Regular readers of this blog, this writer believes, can point
out that the blog skirts or avoids expressing a political bias. Oh, there are probably some who disagree, but
its writer can honestly claim he has tried to avoid using this platform to support
a set of candidates, office holders, or specific policy positions other than writer’s
argument that civics should adopt a federalist bias and all that entails.
Perhaps the blog’s language tends to
lean a bit leftist – such as supporting governmental assistance to meet the
needs of those faced with debilitating circumstances – but then again,
federalism is basically a conservative outlook.
And its writer can cite that not so long ago, he, for the most part,
positively utilized the ideas of a prominent conservative.
Beginning with the post, “Excitement
or Drudgery?”, posted on March 26, 2019, the ideas of the conservative, Jonah
Goldberg,[1] were
reviewed and will be revisited. So, in
the name of balancing the ledger, this posting will introduce its take on the
ideas of Adam Gopnik, a noted liberal.[2] Gopnik’s recently published work gives his
readers a generous overview of what liberalism is.
Here, the object is to review some of
those ideas and comment on how they relate to federation theory and, in turn,
how they can affect civics teachers in their efforts to provide lessons along
federalist lines of thinking.
Early in his work, Gopnik comments on
the contemporary political environment.
In that, he echoes much of what one hears in the media. He points out the growth of nationalism. What is that?
This blog writer, upon hearing that term, always recalls his efforts to
describe this ideological position on the political spectrum during his
teaching days. Nationalism lies between
conservatism and fascism on the right side of the spectrum.
And he, this blogger, always quoted a
belief that captures nationalism’s essence:
“my country, right or wrong, my country.” This statement betrays an unhealthy sentiment. A teacher, in utilizing this quote, attempts
to distinguish nationalism from patriotism.
Both betray a love for a nation, but the latter can describe a healthy
love and the former an unhealthy obsession usually reliant on an ethnic or racial
foundation.
A teacher, in trying to explain this distinction
to high schoolers, can have them think of dating and perhaps loving a boyfriend
or girlfriend. Does one just say, “right
or wrong, my boy/girlfriend?” Is that
love or even liking someone? Or is it a recipe
for disaster? Does this type of “love”
or “allegiance” likely lead to some abuse, some taking advantage of when one
party accepts whatever from the other?
When one knows or strongly believes a
person, a group, or a nation (usually through the authoritative power of the
state) takes a “wrong” turn, what should that person do? Comply or strongly object not only for the
sake of him or herself, but for the benefit of the perceived culprit? Short term advantages through unjust means,
tend to be short lived.
This blog has, in many ways, pointed
out that either counterproductive or immoral choices not only hurt some target,
but tend to have a repercussive effect on the perpetrator. Maybe not initially, but if the experience
serves to instill a lesson – causing further encouragement to perpetrate
further harmful acts – an eventual counterforce will not only make itself known
but impart a reciprocal action that can result in harm to some or all involved.
When one, in his/her political acts –
and that can include typical behaviors such as voting – is motivated by an unquestioning
posture, as with nationalism, one is asking for it. It easily falls to behaviors where actors act
to advance an ideology or some personal interest since the believers are not
disposed to hold accountable or even question dysfunctional – in terms of the
common good – policies or actions.
Well, what does Gopnik claim? Early in his book, by way of explaining why he
wrote his book, he states,
Everywhere … patriotism is being
replaced with nationalism, pluralism by tribalism, impersonal justice by the
tyrannical whim of autocrats who think only to punish their enemies and reward
their hitmen. … If in America the authoritarian nightmare has so far turned out
to be more like Goodfellas than 1984 – well, as the fine film The
Death of Stalin showed us Goodfellas in power was exactly
what the evilest kind of authoritarianism could look like.[3]
Oh, that sounds ominous, but it points out, in its way, that what
civics teachers do is important to the extent that they can conduct lessons
that question such turns in the political environment.
While examples of Hitler and pre-World
War II Germany tend to be exaggerated comparisons, this blogger can’t help thinking:
what were the lessons in the typical German
social studies classrooms as fascism came to power? Were they socialistic, liberal, conservative,
or nationalistic? Probably none of the
above.
One cannot divorce that nation’s
history, during those years, from the fact that that nation was negatively
affected by the extended effects of post-World War I realities. Reminder:
Germany was harshly treated by the provisions of the Treaty of
Versailles. In addition, Germany, had
just experienced an exaggerated inflationary period. And, as well as most nations of the world, it
was beginning to deal with the initial effects of a worldwide depression. That was, not to be flippant, a double or
triple whammy of major proportions.
In that
environment, more middle of the road beliefs, such as those ascribed to
conservatism and liberalism, were under attack.
One can still see films depicting the clashes that socialists and
fascists had on the streets of German cities.
As for their schools, this blogger assumes that what was promoted was a
more traditional curriculum. That is, it
was one that upheld the vestiges of the old order, if not one of nobility, perhaps
one that communicated to students that they had their place in the pecking
order by some sort of divine will.
This blogger’s
general understanding is that there was an industrial working class that felt
the brunt of the post-war years and a rural population that saw traditional
modes of behavior being discarded. An
effective messenger with ulterior motives or political ones that promised to overturn
a newly formed republic would be able to garner an audience and eventually obtain
power. One did.
In terms of liberal language, the
current concern in the US is over an ulterior motive. The reference to Goodfellas is not so
much an ideological one, but to a self-enriching aim. And that aim is to be acquired through criminal
activity. At least, that seems to be how
Gopnik introduces what liberalism today means.
It means that liberals are fundamentally opposed to such trends and they
are apt to fight them.
To get at what
liberalism in contemporary times means, one needs to do a bit of etymological
analysis of the term’s history over the past century or so. And that is where this blog’s future effort
will turn. Again, the effort is not to
sell liberalism, but to help teachers teach its meaning and its viability in
current American politics.
[1]Jonah Goldberg, Suicide
of the West: How the Rebirth of
Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics Is Destroying American
Democracy (New York, NY: Crown
Forum, 2018).
[2] Adam
Gopnik, A Thousand Small Sanities: The
Moral Adventures of Liberalism (New York, NY:
Basic, 2019).
[3] Ibid.,
2-3 (Kindle edition, emphasis in the original).
