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 limited to the former Confederate States [and ends at the western border of Texas].
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.