Sharing Common Space

Is America beyond sharing Common Space?

Written by Dan McDonald

 

                        Within some Conservative circles a sense of pride has arisen in calling for the privatization of most everything. The Free Market works and it is what makes America great. We resisted a national health plan, because it was against the free market and also might end up being used to promote tax funded abortions. In some states, Conservative legislators who believe more in private education than public schools are in effect using reduced tax rates to reduce funding on public schools. This is not to say that public schools have always spent money efficiently, but it is to say that among some legislators if lower taxes end up starving the public school system they are not going to cry over spilt milk. Often legislators want to open up the public lands, owned by government to be privatized. I’m not opposed to discussion of these ideas in a free nation, but I do believe that Conservatives are misreading history to imagine that free worship and free markets alone helped America become great. The United States once pioneered many public innovations. These public innovations were not necessarily efficient. They put barriers on people who could have purchased the grounds for free market use. The public spaces created by our federal and state governments during the nineteenth century influenced nations across the globe to build a society involving shared common spaces.

            In the United States, the idea for such common public sectors and places were not necessarily devised with the European understanding of a “commons” in mind. In Europe, the spread of Christianity led to an attempt of having “Christian societies” pursue the ideals of holding all things in common, while recognizing that a complete holding of all things in common had not worked out so well in the Book of Acts. Common forests where timber, fish, and game were able to be accessed by all persons were established. Squares were established in the middle of cities where people had equal access to bring their goods to market and sell, buy, or barter with other marketers were established. Churches were built, and town halls. St. Augustine had believed that holding things in common was preferable to private ownership, but had recognized that private ownership of many things was practical. He had determined that in ownership of private property the Christian needed to understand that all things were truly owned by God as creator and we served not as owner but as steward of the good things given us. Private ownership could be made Christian with a stewardship understanding of that ownership.

            The American idea of a shared common space held in public trust grew out of local and state governments and community recognition that government itself was a public entity owned collectively by the people. This was not so different from how the English had understood government in the medieval era. The House of Commons was named the House of Commons for at least two reasons. It was named the House of Commons because it represented the people in common, or in communion. Humanity was never simply individual people. We exist as individuals born into families, worshipping together in churches, employed in businesses, trading with trade partners. The individual cannot exist without sharing a fabric of community tying people’s lives together. The House of Commons was also given its name because it was given control of the common purse, the monies levied from taxes and therefore owned in common.

            The American experience of constitutional government initiated not only a government with limited authority but also a government seeking the common welfare of its people. The interpretation of the American constitution quickly became divided between the strict constructionists and those seeing implied powers to meet genuine needs. It was not long before strict constructionists met those who viewed the constitution as a document shaped by humanity’s desire to create a common welfare of the people. These differences in viewings of the Constitution began early and continue to our day.

            I believe we make a great mistake to forget how America illustrated to the world the possibilities of a society with a large portion of its lands and assets set aside for public use. For example, as the city of New York began to grow, people began to realize that someday the city might no longer have any piece of green nature left in it. This seemed like a horribly bad outcome of a system where everything could be bought and sold. The idea of a city having a city park in those days was somewhat novel. New York City, which at the time included little other than Manhattan, set aside a central park to be enjoyed by the public. Tourists and photographers, and New York City residents in the tens of thousands express their concurrence that this was one of New York City’s greatest ideas.

Central Park – a space owned by the public shared by rich and poor

 

            What local communities did in creating public parks, the federal government did with national parks. The idea of national parks evolved slowly. In 1864 a land grant was given to the federal government because someone looked over the lands that eventually became Yosemite Park and wanted them protected for their beauty and scenery, with stunning granite cliffs, astonishing stands of Giant Sequoia trees, and impressive natural waterfalls. At the time the nation was fighting the Civil War, so the idea wasn’t followed up. It was not until the creation of Yellowstone National Park that the idea of national parks became reality. Millions of Americans enjoy access to hundreds of state and national and city parks because Americans believed in public spaces.

A hiking trail inside Yosemite Park being enjoyed by park visitors

 

            In its past America found a way to build public common spaces. These spaces were and continue to be owned by the people with access to all – whether rich or poor. But perhaps few institutions resulted in greater benefits to the American people than the public school system. There was controversy when states began determining that universal education of all its young people should be taken on by a system of schools funded with public monies having minimal costs charged to students. Some who challenged the idea most were the poor themselves who depended on child labor to help pay the bills incurred in life. One innovation had the result of seeing others were needed. We began to consider laws to promote livable wages to workers so that child labor would not lead to a child growing up without education opportunities.

            We are a nation with many public institutions, supported by public funds for the general welfare. In my mind this is not a tragedy, but one of the great realities of our nation. Cities with subways, elevated trains, hospitals, and highways provide amazingly for the need of residents. Yes sometimes the buses and trains and highways have potholes and are crowded, especially at rush hour – but can you imagine life without these shared thoroughfares? State highways connected to Federally funded interstate highways have benefitted travelers as well as commerce.

            The questions of our day is whether there are new needs of our society that might best be solved through new creations of public spending and access for both the rich and the poor? Also we need to ask if what has been created is worth enough to maintain. Finally we might ask if we don’t need for government leaders to consider what we might do if we look at national problems and begin to ask those from the other side of the aisle “what can we do to build solutions? What is the best method to solve those problems? Is part of the answer building new shared public institutions part of the answer?"