Project Update: Republicanism and Contributing to Society

I have accumulated a few things to blog about. I originally thought about posting it under one entry, but

1. That would take a huge block of time and
2. It would break guidance that I had given myself and blogged about in the past. When possible to break a topic or chunk of writing into multiple parts, do it. For one, it allows for releasing something in the first place rather than just keep adding to it preventing it from release. Two, it shows some type of progress. And three, holding back parts and future releases provide incentive for people to come back.

That being said, I'll post things piecemeal.

PROJECT UPDATE: REPUBLICANISM AND CONTRIBUTING TO SOCIETY

Over the last few weeks, after finishing The Healing Power of Doing Good, I started reading Citizenship & Community: Civic Republicanism & The Modern World by Adrian Oldfield (side note: Holy Crap! This book goes for $170 new on Amazon, and I'm able to borrow it from the Chicago Public Library. Love the library). For those who blanch at seeing me reading a book about republicanism, note that I'm reading it to get a better understanding about why many of the early citizens of the US really liked republicanism and tried to get the rest of the population into it.

You might blanch, however, in that Oldfield has made some good arguments to make republicanism appealing. Disclaimer first: I've only read about one third of the book so far, and I've run into a couple statements that strike me as a little problematic and seem to make some form of exclusion as inherent to republicanism. Oldfield has already alluded that he will address the matter of how to include and exclude entities into citizenship of a republic, so I will hold my judgment until I'm done reading the book.

I think some excerpts of my words on social media about the topic will help paint a picture of my thoughts on republicanism:

My research is leading me to believe that the US hasn't had a party of REAL republicanism in a LONG time. It's just different liberalisms.

— The_Lex (@screwjaw) September 6, 2017

From this point, I'll quote my own words from the Facebook thread on the topic because the interesting conversation that coaxed my thoughts out on the topic happened there. People posted their own thoughts, so I expanded on my interpretation of republicanism and how the Republican party did or did not fit the definition, at least, as I understood it.

Well classical liberalism basically comes down to "get off my lawn and let me do what I want, and I'll stay off your lawn, too!" aka protecting negative rights.

Republicanism is definitely a trickier one ro define. Some say it's government without a monarch. Others will say it's government of the people FOR the people, meaning that the republicanism is about people engaging in civics, government, and politics as a form of duty for the betterment of their nation, and also acting on the local level to build community and strengthen the web of society.

Frankly, I see the difference between the GOP and DNC is the GOP has a little trouble saying "get off my lawn" or even "get out if my town/country" while the DNC says "let's figure the best way to provide for everyone, so we can minimize how much we have to go onto eaxh other's lawns."

Between the two, I prefer the DNC approach. Nonetheless, both of them really do neglect that we are social creatures and we would benefit ourselves if we worked directly and personally to benefit each other, along with some of the government programs. Some current day Republicans believe that and the GOP may have a better handle on the propaganda, but both parties could work harder to encourage it.

Someone else showed curiosity about the hypothesis, but they wanted more examples and concrete discussion to show how well the hypothesis actually fit reality. Could be an interesting task, but I don't have the time for it, especially with how social media arguments can drag out forever and require plenty of research and link hunting. LIke I said, I don't have the time for it and have a lot more other things I would rather be doing. That being said, I responded as follows:

The reasoning is mostly based in definitions, mostly implicit, but also explicit as exposited by Wikipedia, some books I'm reading to understand American culturo-political history, and smatterings of discussions here and there.

And I guess I could drag out examples upon examples of how the political do and don't meet these definitions, but honestly, I don't have time. It would mostly be done to back up a FB assertion, and an FB debate on this topic could easily take up days, if not weeks. . .I'll just rely on group think here.

However, feel free to provide counter examples against my assertion. And I'm not saying counter examples of individual outliers. I'm talking examples from party stances and leadership.

In some ways, though, I would say Obama tried to encourage republicanism in his farewell speech. Hillary even tried to point out her republicanism, especially on her younger years of pro-bono work & things she did to help families & women.

Heck, part of me wonders now if the problem some people had with Clinton was too much true republicanism & that she was calling people of this nation to duty.

My readings into republicanism also sparked the next post:

What if #citizenship based on, instead of past circumstance, but rather desire to contribute to society & help others w/o notice & reviewed?

— The_Lex (@screwjaw) September 7, 2017

Someone made a cynical remark on Facebook that if we followed that rule, "all the Republicans" wouldn't meet the definition, so I responded with the following:

I wouldn't say ALL. There are at least a couple who sincerely believe in dedicating themselves to the good of the nation (and I expect voted against Trump). For instance, interview I heard of Rep Adam Kinzinger (David Axelrod interview of US Congressman Adam Kinzinger for a district in Illinois) leads me to think he might be one of the good ones. Nonetheless, they're few and far between & I'm learning a little more that Republicanism may actually have requirement to be based on the exclusion of non-citizens at certain times, and they have a too easy time deciding when non-citizens don't matter.

Also, in that thread, I started ruminating about a couple problematic issues regarding the initial post.

And now I've already the problematic in this statement: What about people without capability to contribute & help because of disability or just plain opportunity or skill? Republicans would probably argue my original point (work requirement to get welfare benefits, etc).

Followed by

I guess one answer to allowing disabled people into citizenship would be that it gives able people an opportunity to contribute.

And as for people without opportunity or skill, working on research, education, or job skill training with a contributory plan/goal could be a worthwhile requirement.

So republicanism as a concept compels me. I feel pulled to the end of this book figure how Oldfield goes about explaining the process of determining who is and who is not a citizen of a specific republic.

I appreciate the aspects of repbulicanism that argue that citizens have a duty to contribute toward crafting the social fabric and political fabric to give them their character and make it a positive thing. Over the last a couple months (unfortunately the last couple months), I've come to take on that duty as an imperative responsibility that we should all take up.

Frankly, I've gotten a little disappointed in the lack of response to my latest activism in electoral politics (more on that in future) because I've seen plenty of complaints that people need to do more than social media activism and voting. They seem to believe that going to protests and rallies and calling their elected representatives to provide support or recrimination will do the work they see needs to happen. I believe the good of the social fabric requires more, including participation in electoral campaigns, and I hope to goodness that others will see it, too.

I still hesitate to fully stand behind this republicanism, however, for the reasons that I pointed out: some people don't have the capability to contribute and participate. Some people receive recrimination and even violence when they try to participate or even when they just want to live with affecting other people, so they don't have the opportunity to really participate. When people receive that kind of treatment by a social fabric or a political system or execution of said political system, I can't get behind it.

For all I know, I'm a convert to socialism, communitarianism, Associationism, or some other system that has more of an inclusive and welcoming approach to the people involved in it. I still have more research to do, but the idea that people who have the ability and opportunity have the duty and responsiblity to participate and contribute to the social fabric and politic system, rather than just to seek liberty from it and other people, really attracts (even though some amount of liberalism needs to be included, too). As I said a time or two in my social media posts and threads: A poltiical and social system BY the people FOR the people.

Also seeing Oldfield discuss the differences between republicanism and liberalism has given me some material to use for my current essay. People's reaction to the community does have some origin in the tension between republicanism and liberalism. It will still require some work to mold this argument and attach concrete history to it. On the bright side, my first draft just needs the argument and trace concrete history. I had most of the examples later while doing rewrites.

Interesting project experience that loops back to the last entry: Earlier this week and many times in the past, I ruminated a lot over my definition of utopia and dystopia, how they related to all the different facets of diversity discussions and activism and the different arguments involved, and also the basis of good/evil and right/wrong in these types of situations when the mighty who keep winning can easily fall back on might makes right.
Then I remembered my main goal: emotional attunement. Without emotional attunement or at least the possibility of it (since individuals on their own can fall out of emotional attunement by no fault of society then cause the people around them and throughout society fall out of attunement for all the wrong reason), people feel wrong and seriously wrong. I also need to work to understand emotional attunement more, so I can discuss this matter more. Nonetheless, at this point, having it as a goal at least, helps a lot when having these tough questions running through my head and I don't have a "logical" or "provable" answer.

Well, there's that update. I'll have more project updates at some later date. Sooner than that, though, I plan to provide some updates on activism and an essay I'm forming in my mind about the housing bubble burst ten years ago, how high and low taxes can help encourage or discourage such phenomenon, and how this argument actually makes for an interesting argument for higher taxes on risky entrepreneurial behavior. Stay tuned for more!

If you like what you see here and in the past and want to free me up for more, support my endeavors by Buying Me a Coffee!