4 ms·

I think most people are troubled when they think the government is engaged in political activism or campaigning -- in fact it's illegal. So it's a difficult que

I think most people are troubled when they think the government is engaged in political activism or campaigning -- in fact it's illegal. So it's a difficult questions to answer, and you didn't directly answer it: "to what extent governments should be in the business of building solidarity and shared values?" You just identified the results of shared values or lack there of. If the majority of voters do not want the government to build solidarity, or to build it against the status quo, then the only way the government can legitimately pursue such an agenda is to label it a constitutional or human right. And that is indeed the language we see used by some to promote universal health care or a living wage. My pet theory is that homogeneity of culture makes it easier to share wealth.

rayiner 13y ago
I think the vast majority of Americans would not object to the government building solidarity and shared values. That is and always has been a core function of the educational system. The debates, to date, have raged about what those values should be. My pet theory is not just that homogeneity of culture makes it easier to share wealth, but that it makes most things easier: dealing with crime, dealing with education, etc. E.g. in Chicago, there is a deep schism between the heavily black south side, and the whiter north side. Now, every city has poor parts and rich parts, but what's really stark about Chicago is how completely the two parts disassociate from each other, due to in no small part a lack of shared culture.[1] This is, of course, to the detriment of both. The school system (CPS) is a primary example. Its a deeply dysfunctional piece of welfare: generous on one hand (relatively high spending/student), but crippled by the fact that whites and the middle/upper classes all but "opt out" of the system (CPS is 90% minority and 90% low-income). [1] My wife grew up in a small town in Iowa, where there were also rich people (doctors, store owners) and poor people. But there was tremendous shared culture: everyone went to the same high school, one of a small number of churches, participated in the same set of after-school activities, etc.
- arethuza 13y ago
  Your wife's experience sounds a lot like my own childhood in rural Scotland - where everyone did go to the same secondary school (each village had its own primary school). Now I live in Edinburgh, the capital of Scotland, which has a remarkable percentage of kids in private education (~25%) and very clearly drawn boundaries around social class.
- pfedor 13y ago
  I think the vast majority of Americans would not object to the government building solidarity and shared values. That is and always has been a core function of the educational system. Really? But Wikipedia tells me that After 1970 the desirability of assimilation and the melting pot model was challenged by proponents of multiculturalism,[4][5] who assert that cultural differences within society are valuable and should be preserved, proposing the alternative metaphor of the mosaic, salad bowl or "American Kaleidoscope" – different cultures mix, but remain distinct.[6][7]
nl 13y ago
If the majority of voters do not want the government to build solidarity, or to build it against the status quo, then the only way the government can legitimately pursue such an agenda is to label it a constitutional or human right. You seem to be writing from an exclusively US point of view. In much of the world governments don't act like that at all (think of France, with their agenda of protecting the French language). Looking from outside at the US it seems to me that the overt patriotism that is almost uniquely widespread in the US is a shared value promoted by the government.

rayiner 13y ago

I think the vast majority of Americans would not object to the government building solidarity and shared values. That is and always has been a core function of the educational system. The debates, to date, have raged about what those values should be. My pet theory is not just that homogeneity of culture makes it easier to share wealth, but that it makes most things easier: dealing with crime, dealing with education, etc. E.g. in Chicago, there is a deep schism between the heavily black south side, and the whiter north side. Now, every city has poor parts and rich parts, but what's really stark about Chicago is how completely the two parts disassociate from each other, due to in no small part a lack of shared culture.[1] This is, of course, to the detriment of both. The school system (CPS) is a primary example. Its a deeply dysfunctional piece of welfare: generous on one hand (relatively high spending/student), but crippled by the fact that whites and the middle/upper classes all but "opt out" of the system (CPS is 90% minority and 90% low-income). [1] My wife grew up in a small town in Iowa, where there were also rich people (doctors, store owners) and poor people. But there was tremendous shared culture: everyone went to the same high school, one of a small number of churches, participated in the same set of after-school activities, etc.

arethuza 13y ago
Your wife's experience sounds a lot like my own childhood in rural Scotland - where everyone did go to the same secondary school (each village had its own primary school). Now I live in Edinburgh, the capital of Scotland, which has a remarkable percentage of kids in private education (~25%) and very clearly drawn boundaries around social class.
pfedor 13y ago
I think the vast majority of Americans would not object to the government building solidarity and shared values. That is and always has been a core function of the educational system. Really? But Wikipedia tells me that After 1970 the desirability of assimilation and the melting pot model was challenged by proponents of multiculturalism,[4][5] who assert that cultural differences within society are valuable and should be preserved, proposing the alternative metaphor of the mosaic, salad bowl or "American Kaleidoscope" – different cultures mix, but remain distinct.[6][7]

nl 13y ago

If the majority of voters do not want the government to build solidarity, or to build it against the status quo, then the only way the government can legitimately pursue such an agenda is to label it a constitutional or human right. You seem to be writing from an exclusively US point of view. In much of the world governments don't act like that at all (think of France, with their agenda of protecting the French language). Looking from outside at the US it seems to me that the overt patriotism that is almost uniquely widespread in the US is a shared value promoted by the government.