The Frank Forum

  Israeli-American sociologist and author Amitai Etzioni, one of the few active advocates for communitarianism, aptly said that "The I needs the We-to Be." This clever little maxim perfectly and succinctly encompasses the crux of communitarian thought. We are not just atomistic individuals, deracinated from a larger collective; we are members of groups. Those groups could be as small as an immediate family, or as big as a nation.  When we connect with others and forge bonds, we open the door to incredible opportunities. These bonds could, over time, turn into lifelong friendships.  Doug McAdam, who wrote about the Freedom Summer demonstrations in the 1960s, discovered that social activists, who frequented civil rights protests, established networks of trust and continued civic engagement. These young freedom fighters, who courageously worked together to combat racial segregation in Mississippi, needed a team effort to make a meaningful and effective impact.  Freedom Summer wa

Language is a nuanced thing.  Too often, readers will gloss over terminology without stopping to dissect it.  This kind of passive reading is deceptively expedient and ultimately detrimental to a capacity to learn on a deeper level.  Words and phraseology should always be studied and questioned if our goal is to grow as thinkers. When we examine the term "liberal democracy," what we find is a blatant contradiction.  Liberalism, as it is commonly understood, stresses the primacy of the individual over the collective.  Democracy, conversely, connotes a collective.  How, then, could these two seemingly antithetical ideas coincide in a way that makes sense?  For decades, America (and Great Britain to a comparable degree) has possessed the unique capability of synthesizing the two.  When Alexis de Tocqueville visited the United States in the 1830s, what he found was a people who cherished liberty and individual freedom while also recognizing the importance of civic participation a

  On today's menu: a hodge-podge of different ruminations regarding conservatism and love. Let's start with a salient question: is conservatism a philosophy of love? My response: absolutely, yes! Or at least it is meant to be. Further question: if conservatism = love, than what is it a love of? Answer: conservatism is a love of tradition, history, the past, the present, the future, family, friends, neighbors, community, strangers, the poor, the affluent, sinners, and on and on... This is the tweet that prompted that little thought experiment: #Conservatism is a deeply romantic idea as is it based on love. — Dr Daniel Pitt (@DanJTPitt) March 10, 2023 Dr. Pitt is, of course, correct. Conservatism, as a political philosophy, is inextricably linked to tradition, which is, in turn, linked to faith. In the Western context, that faith is an Abrahamic one (i.e. Christianity and Judaism). And, though I am no theologian, doesn't the Bible teach us to love? And love requires more th

Frank Filocomo So as to encourage dialectic, I have enabled commenting privileges to all, including those without Blogger or Google accounts.  So please, feel free to opine on my posts. I do not claim to have all the answers. I, like you, am just another inquisitive mind.  Ideally, comments will be thoughtful and substantive. That way, we can engage in a productive back and forth.  That said, I have always considered myself to be a free speech absolutist; censoring opposing views, or even speech I find to be utterly rebarbative, has never been my thing.  Trolls, too, will be welcome. I may later regret this... But the point of this blog, you see, is to encourage community. And community requires interaction. Therefore, it would be counterproductive for me to prohibit speech of any kind, or to put up barriers that require people to create an account in order to comment.  Now, being that this is the internet, I use the word "community" somewhat loosely. Some may call an online

  America cannot function as a hodge-podge of individuals; liberalism makes this faulty claim. We need more; we need purpose.  The America of Tocqueville was not made up of individuals, but of communities. In the 19th century, libertarianism took a back seat to communitarianism.  Conservatives, regrettably, associate collectivism with leftism. Populists and non-libertarian rightists, though, seem to be rejecting this erroneous conflation.  While I can sympathize with libertarian angst to a degree, it is not enough to declare "don't tread on me!" I would alter it to "don't tread on us!". My summation: us>me.  Individual liberties are, of course, important; don't get me wrong! But, in this life, it isn't prudent to go it alone. We need friends, family, neighbors, reading clubs, church congregations, and soft ball leagues (I just joined one. Batter up!) But enough from me. You should consult my intellectual mentors. Among them are Francis Fukuyama. A