A Crucial Element of Democracy

This is a blog by Robert Gutierrez ...
While often taken for granted, civics education plays a crucial role in a democracy like ours. This Blog is dedicated to enticing its readers into taking an active role in the formulation of the civics curriculum found in their local schools. In order to do this, the Blog is offering a newer way to look at civics education, a newer construct - liberated federalism or federation theory. Daniel Elazar defines federalism as "the mode of political organization that unites separate polities within an overarching political system by distributing power among general and constituent governments in a manner designed to protect the existence and authority of both." It depends on its citizens acting in certain ways which Elazar calls federalism's processes. Federation theory, as applied to civics curriculum, has a set of aims. They are:
*Teach a view of government as a supra federated institution of society in which collective interests of the commonwealth are protected and advanced.
*Teach the philosophical basis of government's role as guardian of the grand partnership of citizens at both levels of individuals and associations of political and social intercourse.
*Convey the need of government to engender levels of support promoting a general sense of obligation and duty toward agreed upon goals and processes aimed at advancing the common betterment.
*Establish and justify a political morality which includes a process to assess whether that morality meets the needs of changing times while holding true to federalist values.
*Emphasize the integrity of the individual both in terms of liberty and equity in which each citizen is a member of a compacted arrangement and whose role is legally, politically, and socially congruent with the spirit of the Bill of Rights.
*Find a balance between a respect for national expertise and an encouragement of local, unsophisticated participation in policy decision-making and implementation.
Your input, as to the content of this Blog, is encouraged through this Blog directly or the Blog's email address: gravitascivics@gmail.com .
NOTE: This blog has led to the publication of a book. The title of that book is TOWARD A FEDERATED NATION: IMPLEMENTING NATIONAL CIVICS STANDARDS and it is available through Amazon in both ebook and paperback versions.

Tuesday, March 3, 2015

NO FOISTING GOING ON HERE

Does a republic foist community on a person?  That is, does living in a true republic, as opposed to a liberal polity,[1] a means by which communal arrangements are expected and even insisted upon by government?  Richard C. Sinopoli[2] presents an argument that alludes to a view of republics as just that kind of place.  His approach, I believe, is a bit mischievous.  He begins by claiming that the founding fathers of our republic were not so community minded as recent historical revisionist work makes them out to be.  He quotes Cass R. Sunstein:  “It is no longer possible to see a Lockean consensus in the founding period, or to treat the framers as modern pluralists believing that self-interest is the inevitable motivating force behind political behavior.”[3]  Sinopoli counters this view by citing how much the founders were concerned with the ability of the individual to protect him/herself from the whims of the majority both through the delineation of rights and their much focused concern for the protection of property.  Through this analysis, it seems to become clear that Sinopoli is making his case for liberalism – natural rights perspective[4] – as the preferred general construct by which to view our constitution, governance, and politics.

My argument in this blog has been that the natural rights view enables an anomic populous.  There is a virtual literature of sociological and political research that supports the general description of an American citizenry characterized by self-centered concerns, narcissistic biases, and very low levels of political involvement.  The last national election, for example, was able to attract only about one-third of the electorate to vote.  Sinopoli argues that while the US is a liberal polity, it does engage in a full range of discussions and debates over a host of issues; that liberalism does not by its nature preclude citizens from being so engaged.  But such observations do not pass judgment on how extensive such engagement is or the quality of the discussions.  He admits that liberal polities do not encourage much participation and describes what involvement the citizens partake in is more in the form of interest-group intercourse which is aimed at advancing those interests.

This blog has not argued for a foisted community.  What it has encouraged is a civics curriculum in our schools that holds community as a general goal – more as an ideal than a policy of promotion.  It has stated that this can be done by arranging lessons that have students ponder issues and specific social and political problems in which their underlying tensions are caused or affected by the affront the issues or problems have on federalist/republican values.  Those values are summarized by being of two types:  the value for societal survival and the value of progressing toward those societal goals and aims that democratically determined decisions have identified.  Yes, these same objectives can be pursued in a liberal polity, but are they?

Let’s consider one issue:  climate change.  Here we have a developing problem, one that promises to be quite costly if not addressed.  It is caused by the consumption of the commodities, fossil fuels, central to our economy and the source of enormous wealth for very influential people.  The problem, we are told by scientists, is already causing significant costs to many.  The current winter could very well be a product of climate change.  What have been the costs this year are hard to calculate.  But since a definite determination cannot be attributed to us spewing carbons into the environment and therefore changing our climate, we officially choose, to date, to deny the connection.  We elect public officials who simply bypass the issue by claiming they are not scientists.  The discussion so far has been reflective of liberal approaches:  everyone is merely looking out for his/her immediate interests.  These might be in the form of the price of oil stocks they own, cheap gas for their cars, their jobs.  Few really look at the general effect the conditions are having on the common good.  And this seems to include a common good that might be centered on the survival of our society.  Under a worse-case scenario, climate change can threaten our very survival as a viable society.

Our history as a federal republic has had its cases of oppressive mores, customs, and even laws.  As I often have stated, the liberalization of our national, cultural mode of being has been more good than bad.  But we have at times gone too far.  We don’t have to love everyone, but we would benefit from understanding that in more ways than many of us want to admit, our common fate is more pervasive than our public policies often assume.  We would be well served to view all of our fellow citizens as partners in trying to fulfill the promise of federalist values.  This is enhanced by a general sense of kinship among us – a mutual loyalty that is based on a common fate.



[1] A liberal polity is one in which community is not seen as an a priori goal.  See footnote # 4.

[2] Sinopoli, R. C.  (1992).  The foundations of American citizenship:  Liberalism, the constitution, and civic virtue.  New York, NY:  Oxford University Press.

[3] Ibid., p. 25.

[4] By liberalism, I am referring in this posting to the political philosophy that promotes individual rights that include the right to determine what course of action one takes in life as long as one does not inhibit the same such right of others.  I am not referring to the general political orientation that is leftist and associated with the positions of the Democratic Party.  As a matter of fact, the liberalism I am writing about is more associated with conservative politics or libertarian political positions and is more readily associated, but exclusively, with the positions of the Republican Party.

No comments:

Post a Comment