“MY FELLOW AMERICANS”

I have just returned home from a long car trip. One stop on our trip was a visit to Franklin D. Roosevelt's home and library. Of course, one needs to stroll through the gift shop at the end of seeing the exhibit and there I bought a souvenir coffee mug. On the mug there is a famous FDR quote: “The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.” This is a nice sentiment, but is there any justification for such a contention? After all, such progressive aims usually mean tax dollars being taken from some to be given to others. How do we justify this type of policy other than to say it might make us feel better or that we have religious obligations to support such actions? After all, as I have stated elsewhere in this blog, secular reasoning – reasoning that does not impose religious beliefs on others – demands that government action promote societal welfare; that is, the policy needs to further ensure the society's existence or advance the aims and goals of its people. I choose to rely on secular reasoning when it comes to evaluating public policy. I believe, as an educator, that any attempt at moral education in our public schools needs to be secular in its approach – short of that, we are merely indoctrinating young people to our biased beliefs. Therefore, if civics instruction were to entertain whether or not FDR's words should be taken seriously, then his contention needs to be analyzed by secular standards. What could they be?

Richard Dagger¹ makes such an attempt of imposing secular reasoning to the question: do we have any obligation toward the less advantaged? He begins this analysis – by way of providing context – by simply claiming that we have an obligation toward others because of our right to autonomy. What he specifically claims is that individual autonomy is reliant on individuals respecting the demands of civic virtue – that virtue that is concerned with societal welfare. Why do we have such an obligation? There are several reasons: concern over corruption (the antithesis of civic virtue), concern over necessary sacrifice for maintaining national independence, and the factual reality that we are, no matter how autonomous we feel, interdependent in a variety of ways such as providing the rule of law, providing the common defense, providing protection from diseases and disasters, providing education, and providing a general cultural promotion of individual rights. These last realities of interdependence are all accomplished by communal institutions and manned by, for the most part, civic-minded individuals. All of these factors point to obligations based on practical concerns. Civic virtue relates, in terms of motivation, to those behaviors that make the levels of social trust and bonding necessary to meet these obligations that are inherent with social interdependence. But Dagger is still not finished in justifying us having special concerns for those disadvantaged fellow citizens. He approaches the affirmative position from the point of view that we have an obligation to better the plight of those who are less advantaged and live in our nation. He asks: why do fellow citizens deserve more assistance than those who might live in other nations?

Early on in this blog, I stated that liberated federalism argues we should hold a concern for the disadvantaged from the perspective that any one of us can find him/herself in a disadvantaged state. But there is more to it. As a member of a federated union, we have value due to our humanness, our potential, and our consent to belong to the union. Federalism is based on a societal union that is formed through agreement to a covenant or compact which obligates us to its terms regardless of what others do. Yes, as Dagger points out, there are a number of other justifications for privileging fellow citizens for special concern:

• the psychological bonds for fellow citizens; after all, we can't actually hold equal emotional commitment for every member of the human race – although in diverse nations, this is often challenged by having conflicting emotional ties encouraging us to include or exclude those who belong to other racial, ethnic, religious or other groups less identified with one's own identity –
• proximity of our fellow citizens – although given where you might live, citizens of other countries might live closer – and
• efficiency of sharing resources with those who live under the same national jurisdiction – although efficiency might be better served, for a variety of reasons (such as the distribution facilities available), by providing assistance to citizens of other nations.

But when we are considering fellow citizens, we are talking about a special interdependence, one of reciprocity. We are dependent on each fellow citizen meeting his or her obligation – such as obeying the law – in order that a society can function and our own welfare can have the chance of blossoming toward its potential. This reciprocity is further advanced by a system established under a federal model – one of consenting members coming together to form the societal and political union that define and constitute a national essence. Therefore, due to a variety of reasons, some accidental and others inherent in the nature of societies, we do have secular reasons to not only be concerned with all human beings, but also have a special concern for those with whom we share citizenship.

What does all this mean for civics education? I believe each of Dagger's reasons for having special concern for our fellow citizens should be shared with students. Students should then express their own feelings toward each of them. Perhaps using the emotional reaction that Americans expressed after such events as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor or al Qaeda's attack on 9/11 could be used as context for such discussion. Having been around for the 9/11 attack – I was teaching during that time – I can remember how people responded. There was a visceral reaction of anger and disgust and a lot of it had to do with the attack being directed against Americans. So there is an emotional link between citizens. It's just there. Good citizenship, according to a secular way of thinking, though, calls for a reasoned reflection on the part of citizens that would aim at justifying any special considerations people have for fellow citizens that extend beyond the purely emotional.

1Dagger, R. (1997). Civic virtue: Rights, citizenship, and republican liberalism. New York, NY: Oxford.