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, June 9, 2015

DEFINING THE BAD

There is a practical problem for a civics teacher who would utilize federation theory in guiding his or her course content choices.  That is, federation theory would be used to identify which political and/or governmental problems are suitable for student inquiry.  Those problems would reflect a condition in our social-political/governmental environment that is in conflict with at least one federalist value.[1]  But once the problem is presented or identified by students, the fact that we live in a nation in which the natural rights construct prevails, means that students need to deal with that reality.  They, therefore, need to have a working understanding of how most Americans are likely to see the problem; how they, if at all, will define the condition or problem that students are analyzing.  With this in mind, let me suggest the following approach.

For an adherent of the natural rights construct, there is the belief that any individual has the right to do as he/she wishes as long as the person does not hurt someone else.  Of course, in real life, just about any social behavior has an effect on someone else.  Whether the effect is harmful or not is how a normal person would judge it.  I was driving around with my wife the other day and we were talking about someone and whether he did something wrong.  It occurred to me that we cause hurt all the time in just our normal course of living.  For example, my wife and I, at the time of this discussion, were spewing out carbons into the environment.  This is harmful, but while the effect is generally distributed in the local environment, the harm is of low levels.  It is irrelevant that this harm is a byproduct of how we live and how we get around.  Harm is harm.  But in analyzing this, the amount of harm is relevant in trying to determine whether I have a right to drive around or not or whether it is moral behavior.  This whole business suggested a set of questions to me; questions one could ask of any behavior or activity in order to determine how an adherent of the natural rights view would judge the egregiousness of such behaviors or activities.

Here they are:
Who or what is negatively affected by the behavior or activity? (Direction)
What level of harm is inflicted by this behavior or activity? (Intensity)
How targeted is this harm? (Focus) My driving around affects every human being on the planet.  The level of harm – I’m no scientist – is quite small.  And in terms of targeting the harm, there is no focus – I’m not focusing on any individual or group.  Therefore, while I wish I could drive around without polluting, I will continue to drive my car with a fairly clear conscience.

Let’s look at another activity.  A person runs a poker game with a marked deck.  Those negatively affected are the invitees who are victimized by the cheater.  The level of harm can be measured by the amount of money these players/victims lose.  The focus is again these victims - pretty straightforward.  What if the victims also engage in cheating practices?  Does that affect our analysis?  Is cheating cheaters okay?  This complicates the analysis.  But the situation is worth discussing with students.  The purpose here is not to pass judgment, but to provide teachers a language by which to lead an inquiry.  It is useful to know how people will tend to approach a value-related situation.  Those of us who are influenced by a natural rights view, I believe, will tend to ask these kinds of questions of those involved in a problem situation. 

I would add that if, on the other hand, a person is guided by federalist values, he/she will not limit the questioning to these questions.  They would be further concerned by the effects on the relevant community.  How does cheating at cards affect any friendship or any other sense of associations among the players?  Is gambling, as a business activity, something that should be allowed or encouraged?  Is there an anti-community effect of gambling, especially if the stakes are significantly high relative to the income of those involved?  These kinds of questions connote a concern for how the behavior or activity will undermine the levels of federation among the participants.  But this kind of concern bypasses people who are influenced by a natural rights view.



[1] This is how I described federalist values in a past posting:
The proposed code not only holds a particular value as a trump value, but also presents a hierarchy of values. There are three levels of values: trump value, key instrumental values, and operational values. Here is a listing of these values:
       Trump Value: Societal welfare (as experienced through societal survival and advancement)
       Key Instrumental Values: constitutional integrity (liberty), equality, communal democracy, democratic pluralism and diversity, compacted arrangements, critical and transparent deliberation, collective problem-solving, earned trust, loyalty, patriotism, expertise
       Operational Values (partial listing): political engagement, due process, legitimate authority, privacy, universality of human rights, tolerance, non-violence, teamwork, consideration of others, economic sufficiency, security, localism.

No comments:

Post a Comment