[This blog is amid a series of postings that
aims to share with the reader a history of the nation – albeit highly summary
in nature – from the perspective of a dialectic struggle. That is the struggle between a cultural perspective
that emphasizes more communal and cooperative ideals of federalism and the
individualistic perspective of the natural rights construct.
The general argument this blog has made is that
federalism enjoyed the dominant cultural position in the US until World War II,
and after a short transition, the natural rights view has been dominant. Whether one perspective is dominant or the
other; whichever it is, that fact has a profound impact on the teaching of
civics in American classrooms.]
The last posting[1]
relied heavily on the work of Andrew Marantz[2]
and his study of social media. This
posting continues that review, but the reader, if he/she has not read the last
posting, is encouraged to do so. This
entry also has a short commentary, as a last bit of information, about how one
element of federal thought has been able to survive in a very important aspect,
that of spending money – see below.
From that previous posting, one can see that
social media has set up a new political stage and that every day, one finds
more consequences as a result of this pervasive means of communicating by all
sorts of people. Marantz points out that
those who have delved into this new technology have entrenched themselves and
share a community among its producers and consumers.
But
to set the stage for the current state of affairs within that community, one
can note that by 2014, it had been established.
Of note, an early practitioner was former US Congressman, Ron Paul. He initiated a blog, interestingly called The
Right Stuff. In doing so, he started
what came to be known as “post-libertarian” sites. Opting a strident style, these sites
generally serve up far-right political messaging.
And
this messaging established itself as libertarian-to-far-right “fodder” that has
fed the extreme right with, at times, bizarre images and content upon which it has
come to rely. Marantz characterizes its
political content as creating a pipeline by which far right messaging
effectively is distributed to a waiting audience by encouraging a movement toward
a “full radicalization” of those who consume what is being offered.
Among the techniques these outlets use to promulgate their propaganda
are photoshopping images, parodied songs, and creative “countersignal
memes.” These memes are characterized at
times by depressingly cruel images or messages lodged against usually leftist
targets or at other times an array of unsavory, self-serving images or
messages. To date, one can judge these
efforts as generally skillful and among their audience they are considered “must
see” material. In short, they are
effective propaganda.
Anecdotally,
these outlets have replaced mainline news sources for the far-right segment of
the citizenry to get its daily news. This
is the case despite the fact they, the sources, have been readily proven to
present misinformation and predictions that don’t come true. And this less than stellar track record has
been going on for over a decade.
Highlighting
this record has been the Trump led claim that his “win” in 2020 was stolen. And with that, given the seriousness of such
a message, one begins to earnestly question whether what that social media is
producing should be protected under the rubric of free speech. Given its worldwide “stage,” should online
content be regulated as TV network programming has been for years? Yes, that would include the contents of Gravitas
(this blog) – have at it.
This
blogger’s only concern would be that any devised criteria for acceptable
content is publicly sanctioned (through some public bureaucratic structure) and
maintained its substantive concerns to content that would be found to be
encouraging or resulting in violence (especially if the information can be
shown to be untruthful), otherwise illegal activities, or defamatory messaging. This blogger is fairly confident the reader would
agree that this blog falls far short of getting into any trouble given these
concerns.
But
more generally, what are the implications of social media in terms of the
nation’s further fall into a view of politics based on natural rights thinking? Not only has social media been, to date, the
ultimate means by which the individual has a megaphone to express him/herself
not just on a local stage, nor a national stage, but on a global stage.
When
one considers the implications, one’s breath is taken away. Through the various developments this blog
has outlined since World War II, one can detect a continuance of ever-increasing
forces bolstering already heady levels of individualism. This site has traced a furtherance of
social/political forces that has undermined the qualities of collaboration,
cooperation, and community across the nation.
In
its wake, one has seen the interests of local life being sacrificed and the
quality of meaningful democratic life being diminished. But there is one realm this blog has not
addressed and that is money. And nothing
reflects the feelings and commitments of a people more than tracing where their
expenditures are directed or from where they are solicited.
So,
to address this last factor – ever so briefly – here are some figures that
address this concern. In the third edition
of his book, American Federalism: A
View from the States,[3] Daniel Elazar has a
section entitled, “Financing the Partnership.”
Given that that edition was published in 1984, this blogger thought it
would be beneficial to, one, review his findings, and two, update, where
possible, his figures.
More
to the point, the question is how generous the American people are, through
their government’s policies, to local governments? Here is how Elazar introduces his response to
this question:
Part of the reason for the
development of sharing as a means of maintaining the position of the states and
their localities lies in the very real, if not explicit, supremacy of the
federal government in matters of taxation and spending. Though the power to tax and spend is
constitutionally concurrent, the federal government has been in a better
position to use its share of the power over the years, for constitutional and
political reasons. This position, strong
in 1970, was further strengthened by the adoption of the federal income tax
amendment in 1913. In fiscal year 1980,
the federal government collected 61 percent of all tax revenue in the United
States.[4]
Here
is how tax collection breaks down currently[5]: individual income, 36%, corporate income, 11%,
social insurance and retirement receipts, 23%, general sales, 8%, excise or
selective sales, 6%, property, 10%, other, 6%.
From these figures, one can get a sense of which governments are
collecting these taxes since state and local rely on certain types of taxes and
the federal government on other types.
There are, though, some overlaps (e.g., both federal and some state
governments collect income taxes).
In
terms of overall tax collection, the breakdown today is as follows: federal, 67%, state, 20%, and local, 13%. While there is no denying the federal
government has the predominant level of dominance in terms of taxing, certain
programs have maintained an active role for state and local governmental decision
making.
For
example, grants by the federal government continue to place large degrees of
latitude in the hands of more local governmental actors as to how public funds
are expended. And those amounts have
grown significantly in the years since 2013 (an enhanced projection that further
expands increasing levels beginning in 1970).
In
2013, federal grants totaled just over $450 billion dollars; in 2021, the total
was just over $1,092 billion dollars.[6] This reflects the ongoing respect the federal
government exhibits for the prerogatives of local governmental entities, a bias
this blog noted in how the New Deal dealt with federalist initiatives to fight
the effects of the Great Depression back in the 1930s.
And
with that, this blog ends its generalized view of the dialectic struggle
between federal ideals and values and those of the natural rights view. The next posting will review the overall lesson
this blogger draws from that history.
[1] Robert Gutierrez, “Aftermath, II,” Gravitas: A Voice for Civics (February 22, 2022),
accessed February 24, 2022, http://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2022_02_20_archive.html .
[2]
Andrew Marantz, Anti-social: Online Extremists, Techno-Utopians, and the
Hijacking of the American Conversation (New York, NY: Penguin Random House, 2019).
[3] Daniel J. Elazar, American Federalism: A View from the States, Third Edition
(New York, NY: Harper and Row
Publishers, 1984).
[4] Ibid., 63-64.
[5] “State, Federal and Local Taxes,” National Conference
of State Legislatures (n.d.), accessed February 24, 2022, https://www.ncsl.org/documents/fiscal/statefederalandlocaltaxes.pdf .
[6]
Federal Reserve Economic Data (n.d.), accessed February 24, 2022, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AFGSL
.
