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.