<![CDATA[Campaign for an Informed Citizenry

It’s not a secret that the Republicans are struggling, and it appears Mitt Romney will not be able to bring home the bacon for the GOP. Said
another way, and given the variables on the table, it seems a safe bet
that Obama will continue to lead the country for another four years.
But no matter the outcome, “toward what end?” and “in what context?”
are obvious questions in regards to our country’s future. With that in
mind, this article is meant to take a look at some political-economic-
social elements (ideological principles if you will) that are pertinent
to answering these questions – elements that are no doubt important,
yet ones that seem clouded in the public eye. In short, and encouraged
by people who have requested that I do so, what follows is a ‘primer’
as to what should be taken into consideration as the primaries heat-up,
and what should also be left for thought once the dust has settled.

To obtain the best grasp of the following concerns, it is suggested
that you imagine their presence amid the highly charged struggles of
the civil rights movement. This was a time when the country was coming
to grips with the freedom and prosperity vibrating in post-world war
America and the call for equality in light of those same variables.
Among other things, the movement pitted the natures of Conservative and Liberal agendas, and also opened the door for considerations that lay
outside both those frames. So put the picture of those struggles in
your mind as you continue to read. And in doing so, you might also
notice that some of the sensations you feel are similar to what you
might be feeling as you look out at the problems facing our American
experiment today. With Liberals, Conservatives and their mixes all
promising answers, and Occupy and Tea Party efforts in full force, the
complexities of competing economic and political strategies are, as
they were fifty years ago, clearly at our doorstep.

* * *

How the Conservative and Liberal views unfold (Ideological
considerations):

Democracy – A government by the people, via free elections and formal
rights and privileges, with the supreme power vested in the citizens.

Capitalism – An economic system in which the means of production and
distribution are privately or corporately owned and developed
proportionate to supply and demand and the accumulation and re-
distribution of profits in a free market.

Conservatives/Republicans and Liberals/Democrats both subscribe to
these definitions in the context of Consensus theory – a theory that
generally implies that people have common goals, interests and beliefs
and have come together accordingly. This is how, at least in theory,
we, the public, generally perceive things working. However, the two
parties split over their interpretation of how the political and
economic frames play themselves out in society, particularly in terms
of concerns related to social issues.

For Conservatives the logic goes like this. Consistent with the
definitions provided above, we live in a democracy and the economic
system is based on free market principles. This means that in terms of
the political, democratic process, our leaders are elected by an open
vote format, and they are to represent the interests of the people.
Issues like equality, justice, fairness, etc. should be managed
accordingly, as well as the concerns related to administering matters
of state – matters concerning the military, taxes, infrastructure, etc.
In terms of the economic, traditional capitalist process, this should
be left to its own devices, with limited interference from government
involvement, taxes and regulation. In this way, the market can be free
to create more jobs, more opportunities and more prosperity for the
general public. In this sense, any competition that flows from the
system is healthy, enabling the society to prosper, while giving
individuals the opportunity to succeed accordingly. For Conservatives,
this translates into more incentives for business/job development,
again with limitations on business taxation and development. And as
there is little problem with the match of democracy (what a great
system) and the free-market (another great system), both can be seen as
complimenting each other in terms of government-economy interaction. In
this sense of a “great match” social problems, which Conservatives
agree do occur, are primarily due to individuals who cannot assimilate
to the way things work. In other words, some individuals are simply
skewed in terms of their reasoning abilities, especially in
understanding that hard work in terms of employment, education, and
family function are all at the heart of prosperity.

As I happen to be a criminologist, I tend to think that criminality
provides a great example in reflecting on the nature of
political/economic views and social concerns. For Conservatives then,
criminals represent individuals who make poor choices, who do not or
cannot internalize the merits of living in a free and opportunity-
available society. This is due to poor judgment skills (why wouldn’t
they choose to go to work for example), and/or to the need for some
moral/spiritual/religious awakening (perhaps their faith needs to be
strengthened), and/or to some psychological and/or biological
malfunction (maybe they are just wired poorly.) In the case of the
first, the behavior should be altered by requisite forms of ‘swift,
certain and severe’ risk-reward punishment, in terms of the second
case, more faith-moral related counseling may be necessary, and for the
third, some form of psycho-bio drug or medical procedures that may
reduce anti-social behavior could be the remedy. These, with some forms
of mix or match modifications, are generally the approaches to address
criminality. And it should also be noted that this is also the same
logic applied to those who are poor or without work or without
education – they choose to put themselves in these conditions via poor
judgment, etc. Therefore, overall public policy formulas in terms of
addressing social concerns are generally pointed at providing self-help
initiatives to motivate people toward working themselves out of their
circumstance. (In the case of criminals, keep in mind that the most
adequate response to criminality lies in styles of punishment that will
be harsh enough to deter future criminality and encourage going to work
in the alternative. This “being tough” has resulted in a strict
criminal justice system, with more prisons and more prisoners being
held for longer periods of time. An important aside to this point, is
that as more criminals are deemed to have individual problems, more
emphasis – and funding – will be placed on psychological and biological
influences, versus sociological/environmental ones. This of course will
have an impact on the education and research efforts of those who
participate/work in the criminal justice arena – which has a
corresponding relationship to what happens with the focus of various
disciplines at the post-secondary level of study. And remember that
these academic ‘connections’ hold consistent with other social concerns
tied to unemployment, under-education, etc.)

Liberals on the other hand, while working under the same umbrella of
consensus theory as well as the essences of democracy and
capitalist/free enterprise frames, present a different logic. For
them, the economic system and the nature of competition can create some
disparities, especially as access to opportunities in the system can
sometimes be unequal. In short, the match of democracy and the economic system is not as perfect as Conservatives might suggest. Therefore, social problems like poverty, unemployment, under-education and crime should be viewed to a large extent as systematic rather than simply a manifestation of individual irresponsibility. Social problems therefore become a societal concern, which in turn means that the government, particularly one operating under democratic principles, should help in reconciling these type ‘systematic’ problems – creating
programs/projects to help those left in less fortunate social
circumstances. In essence, this would provide disadvantaged individuals
with better opportunities in terms of housing, education, employment,
etc. so they can better compete. This approach, again deemed
appropriate in a fortunate and democratic society like the U.S.,
generally translates into more government sponsored programs, bigger
government and the higher taxes that support both. (And as the liberal
logic does not speak to committing totally to market answers in terms
of work and opportunity – some regulation and even taxes may be in
order – this too may reflect on the size/responsibility of the
government.)

Here again, criminality provides a great example. Liberals were the
proponents of rehabilitation, with the idea that those who commit
crimes do so more out of their disadvantaged social situation than any
individual shortcoming. This led to a totally different approach in
terms of the philosophy of the criminal justice system and the players
involved; essentially trying to ‘help’ criminals with more use of
community corrections (versus prison), probation, vocational programs,
counseling, etc. As with Conservative logic, this approach also had a
corresponding effect on the education and research efforts – think
again of what this means in terms of the academic, discipline focus
within the post-secondary arena, especially as juxtaposed to the
Conservative agenda. In short form, consider the differences between
sociological/environmental/urban references and biological, bio-
psychological considerations in terms of motivations for criminal
behavior.)

So, with these differences in mind, and trying to set aside the
personal racist sentiments that were occurring, lets again imagine
these views unfolding within the context of the Civil Rights Movement.
Conservatives would be seeing those in the minority and poor class as a
group of people who simply could not assimilate to the essence of the
free-market, democratic system. Providing them with rights and
opportunities beyond those of the rest of society, especially via taxes
and/or government involvement was simply off the mark of getting the
people to understand the discipline, morality and hard work connected
to being a responsible citizen. There was no need to move beyond what
existed, this would create a system of dependency and in doing so speak
to a society that was addressing equality in the wrong fashion. The
fact was that people in the U.S. had the freedom to be equal – they
just had to work for it.

Liberals, in support of the arguments inherent in the Civil Rights
Movement that discrimination on both institutional and individual
levels could no longer be tolerated, saw the provision of rights and
opportunities as necessary in addressing the social concerns at hand.
In addition to this, liberals argued that the free-market, as it had
proven, could not on its own address the growing inequality in terms of
employment/work/jobs. This meant that legislative strategies like
affirmative action and quota systems had to be put into place to ensure
legitimate responses to the unequal conditions, that program policies
like the War on Poverty had to be implemented to lift people out of the
poor social conditions that existed, and that legal considerations,
particularly those at the Supreme Court level, would have to reflect
the overall intent of civil rights accordingly. (Don’t forget about the
significance of Supreme Court rulings and the endorsement of political
views. There is no more clear an example than what happened in the
context of the Civil Rights Movement and what might be considered the
‘liberal interpretation’ of Constitutional mandates related to “search
and seizure” concerns as well the rights extended to those who were
incarcerated. )

So the battle between these opposing parties was joined. Keep in mind
that the battle also encompassed the sentiments of racism that had
grown in the country, sentiments that, perhaps unfairly, connected
mostly to the Conservative view. This extended from the fact that their
logic implied/supported not only individual shortcomings in terms of
success/achievement, but also the notion that keeping things as they
were rather than altering the nature of opportunity was the way to
continue. This was as compared to the Liberal view whose logic
implied/supported the integration of opportunity in terms of the
movement that would affect both the circumstance and station of
minorities. (Coincidentally, the Liberal view also drew in those
Conservatives who felt a connection to the collective crisis of the
depression – and the resulting New Deal, as well as a connection to the
collective ‘patriotism’ fueled by the WWII effort – a “we are all in
this together” type sentiment.)

As noted at the outset, as the Conservative “right” and Liberal “left”
battle ensued, there was another view/paradigm on the table amid the
Civil Rights struggle – one that suggested that both Conservative and
Liberals were not getting to the root of the problems facing the
country. This was known as the ‘radical approach’ which involved
elements that were, despite having legitimate reference in terms of
past political, economic and social concerns (think of the union
movement amid early 20th century industrialization), rather foreign to
American ideological understanding. Primarily developed by Karl Marx as
the Industrial Revolution unfolded and adopted in countries across the
world the analysis still appeared shrouded in an enemy’s cloak. So
let’s turn to that approach, keeping in mind its analytic import in
both Civil Right and contemporary movement times.

How the “alternative view” unfolds:

A critical analysis of capitalism – As alluded to this approach finds
its significance primarily from what is seen as a major flaw in both
Conservative and Liberal analyses – not referencing the
difficulties/problems inherent in the nature of capitalism. In other
words, it is proposed that neither Conservative nor Liberals adequately
address social problems because they don’t/won’t address the true
nature of capitalism – which can only happen by applying this critique.
This “oversight” becomes more significant as the problems, on both
national and international levels, are more intricately tied to our
capitalist identity than to democracy. With this in mind, the critical
analysis develops along these general lines.

Contrary to Consensus Theory generally supported by Conservatives and
Liberals (society sharing mutual beliefs and interests), there is
Conflict Theory. This basically states that society is an arena in
which struggles over scarce commodities take place. These commodities
include natural resources as well as material and human goods, and
power and influence will dictate control over those resources. In this
light, every society is made up of different classes and interest
groups and the most powerful, the “haves” will be represented in
government and positions of authority. These powerful people will act
in their own self interest, trying at all times to improve or at least
preserve their positions.

The ‘have-nots’, those primarily without power, will end up trying to
defend themselves against this power. This is in face of the fact that
the economics and wealth of the system are controlled by the “haves”
while the political arena/government promotes and protects the
interests of the “haves.” Given these unbalanced circumstances, social
problems will always exist, and the “haves” will only deal with them
out of necessity – to placate or keep docile the “have-nots” who may be
essential in maintaining the order within the existing system.

The Radical View: Growing out of this logic, radicals state that the
U.S. represents a conflict-oriented capitalist system, not a democracy.
It is an economic system that survives off the proliferation of profit,
and profit development is primary to all else, including human
development. In short, it is a system that will eventually consume the
sum of its parts. Those with the most profit/capital (the ‘haves”)
control and influence the government and use it to protect and increase
their interests. Social problems are inherent in a capitalist system
and won’t/can’t be resolved, simply by the nature of this profit
motive, as well as the system’s competitive essence. In other words,
avenues to success will be limited and/or restricted, leaving
significant numbers of the population out of the ‘means to success’
equation. Moreover, as success goals themselves are highly extolled,
there will result a certain stress put on different members of society,
a stress which in itself can be socially problematic and result in, as
an example, a high incidence of deviant behavior. Radicals also argue
that capitalists can come to actually capitalize on social problems –
for example using people in socially problematic areas as surplus
labor, a marginal work force that can be used to keep other workers in
place and profits up. This may even translate into exporting jobs to
foreign markets, especially if this “move” reflects on profit margin.
In terms of the U.S., radicals argue that all this takes place while
using the guise of democracy to misdirect public concern and/or to keep
the general population in order. Among other things, this results in
confusion, contradiction and a state of ‘normlessness’ as people try to
explain and work at social problems referencing democratic ideals, when
in reality capitalism is the practice that helps fuel many of the
problems in the first place.

There are a variety of other considerations that radical raise within
this critique of capitalism. There are concerns that reference the
development of a dual labor force, one for the more advantaged, another
for the less advantaged. Following this logic, radicals also point to
the dual educational tracks, the private and more sophisticated public
post-secondary universities to service the “mores”, the lesser public
ones and community colleges to service the others. Additionally, they
posit that there are dual forms of justice, one for the rich (which
often eliminates involvement in the criminal justice system and also
creates advantages in civil proceedings) and the other for the not-so-
rich. It is also argued that the existence of this ‘justice duality’
helps fuel a criminal justice system that does not have justice at its
core (some argue it is more aptly named the criminal “response” system)
but more the management of a poor, marginally employed/educated class.
Moreover, this happens while creating a criminal justice industrial
complex that promotes jobs and profit in light (or shadow) of crime
related problems. (Although Marx himself spent little time talking
about crime, criminality, especially in the context of limited avenues
of success and the illegitimate opportunity structures that develop
accordingly, has become a significant part of this analysis.)

For Radicals then, in order to deal with the concerns of any society
that has capitalism at its core the conflict producing system of
capitalism has to be addressed. In the traditional Marxist view this
means that the destruction of capitalism via revolution must happen.
For others, change can occur via the evolution/education that flows
from alterations within the mix of new, social-oriented socio-
political-economic frames. What should then replace the capitalist
system will be systems that promote human development/welfare as the
primary focus of society over any profit motive – a change that would
evidence a corresponding effect on the cultural instincts and
motivations of both institutions and individuals in the society. The
basic ideological frames proposed as alternatives to capitalism are:

Socialism – an ideological reference to the political, economic and
social organization that advocates the vesting of ownership and control
of the means of production and distribution of resources/wealth/profit
by and for the public. In this sense, the government acts with these
interests in mind.

Communism – this should follow socialism, and generally means the
development of a classless, stateless system with common ownership and
administration of the means of production for the benefit of the entire
community/population.

It is not hard to see that within these frames, social variables, like
education, health, work, housing, etc. would become a focus in order to
make sure that the welfare of the people and the notion of equality are
at the center of any economic engine. (For a rather paradoxical
parallel, think of our military and the social fabric evident on any
military base that speaks to “collective welfare.”) This of course
means that the re-distribution of wealth, based on the strength of the
economy, would be of primary concern. In this way, social problems
would be minimized and the energy for collective approaches to the
problems would be the rule. (In terms of criminality, it would be
expected that in this type society one would see lower rates of crime,
particularly with general property offenses, and a corresponding lower
level of incarceration. On that note, the overall criminal justice
measures would be directed at education and health, with more diversion
and/or community oriented programs in place to lessen the use of
imprisonment.)

* * *

Like with the Conservative and Liberal logics, more can be said about
the ‘radical’ approach. In general contrast, Conservatives seem at
times to be implying that the nature of capitalism fuels the “survival
of the fittest.” Yet they continually relate to the essence of
democracy which tends to refute/deflect this nature. (Radicals could
argue, “Just tell the people clearly how things are!”) Liberals at
times are pointing to the inequalities apparent in the system, but
don’t seem to want to clearly express those inequalities in terms of
the nature of capitalism. (Again, radicals could argue “Just let people
know how things work!”)

As noted, these “radical points”, particularly when tucked into the
overall analysis, seem to have relativity to what transpires in the
U.S., especially as one considers the issues tied to the Civil Rights
Movement as well as those connected to our current state of affairs.
However, in this context, there are also pertinent concerns regarding
the possible shortcomings of the approach. These include it appearing
at times overly utopian, the potential for lack of creativity within a
system that seems more pointed at conformity than individuality, the
stagnating and bureaucratic and even dictatorial results that can flow
from the radical approach and the apparent failure, particularly in
Russia, of the ideology. These concerns, like the other aspects,
certainly demand attention. And the power that now extends especially
from China, as well as the other “Americas” and yes, even Europe,
suggests that the attention on all fronts is most assuredly warranted.
(In this light, it is fair to inquire which parts of which views might
provide the best national and international approach to the issues and
concerns facing the U.S. and the world today.)

In any case, it is hard to imagine that, as with the Conservative and
Liberal logics, we would not be willing to pull in for closer
examination what has been offered in the Radical context, especially if
we are interested in giving ourselves the best chances of becoming a
better and more understanding society. In this sense, it should become
clear to us what all views represent, how they differ from one another
and what each brings (or doesn’t bring) to analyses that can help us
consider what has and will happen with our country.

And there is one last point that appears important to note. All of what
is said about ideologies, and political and economic frames should be
considered in light of what human beings bring to the table. In other
words, it would seem necessary in any discussion of this type to
consider what human nature (including its spiritual aspect – perhaps a
topic for another piece) can/will contribute to any society’s balance
of the interests and struggles that exist between ‘economic and social
man.’ In short, human nature, particularly as we look throughout
history, may only be capable of so much. Therefore to expect perfection
in any system may simply be moving beyond the bounds of human capacity.

In closing, let’s re-consider the point that in order to best think
about, understand, and talk about all the issues facing the U.S. , as
well as the entire globe (remember, it is “globalization” time), one
cannot escape the fact that we must be willing to entertain all the
variables that are available to us. And this “primer” was presented
as a step in that direction. Said another way, it was presented to
help in navigating the often unclear and choppy waters of the political
exchanges of the day, hopefully providing some logic/insight to better
measure what is and is not being said. As always, your comments,
thoughts and suggestions will be welcomed on any one of the
considerations raised, and please don’t hesitate to ask your leaders,
and those who aspire to be, questions accordingly. Certainly nothing
bad can come from open and honest dialogue – particularly at this point
in time, we owe ourselves at least that.

* * *

Editor’s note:
The article above was shared at a discussion held February 16, at the
Biblioteca’s Sala Quetzal in San Miguel de Allende, Mexico. The
discussion, “Considerations for better understanding our American
Experiment”, was presented in relationship to the Occupy movement. For
more on this material visit the Campaign for an Informed Citizenry
website, www.cicorg.com and also my previous Ragazine articles.
— Jim Palombo