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.

Friday, May 8, 2015

PRUDENCE

In the last few postings, I have been developing a view of argumentation that sees it as a process by which to seek the truth.  That is, if one is about formulating a legitimate, moral argument, that process, by its very nature, is one that seeks the truth.  When one starts the process without prejudging the result, has emotions under check, and is about searching the facts through experience, then one is looking for what is real.  This process can be adopted for classroom instructional purposes.  It can also be one in which legitimate efforts at persuasion are attempted.  Therefore, we have a dual purpose process in which one can pursue one or both of these aims.  I have indicated that in these efforts, to be honest and effective, there are disciplines or concerns that the process should effectuate.  In the past several postings, I identified the following disciplines:  order, principle, and experience.  This posting looks at prudence.[1]

One practices prudence in two domains.  One domain has to do with the disposition to distinguish between rules as abstract ideals and the practical application of rules in real situations.  The other has to do with keeping moral aims targeted when pursuing policy.  

Imprudent behavior occurs when one blindly imposes a rule in a way that disregards all the particular conditions a situation presents and applies the rule in a mechanical way.  Such imprudence forgets the reason(s) for the rule in question.
By looking at the purpose of a rule, and its value premises, judges make good their commitments to principled decision; by examining particular circumstances they take account of the inescapable uniqueness of human situations.  This is not a retreat from reason but a distinct mode of deliberation.[2]
For a rule to work, they must take into account the particular issues involved within the situation(s) in which the rule is to be applied.  A problem with ideologues and detached bureaucrats – in many cases – is this lack of prudence that leads to ineffective policy implementation and judicial tyranny.  I am presently reading Ken Follett’s last novel of his historical series of the twentieth century – Edge of Eternity.  He amply describes this imprudence when in his narrative he tells of the actions of the Soviet government in Russia.  Their blind rule-following often wrecked lives unnecessarily and, ironically in hindsight, can go far in explaining why the Soviet government no longer exists.[3]

The other domain follows.  It simply points out that in considering means and ends in the content of an argument, one should coalesce the two.  By that, I mean that both support the other in that both are true to moral standards.  These in turn need to be transparent and defensible by submitting and explaining, when requested, these standards to moral critique.  I suggest the standards, when it comes to public policy, be federalist moral standards.[4]  When so informed, one can judge how effective the advocate of an argument is in exercising the discipline of prudence.



[1] Based on the “five pillars of reason” offered by Philip Selznick – see citation below.

[2] Selznick, P.  (1992).  The moral commonwealth:  Social theory and the promise of community.  Berkeley, CA:  University of California Press.  Citation on pp. 60-61.

[3] To be true to Follett’s narrative, often the motivations of some of the characters who act in such a way also include personal ambitions that rationalize their action by citing rules indiscriminately.

[4] I recently supplied my list of federalist values which provide the moral foundation for that construct.  See the posting, Experience, posted May 5, 2015.

No comments:

Post a Comment