“Making America great again” is a slogan that has been bandied
about during this political year – it’s a rallying call for one of the major
candidates. The key term, I believe, is
“again.” Now innocently, one can say
that the reference could mean that what is sought is the return to the
industrial past that marked the economy in the pre-seventies years. Since about the 1970s, the economy has
shifted from a more industrial base to a more service base.
Industrial facilities used to provide
employment to many lower educated, mostly male workers. Industrial corporations, in search of cheaper
labor, have moved many of their production facilities abroad. This includes opening factories in Mexico and
in Asian countries. Of course, the result is that many of the former areas
where such jobs were plentiful are now areas of abandoned factories and there
are many displaced workers.
So “again” could refer to reversing
this trend by some policy or other that either punishes these corporations for
moving or provides rewards if they return.
I would guess that such policy or policies would rely heavily on some
taxing scheme such as tariffs or exit taxes (one can question the
constitutionality of this) or maybe the imposition of some regulation scheme –
the details are skimpy.
Finally, there are currency
manipulation policies – an option employed extensively by the Chinese – that if
implemented here, would encourage more sales of American made products. But with all the complaining, the US is still
a leading industrial power – accounting for about 17% of the world’s production
(China, number one, is about 22%).[1]
Or “again”
could be less economic and more social.
Given the added rhetoric of walls and the general antagonistic talk about
criminal immigrants and the like, one cannot help thinking the reference is
more an anti-diversity message. In one
ad, the idea is that everything we value is under attack. And here, I suppose, the overall image that
is being created could be a “let’s get back to the 1950s,” to a time when only
one type of folk was in charge.
I’m not sure this anti-diversity
theme is the message, but who is to say?
Definitely not the campaign, where such details seem to be beyond their
purview. Then again, this can all be
rhetoric with little intent to follow through.
But is it?
What one can
say is that the issue of diversity is real and it affects many of our
institutions, including education. It’s
the type of issue that directly relates to civics education and also an issue
that would affect any attempt to transform education or any part of it – it’s
that pervasive.
I have
recently pointed out that many of the concerns related to curricular change
revolve around arguments that take on an either/or form. Diversity is no exception. There is the approach that talks of diversity
in terms of assimilation – the melting pot notion that the history of America
has seen a steady stream of immigrants, mostly from European countries. By the time their children or grandchildren
(at the latest) come of age, they have converted themselves from whatever the
previous nationality or ethnicity was to being “Americans;” that is, a white
citizen occupying a middle class or working class position (perhaps holding one
of those industrial jobs mentioned above) and enjoying a relatively safe and
prosperous existence. All is well or so
the image is portrayed.
But all of
this assumes certain social realities. For
one, it assumes a particular family and all of its members are willing to
meld. And readers of this blog well know
that under the regime of natural rights thinking, we are all told and
encouraged to be our own selves and that includes what life style we choose to
follow.
One “good” thing about the natural
rights perspective is that it broke the chains of cultural homogeny. You want to be Hispanic, then be
Hispanic. You want to be black, then be
black. You want to be Asian (such as
Chinese), then be Chinese, and so on.
These choices reflect rights and those rights only call on the
individual to respect others exercising the same right and proclivity.
Now multiply
that with other preferences of choice such as sexual or gender orientation or
the various forms of family structures.
The nation’s institutional, social assumptions and arrangements are in
serious upheaval and this is disturbing to many more traditional folks. A political upstart can capitalize on such
disorientation especially if that message is coupled with “solutions” for the
loss of industrial jobs and promising a return, again, to the more comfortable, the more knowable.
So, if there is an either/or element
to all of this, it is that the nation has to decide which way to go. Will it be, at least, tolerant of diversity
(if not embracing of it) or will it attempt to turn back the clock to a previous
time – to go back again to a more homogeneous time, a simpler time? This writer believes this is impossible, no
matter how certain segments of the population wish it to be.
The next several postings will assume
the answer is that we as a nation want to proceed to a more accepting and
diverse future, to be more inclusive; that choice, while challenging, is more
in line with our espoused values of openness and inclusiveness.
Yes, we do have the authority to
guard our borders, but there is so much hypocrisy regarding how we have
enforced immigration laws that it is difficult to be too high and mighty about
the illegals who are here.
After all, here was a cheap labor
supply willing to do work that Americans are not willing to do. The results have been higher profits for
businesses, such as farms and hotels, and a way to keep prices for food and
hotel rooms low. In addition, by keeping
them illegal, they are much less likely to complain about anything.
How should we look at this issue of
diversity? Elsewhere, I suggest
something called “centered pluralism,” where we as a nation accept the
principle that all Americans agree on certain values such as tolerance of
diverse lifestyles and beyond that, let people be themselves.[2] That doesn’t mean certain values can’t be
encouraged such as equality and responsible liberty, but people are allowed to
be themselves.
Even at that level of agreement, it
will probably call on certain perspectives to be drastically changed;
intolerance or undemocratic values being the norm in many areas of the world
are often brought over by immigrants from those areas. And then, we have enough homegrown
intolerance and undemocratic values right here.
So, the challenge will be meaningful,
but diversity provides many advantages to a people and we have already been
able to cash in on many of them. The
following postings will be about change and how change should account for and
even promote diversity.
[1] Marc Levinson, “U.S. Manufacturing in International
Perspective,” Congressional Research
Service, April 26, 2016, accessed September 30, 2016, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42135.pdf
.
[2]
Robert Gutierrez, “A Case for Centered Pluralism,” Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue 5, no. 1 (2003): 71-82.
