The last posting referred to certain points
this blog has made through the years.
More specifically, those points describe the political/cultural
landscape that the political scientist, Daniel Elazar, describes.[1] Here is how this blog (with some editing)
reported on Elazar’s contribution, back in 2011:
Daniel Elazar's study of American political
dispositions identified these three subcultures. They are the individualistic,
the moralistic, and the traditional. The origins of these distinctive cultural
dispositions can almost be traced to the earliest colonial period. Highly
affected by the economic diversity that sprang up from the colonies in the
northern, New England region to the plantation-based economies of the southern
colonies, the subcultures of each of the three regions [New England, Mid-Atlantic,
and Southern] reflected the social realities emerging from these diverse
economic conditions.
Robert Putnam found these
diverse political ideas, ideals, and beliefs surviving in the nation’s more
current times.[2] Elazar
claims that the distinct cultural dispositions stretched westward in mostly
three parallel layers of states. The trend is not perfect; for example, while
the traditional subculture of the south moved westward, its expansion was mostly limited to the former Confederate States [and ends at the western border of
Texas plus Arizona and New Mexico].
Mostly stretching westward
from first the mid-Atlantic colonies and then the resulting states, overall,
the individualistic subculture is the most dominant today as it mirrors the
marketplace perspective. [This blog has made the argument that that dominance
was first exerted in the years just after World War II replacing a more
moralistic bias that prevailed.] Today,
the nation’s political culture is well ensconced in the natural rights
construct that is dominant in our nation's school curricula. Why? Because it
best reflects the nation’s capitalist biases.[3]
This general description, as
presented in this blog, was further supported by the thoughts of the
Spanish-American philosopher, George Santayana.[4]
He argued that American history saw a religious outlook among Americans that
began with a strict Calvinist belief that evolved into a more genteel
transcendental perspective. Those competing moral views helped develop or at
least co-existed with the above described three distinct political subcultures.
To be clear, none of these
perspectives held or hold total allegiance among the American population at any
time. That includes the thinking and
feelings of Americans today. For
example, the Republican Party base today is described as holding a Christian
nationalist perspective among its MAGA[5]
advocates. Readers can pass judgment as
to the validity of that claim. But to
the extent it is true, one can classify such thinking as a form of
parochial/traditionalist thought.
[1] Daniel J. Elazar, American Federalism: A View from the States (New York,
NY: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1966).
[2] Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American
Community (New York, NY:
Simon & Schuster, 2000).
[3] Robert Gutierrez, “Individualistic Political
Subculture,” Gravitas: A Voice for
Civics, July 18 or 19, 2011). This
posting is no longer found in the blog’s archive feature.
[4] George Santayana, “The Genteel Tradition in American
Philosophy,” in The Annals of America, vol. 13 (originally published in
1911) (Chicago, IL: Encyclopaedia
Britanica, 1968), The Annals of America,
vol. 13, 277-288.
[5] Make America Great Again.
No comments:
Post a Comment