The New Public Values, Post-Capitalism

 

No Smoking! LBGT+! #MeToo! Black Lives Matter!—The “Public Interest”—The Next New Public Value?

 

There is a growing list of major perspective and value changes in American society over recent times. They include the no-smoking movement, sexual and gender orientation liberation, #MeToo, and the rapidly developing Black Lives Matter movement.

 

All of these movements involve new ways of seeing and thinking about social issues. The new ways of seeing and thinking bring to bear perspectives unrecognized, unacknowledged, or just repressed by dominant social groups. These perspectives have embedded values about identities, fairness, and human rights.

 

Each of the new perspectives has logical structures which imply major changes in the legitimacy of new identities, legal rights, beliefs, and attitudes towards previously subordinated social groups. Instead of smokers, for example, having the upper hand against non-smokers freely polluting, dirtying, annoying and endangering everyone else, non-smokers have flipped the social status so that smokers now accommodate to them. Now, the consequences of smoking affect only smokers themselves.

 

Similarly, the centuries-old binary conception of sexual normality as male/female heterosexuality has been upended by modern conceptions (based upon science, social experience, and moral elements) of multiple and different orientations in sexuality and in gender fluidity. Now, a range of sexual and gender identities is being acknowledged and legitimized.

 

The #MeToo movement has successfully overturned a dominant set of patriarchal social structures so that the "female" perspective is now being acknowledged and legitimized. The BLM movement may be progressing towards a similar effect regarding race issues. 

 

To say that these movements have flipped the predominant social structures which inhibited them in the past is not to say that the negative elements of the previous structures have been eliminated entirely. It means that a predominant group, or set of groups (i.e., a large majority of mostly sane people), has drastically reoriented its view and attitude towards these previously subordinated groups. That reorientation has implied major changes in legal rights, social attitudes, and the practical every day life experiences of millions of Americans.

 

Significantly, all of these social perspective “flips" overturned powerful predominant social frames primarily by mere new ways of seeing and thinking. There have been no major changes in objective or material conditions. There has been no significant changes in the economy, in business, in human biology, or any other objective elements. In essence, reoriented subjective reality – the mere seeing and thinking – altered how the general society sees and thinks about previously subordinated social groups (legitimizing legal, moral, and behavioral changes.)

 

The reorientations came about from a mix of scientific data and evidence, factual experience, intellectual theory, expression of beliefs and attitude, combined with public sphere political activity including lobbying, protests, and other means of influence.

 

Look at these effects: smoke-free business and public environments; equal rights, equal status, acceptance, and inclusivity for LGBT+, women, and black Americans (among a predominant social group.) All of this from the application to social issues of new mental constructs! (We could say that American society appears to be starting to get smarter and wiser? Maybe. And, if so, it's about time that our 18-Century principles, structures, and process of governance and social relations become subject to high-level reconsideration.—This topic will be the subject of an upcoming blog post here.)

 

Which leads to what could and should be the next major reorientation – the capitalist and individualist culture which is the dominant social/political structure in society. This culture is embedded in an 18th-Century paradigm which conditions nearly everything in our lives including our work, consumer and family relations, and the nature of the communities we live in. It determines our political, economic, and social outcomes and ultimately our happiness levels. It has created a dominant elite class and the most extreme forms of income and capital inequality in a major world economy. This, in the World's Greatest Nation?

 

While capitalist and individualist principles might have made sense in the 18th-Century America where the society was made up mostly of small communities; most families worked alone, on farms, or otherwise were self-sustaining; and there was little interaction with other citizens, as most economic and social activity was local. There was little need to live or work together, little need (or even means) to commingle with anyone outside of the local community, and few things to regulate, by any government. There was little in common and not much to be called the "public interest."

 

Nearly all of that has changed in the past 230 years. We now have most citizens living closely in large cities, global economic and financial systems, way more diversity, and the Internet connecting nearly everyone and everything. Nearly every major component of society has changed except for how we govern ourselves and relate socially.

 

The divergence of the objective basis for early political economic theory and our present global reality is vast. The consequences of this divergence includes way obsolete and dysfunctional political institutions and processes. We still rely on creaky old principles of governance and social relations severely incapable of managing a more populated, concentrated, interconnected, and diverse set of people and organizations. The worst consequence of the capitalist and individualist ethos is the inevitable formation of a political-economic elite unfairly dominating everyone else in the economic and political spheres. The capitalist/individualist system has enabled the perpetual exploitation of workers and consumers, the corruption of government, and the deadly despoiling of the physical world we live in. This ethos permanently condemns most people to lives of insecurity and fear. 

 

Due to the internal logic of this ethos it is inevitable that the most selfish, most competitive, and most willful people "win" in the forced competition among citizens. Hence, The "elite." They can be called “Private" citizens, highlighting their intense focus on private interest.

 

This elite has justified its actions and positions by resort to a set of "rules of the game" – i. e., focused self interest and will to compete— mandating a small set of "winners" and a huge population of losers. There is little concept of public interest in this scheme. The elite’s justification for even the most vile behaviors and attitudes is "Business Is Business" and "Every Man for Himself.” They have intensely exploited those rules and have won, even though there are alternative “rules” and principles which can and should be on an equal or superior status to the prevailing ethos. They include a sense of the public interest and collective fairness. They also include a balance of private and public interests, meaningful life focus beyond mere production and consumption, and respect for the humanity of all, even for the "losers" in the economic competition. We can call those maintaining these public values as “Public” citizens.

 

Notice that the dichotomy here is private versus public citizen. It is not the rich versus the poor. The latter is a crude and invalid way to conceive of the population groups. Progressives need to address the correct elements of this issue and address remedies accordingly. (See an elaboration of this point in The Action Manual—www.theactionmanual.com.) It would be unfair, for example, the vilify some rich guys like Warren Buffett and others who appear to have earned their wealth honestly and without acting against the public interest. The correct targets are those who showed that they are purely self-interested like the Wall Street fat cats who secured bailouts during the Great Recession and those well-to-do others who obscenely grabbed governmental subsidies during the Covid-19 crisis while truly needy small businesses were left with little.

 

There has been increasing resentment among a lot of Americans about increasing income and wealth disparities, the lies about equal opportunities, and the delusion of the American Dream. For too long the common people have realized (at least emotionally) that they are being exploited but have had no effective response. The gross and continued exploitation of most of us by Big Business and a social/political elite including their sly nonstop pilfering of public treasuries is fueling new interest in alternative structures and ideas, including progressive policies and socialist ideas.

 

The non-smoking and other movements noted above seem to model, in ways, an exciting new approach to challenging the dominance of capitalism and individualism in our society. We can "flip" frame of capitalist/individualist by promoting a new social structure – the primacy of the public citizen over the private citizen. The private citizen will be shunned and shamed, made targets of protests and boycotts, and subjected to the organic resistance means common to the prior movements. 

 

The dominance of the pure self-interested, willful, and competitive attitude will be flipped in favor of those who maintain a balancing of private interest with a sense of public interest and fairness, meaningfulness of life-work balance, and respect for all humanity, particularly those making the most of whatever abilities they have – that is, living the Small Life well.

 

In practical terms, that means:

 

1. Insisting that Big Business operate with all stakeholders in mind – investors, workers, communities, governments, and the planet. 

 

2. Employers recognize the humanity of workers by providing good pay, reasonable leaves and work conditions, and dignity. The financial world would refocus from your self interest to a balancing of private and public interests.

 

3. Special interests become shunned as civic entities. It will be general interests which are encouraged and incentivized.

 

4. Governments become forced to insulate themselves from the influence of special interests and conflicts of interest.

 

This cultural change should eventually extend into a larger, more comprehensive Smartness of society. (See The Action Manual, noted above.)

 

 

The union movement has suffered a continuing series of body blows to its status and influence since its heydays in the 1940’s-50’s and it is being set up to take another big one now, from the attitudes of one of its own towards the Black Lives Matter movement– police unions.

 

The Black Lives Matter movement targeting police brutality has prompted, for the most part, a knee-jerk tribal-like reaction by police departments nationwide, represented by strong unions, to demands for reform.

 

Defended by their unions, they are "circling the wagons," so to speak, reflexively protecting and supporting even the most egregious racial and civil rights violators in their own membership. While only a minority of police members are bad actors, the insular, tribal, tightly-defensive departments are letting the worst of them set the attitudes and public profile for all. The all-for-one, one-for-all posture which has historically bonded departmental personnel is acting to put them at an untenable confrontational status with the black community, as well as much of civil society. 

 

While police unions have a justifiable role in providing leverage in negotiating compensation and benefits, ensuring health and safety conditions of employment, and protecting membership due process rights, none of that necessarily includes shielding perpetrators of brutality and racial prejudice. Nor does it justify resistance to reasonable oversight of professional responsibility and accountability.

 

A new tipping-point level of citizens naturally sees gross unfairness in bad police getting away with murder (literally) as well as other bad acts, as they regularly do now. They are rightly demanding accountability in the form of citizenry review boards, independent oversight and enforcement of police practices, and the like.

 

As the number of bad acts pile up, the protective posture of the unions is perceived as abetting these bad acts. The union movement in general may be implicated if it doesn't guide and pressure police unions to rethink their culture and practices. The police unions can take the high road. They need to work with citizens to model police practices, regulate behaviors, and make the civil-police relationship a positive one. Much of this needs to be done "in house,” as pressures from the outside will be insufficient to reform if those inside do not buy into it, so to speak. The good police need to obtain the upper hand (in a sort of morally superior way), not dissimilar to how non-smokers tipped the smoker-society relationship whereby smokers now accommodate to the interests of non-smokers. 

 

Nevertheless, as they have for decades, the police departments may fend off yet again citizen demands for reform and accountability. After all, they have enormous political and economic influence in the governmental sphere, especially in urban centers, and they have the muscle, of course, to bully their ways in the street. For them, a medium to long-term bunkering strategy may likely work fine yet again.

 

Yet, there likely will be consequences. If not immediately for the police departments themselves, then for the union movement as a whole, including those in the public sector. The scope and intensity of citizen objections to the existing police culture is more significant now than ever and will unlikely abate much. There will be continued pressure on governments to curtail public sector union power, in all of its departments. 

 

Already having a greatly diminished status with much of the public, and having lost its historical virtuous standing as a protector of labor, civil, and human rights the union movement is at a historical low point in American society. It has way fewer members, less political and economic influence, a growing history of organizing failures, and decreasing credibility. All of this decline in status and influence has occurred even though unions represent the best tool that workers have to stand up to capitalist forces. 

 

It's been a long time since the union movement was viewed as a grand progressive force having leadership in employment relations and economic fairness; civil rights; and the establishing of a social safety net, particularly Social Security and Medicare, employment compensation systems, and occupational leave policies.

 

Having secured the public sector for a long time doesn't mean that it will last, especially as social forces are pushing for change. Those pushing back against the police unions (and unions in general) will include the black community (which ironically make up the bulk of union members nationwide, especially in the public sector), public-interested citizens, who object to the special interest focus of unions, ideological conservatives (of course) who object to unions as a matter of principle, and all those who see the essential unfairness of police brutality against black citizens.

 

Whoa! That's a lot of people, with influence to shake things up. Those taking a progressive position on the BLM movement: Big Business, Big Culture, much of the Democratic Party, and a significant amount of the general populace. For the union movement to do too little now to to pressure police unions to reformulate to support BML will undermine even more. 

 

This is a good time for the union movement to become reflective. Not only should they be joining the chorus of the BLM, they should be revisiting the entire social profile of unions generally.

 

Here's what a reformulated union movement needs to do now:

 

1. Stop acting as a special interest. The general public, left and right of the political spectrum, are sick to death of special interest groups. The union movement needs to reinvigorate the progressive, humanistic general interest stance of the 40’s-50’s, speaking for all workers and all Americans. 

 

2. Create a template increasing professionalism and regulating internal governance and operations to eliminate corruption and the "fiefdom" elements of some local unions.

 

3. Maintain a fairness standard with management. This means bargaining compensation packages with a sort of general interest perspective. Public sector unions, for example should balance their specific labor interests with those of the taxpayers and citizens. They should not overreach for goodies even if they can get away with compliant government negotiators.

 

4. Develop new public relations campaigns to educate the public about the reformulation. It needs new members, supporters, and, especially, new friends.

 

 

 

 

It is gratifying that so much of the general culture is expressing outrage against police brutality against blacks (yet again – about every 3-4 months, for years) and supporting “reforms." However, it is exceedingly frustrating to realize that all of this good intention is akin to slapping more duct tape on a frustratingly creaky governmental system that is way obsolete and inadequate to manage a 21st-Century society. (Not only in regard to police brutality against blacks, but in way too many other social issues.)

 

It is illuminating to envision our governance and social relations structures as a 1789 Covered Wagon that is pretty much a broken down wreck which gets "patched" (and sometimes unpatched, later) after a provocative public event. Problems don't get fixed. The system, as it was designed over 200 hundred years ago, is not capable of fixing these kinds of problems.

 

The demands for law enforcement reform take these forms: unfocused and incoherent fits of rage against an amorphous "system,” requests for modified police techniques, greater oversight of police actions, more cultural training for law enforcement personnel, and (not again!) new electoral candidates. (Guess what? Been there, done that!)

 

These demands are directed at the thousands of formal governmental bodies, federal funding sources, and thousands of various public "influencers," like the media, Big Business organizations, sports and cultural personalities, and, of course, our political leadership. Nearly everyone seems in agreement that these reforms must be wide-spread nationally, if not universally.

 

Duct tape for the Covered Wagon!

 

What are the chances that the separate multi-thousands of federal, state, and local governments are individually even capable of coming up with policy and regulatory schemes which effectively address the protesters’ concerns?

 

Nearly all high-level personnel in these bodies are non-experts in nearly everything and particularly in complex civil and law enforcement matters. Most have limited resources – time, knowledge, funding, etc. – and can't act effectively on much of anything new and significant. Many have limited perspectives confined by parochialism, partisanship, personal agendas, traditions, and explicit racism. Leadership capable of significantly overcoming the obsolescence and limitations of 18th-Century governance principles is nearly nonexistent in any organization, public or private. (Not even an army of Mr. Smith's and MLK's could overcome the structural limitations of our governance and social relations systems.)

 

And, why would anyone think that the object of these suggested reforms – law-enforcement personnel – will welcome the imposition of new policy and regulations when they are not, for the most part, even in the mix of reform policymaking? It is human nature for them to resist change from the outside, especially when they are feeling victimized and demonized by a part of society that they think is unfair to them. They have a culture of insularity against the civil world, especially of minority cultures. And, they have strong unions which will be legally obligated to defend them (despite misgivings, in some instances.)

 

Even if these reforms can be forced upon law enforcement, what structures and processes are there to enforce any policy or regulation which covers any of this? Almost none. Regulation can have unintended (or even built-in) loopholes, can be ignored, or inadequately supervised, and, of course, not everyone wants to obey even the clearest laws, especially when they get to enforce them themselves.

 

Furthermore, and perhaps most significantly in contemporary America, what about the approximate one half of the American populace – due to the extremely powerful cultural forces of Red and Blue – which will vehemently oppose these reform efforts merely as a matter of cultural identity and psychological satisfaction? (More on the soul-crushing Red and Blue problem in an upcoming blog post.)

 

Effective policy and regulation requires a modernized sense of American culture and a new set of public values. That set includes a sense of common good and fairness, trustworthiness in government and private institutions, political professionalism, rational consideration of all aspects of public issues (with an emphasis on respect for reason and science), and appreciation for the multiple perspectives which pertain to any and all complex public issues (implying inclusivity.)

 

None of these elements are integral to our 18th-Century principles of governance. In fact, they are the opposite of how we govern ourselves and relate socially. Our principles emphasize individualism, interest-based perspectives, competition, and force of will. Few of our leaders are experts in anything except in the craft of getting elected. Quality governance and social relations requires elements of knowledge and organizational competence. (What other social organization accepts leadership based only on minimal age requirements and ability to get elected?) This situation is the opposite of Smart.

 

Selfishness, ego-based action, and oppositional politics are more the American way than Smart governance. 

 

Forget the Duct Tape!

 

Not only will it not work, but the failure again of these kinds of efforts will just increase the frustration and fatalism which pervades our society now.

 

Here's what is absolutely necessary to address this issue (and many similar others in our society):  A new way of seeing and thinking about governance and social relations based on 21st-Century principles, structures, and processes. The 18th-Century ones we now struggle with lack a sense of common interest and fairness, a collective "Brain," trusted institutions, professionalism in governance and policymaking, sufficient respect for reason and science, and inclusivity.

 

All of this is explained in the The Action Manual (www.theactionmanual.com) a new paradigm of governance and social relations emphasizing a Smart process of problem-solving.

 

Here, specifically, is a Smart process of addressing the Black Lives Matter issue:

 

1. We form a national-level problem-solving body charged specifically with fixing the police-black culture issue. (Perhaps we can call it the Police-Civil Relations Commission.) We populate it with members representing all of the stakeholders in this issue – citizens of all races and classes, governments, law enforcement, Red and Blue, and relevant others. The commission will include a large set of experts of all relevant kinds – law-enforcement, sociologists, organizational theorists, and public intellectuals to provide the scientific and technical knowledge and guidance for the commission’s outcomes in both policymaking and implementation.

 

All of the participants in the commission will be sincerely committed to the essence of the problem. They will not be traditional representatives in the sense of asserting group interests. Instead, they will provide group perspectives only while maintaining a common good/common fairness attitude. They will be addressing the common good of Americans as a whole. (Finding enough of these folks will not be too hard.)

 

2. These participants will work together in a “Grand Reconciliation" format (sort of like a high-level mediation) where everyone articulates the views and interests of all stakeholders, common grounds are clarified, and remedies proposed and argued in a purposeful way with an explicit intention of coming up with a consensus program.

 

3. An accountable “Czar” of sorts, or committee chair, will guide the participants to a consensus, or as close as can be made. That consensus will include implementation proposals, as well.

 

4. Funding for this effort can come from governments, large organizations, and public-minded individuals and philanthropists.

 

5. Upon conclusion of the process, the participants and donors will be acknowledged as Public Heroes and treated as such.

 

6. This problem-solving process can serve as a template for the next issue to be addressed. And the next after that.

 

7. In time, the entire system of governance and social relations could be remade into a Smart 21st-Century America.