A PAROCHIAL SUBJECT MATTER CONTINUED

 

An advocate of parochial federalism continues his/her presentation …

In addition to the sum total of American history, in which parochial federalism held – up to the late 1940s – the dominant position among the various espoused political constructs, it has to be analyzed within the context of that whole experience:

 

Since the beginning of the 17^th century, the Americans have found and refounded [sic] their political societies, from small settlements and colonies to a large nation, by “reflection and choice” more than by “accident” or the natural growth and development of communities.  American foundings reflect at least five profound influences:  the colonial mission of a “covenantal people;” the Enlightenment ideal of rational choice; the republican principles of popular consent and limited government; the principle of the rule of law derived from Anglo-American common-law tradition; and the federal principle of organizing polities by distributing and sharing power between general and constituent governments.[1]

 

The parochial federalist construct would contain this rich historical foundation as essential subject matter in the study of American government and civics and thus add the needed context to make sense of the American governmental structure.

          In terms of the foundation of the nation and the principles that are derived from that experience, students would benefit from the spirit and values that initiated the national development.  Parochial federalism was not a stagnant force.  At different times, its basic ideals were more or less prominent among the popular culture. 

T. H. Breen describes that even during a boycott of British goods during the years leading up to the Revolutionary War – a commercial form of political engagement but with a highly social flavor – a constant reference to the common good seemed to be about what the colonists ultimately were concerned.[2]  For example, here is how Breen describes women’s role in this organized rejection of imported goods – all of which legally came from Britain.

 

Although colonial males may have hoped to contain the expansion of political participation – both in the streets and in print – it was clear that some women intended to make themselves heard, forcefully articulating what one historian has recently called “communal consciousness.”[3]

 

While Breen doesn’t attribute this sort of thinking to federalist values, parochial federalist thinking (in the opinion of this blogger) does.

On this matter, Daniel Elazar writes,

 

In order to understand American federalism in the broadest sense of the term – not as inter-governmental relations, as federalism has come to be interpreted from managerial perspectives of the 20^th century, not as a matter of the constitutional distribution of powers between the general and state governments, as the constitutional lawyers are wont to see it; not even as the grand political struggle between the Union and the states which covered the canvas of the 19^th century historians; but as something close to what the French term “integral federalism,” that is to say, as the animating and informing principle of the American political system flowing from a covenantal approach to human relationships.[4]

 

Parochial federalism, as defined here, refers to an “integral federalism”:  a comprehensive paradigm of explanation and prescription of federalist ideals, ideas, and values.

          Historian Gordon Wood[5] makes a compelling argument that during the years immediately preceding and following the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, there was an especially strong and pervasive support for the ideals of federalism as defined in this blog.  Under the general political movement known as the Whig tradition (adherents called Whigs or Commonwealthmen), an unprecedented support for the ideals of federal republicanism was genuinely felt among the general population.

          For the sake of presenting a working configuration of the parochial federalist perspective, the ideals of the Whig tradition are used to demonstrate that construct.  Whig ideals, as will be described in this blog, emphasize the federalist elements of community, citizen participation, localism, representative government, equality, liberty, and public virtue.  The Whigs incorporated the religious and enlightened (reasoned) traditions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries into an ideology.

            That ideology, Wood emphasizes, promoted a moral wholeness for society.  These same elements are seen to counter the prevailing nihilistic, excessively individualistic pathologies plaguing this nation’s society of late[6] and are presented in this blog as a current, viable alternative system of ideas. 

These detrimental conditions include incivility,[7] anti-social behavior,[8] and a lack of educational achievement[9] in relation to current needs of the economy.  And with this context, the next posting will look at American government and civics as a discipline.  But the takeaway here is that with these notions, the subject matter has a definite direction, one which, if adopted, can help lead to a federated nation.

---

[1] Stephen L. Schechter, “Introduction,” in Roots of the Republic:  American Founding Documents Interpreted, edited by Stephen L. Schechter (Madison, WI:  Madison House, 1990), 4.  This citation does not necessarily consider Schechter as an advocate of parochial federalism.

[2] T. H. Breen, The Marketplace of Revolution:  How Consumer Politics Shaped American Independence (New York, NY:  The Oxford University Press, 2004).

[3] Breen, The Marketplace of Revolution, 279.

[4] Daniel J. Elazar, “How federal is the Constitution? Thoroughly,” in a booklet of readings, Readings for Classes Taught by Professor Elazar (1994), prepared for a National Endowment for the Humanities Institute. Conducted in Steamboat Springs, Colorado, 1-30, 4.

[5] Gordon S. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic 1776-1787 (New York, NY:  W. W. Norton and Company, 1969).

[6] There is a whole literature to support this claim.  One can begin reviewing that literature with Robert N. Bellah, Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven M. Tipton, Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life (New York, NY:  Harper and Row, Publishers, 1985/2007).

[7] For example, Ray Williams, “The COVID-19 Pandemic and Rising Incivility,” Medium (September 12, 2021), accessed March 14, 2022, https://raybwilliams.medium.com/the-covid-19-pandemic-and-rising-incivility-679c151ede3 .

[8] For example, “Prevalence of Personality Disorders in Adults,” National Institute of Mental Health (n.d.), accessed March 14, 2022, https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/personality-disorders .

[9] Drew Desilver, “U. S. Students’ Academic Achievement Still Lags That Their Peers in Many other Countries,” Pew Research Center (February 15, 2017), accessed March 14, 2022, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/15/u-s-students-internationally-math-science/ .