“I’m no good at being noble, but it doesn’t take
much to see that the problems of three little people don’t amount to a hill of
beans in this crazy world.” – Casablanca (film,
1942)
With this posting, the favored construct this blog is dedicated to
promoting is introduced. Naturally, the
blog has described and explained this construct in various ways. But the writer feels it is time to again review
its basic elements. He has named this
construct federation theory or federation pedagogy, and makes the claim that an
earlier version of this construct served as the dominant political perspective
of Americans over most of this nation’s history.
This review will begin with
an account of that earlier version, traditional federalism, and describes how
it views good citizenship. This posting
will describe the political culture that was inspired by and, in turn,
supported this political construct. This
will lead, in subsequent postings, into describing its role in the development
of the nation’s constitutional mindset.
It lost its dominance in the
years following World War II. This
review will provide, in no order, answers to the three organizing questions
that are applied to the two constructs already described: what is the construct’s view of morality; what
is the construct’s view of government and politics; and what is the construct’s
view of its role in promoting the common good?
Traditional federalism is
of course a version of federalism. But
federalism here is not portrayed as it is usually described: a structural arrangement among governments
that ban together and form a central government. Instead, it is primarily described and explained
as one of various ways of attaining civic humanism (a term to be defined in
subsequent postings, but having to do with a collaborative citizenry). In
short, it is a view of governance that furthers a polity being federated among
its members.
It is through a striving
for a civic humanism that the construct aims at establishing, supporting, and
maintaining social capital. A sense of
what civic humanism is can be derived from an account of early American life. One, in reviewing the
natural rights construct, senses a bias against history; in fact, many consider
positivist study, its main methodology, to be ahistorical.
Not so with federation theory; it
embraces history. Historically, then,
trying to gauge what traditional federalism holds as moral can be sensed by
seeing how Americans interacted in the 1830s.
Here, an extended citation is offered from a book written by the French
political writer, Alexis de Tocqueville.
The citation reads as follows:
It
is not impossible to form an imaginary picture of the surpassing liberty which
the Americans enjoy; some idea may likewise be formed of the extreme equality
which subsists amongst them. But the
political activity which pervades the United States must be seen in order to be understood. No sooner do you set foot upon the American
soil than you are stunned by a kind of tumult; a confused clamour is heard on
every side; and a thousand simultaneous voices demand the immediate
satisfaction of their social wants.
Everything is in motion around you; here, the people of one quarter of a
town are met to decide upon the building of a church; there, the election of a
representative is going on; a little further, the delegates of a district are
traveling in a hurry to the town in order to consult upon some local
improvements; or in another place the labourers of a village quit their ploughs
to deliberate upon the project of a road or a public school. Meetings are called for the sole purpose of
declaring their disapprobation of the line of conduct pursued by the
Government, whilst in other assemblies the citizens salute the authorities of
the day as the fathers of their country.
Societies are formed which regard drunkenness as the principal cause of
the evils under which the State labours, and which solemnly bind themselves to
give a constant example of temperance.
The
great political agitation of the American legislative bodies, which is the only
kind of excitement that attracts the attention of foreign countries, is a mere
episode or a sort of continuation of that universal movement which originates
in the lowest classes of the people and extends successively to all ranks of
society. It is impossible to spend more
efforts in the pursuit of enjoyment.
The
cares of political life engross a most prominent place in the occupation of a
citizen in the United States, and almost the only pleasure of which an American
has any idea is to take part in the Government, and to discuss the part he has
taken. This feeling pervades the most
trifling habits of life; even the women frequently attend public meetings, and
listen to political harangues as a recreation after their household
labours. Debating clubs are to a certain
extent a substitute for theatrical entertainments. An American cannot converse, but he can
discuss; and when he attempts to talk he falls into a dissertation. He speaks to you as if he was addressing a
meeting; and if he should chance to warm in the course of the discussion, he
will infallibly say “Gentlemen,” to the person with whom he is conversing.[1]
To this writer, this cited passage
gives the best description he has ever read of a people politically engaged in
the affairs of their communities. It
portrays a sense of citizenship civics teachers should value and strive to
instill in their students.
How accurate is this account? Tocqueville was a respected professional
political writer of his time. He wrote several
famous works. His account does not
exactly mirror the descriptions of Mark Twain, for example, in Huckleberry Finn,[2]
but whether Tocqueville is accurate or not, the description above can serve as
an ideal – maybe one this nation will never achieve, but one for which it can
strive.
The political activity described in the above citation is what
this writer has heard the educator, John Patrick, call “hard democracy.” It surely would not generally describe
American discourse today, whether one is referring to how Americans discuss
local or national issues. As such, the
description can serve as an ideal.
Why
hold this portrait of Americana as an ideal?
If one harkens to the notion of social capital – a concept offered by
Robert Putnam[3]
– the interactions described in the 1830s have some very worthwhile
characteristics.
These
include concern for the common good, willingness to participate in and even
enjoy the political processes involved in collective endeavors, and be
prideful, even perhaps a bit competitive, as each citizen fulfills his/her role
in the democratic process. In addition,
though tacit, one can sense a tolerance for those who hold opposing views.
If a person finds the above description
appealing, then he/she will judge federation theory/pedagogy as an amenable
construct to guide civics education. The
question then becomes: how does the
nation get there? How can it adopt such
a perspective? A first step in answering
that question is to gain a historical understanding of how this visionary image
was functional in the development of this nation’s constitutional principles.
[1] Alexi de Tocqueville, “Political Structure of
Democracy,” in Alexis de Tocqueville:
On Democracy, Revolution, and Society, ed. John Stone and Stephen Mennell (Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, 1980/1835), 78-101,
78-79.
[2] Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,
(Westminster/London, GB: Penguin
Classics, 2003/1885).
[3] Robert D. Putnam, Bowling
Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New York, NY: Simon
& Schuster, 2000.k
No comments:
Post a Comment