be 20 to 1 or less. Yet in 2012, the ratio between these two among the S & P 500 index companies was 354 to 1. In 2013, the top 10 paid executives in the US each made over $100 million dollars. The average income per household that same year was $51,017.² That kind of disparity can buy a lot of affluenza or inequality within the market and before the law. This form of inequality is getting to be out of hand. We need to address it in a meaningful way. Or, as stated in a recent book:

“For a country founded on the idea that rights are inalienable and inherent from birth,” Taibbi writes, “we've developed a high tolerance for conditional rights and conditional citizenship. And the one condition, it turns out, is money. If you have a lot of it, the legal road you get to travel is well lit and beautifully maintained. If you don't, it's a dark alley and most Americans would be shocked to find out what's at the end of it.”³

My point, exactly.

1Cohen, R. and Vasvari, R. (2012). Wait, who gets to skip airport security? Slate, July 12, see http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/07/airline_carriers_should_not_be_allowed_to_decide_who_gets_privileged_service_from_tsa_s_security_procedures_.html .

2Hargreaves, D. (2014). Can we close the pay gap? The New York Times, March 30, Sunday Review section, p. 3.

3Ulin, D. L. (2014). Matt Taibbi rips into America's growing income gap in 'The Divide.' The Los Angeles Times, Book Review, see http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-ca-jc-matt-taibbi-20140330,0,4516236.story#ixzz2yAa2VUyn . This review is of Matt Taibbi's recent book, Divide: American Injustice in the Age of the Wealth Gap.