This blog, with a review of the methodology it
will use to analyze the dialectic struggle between traditional/parochial
federalism and natural rights view – described in the last two postings – will
proceed with that analysis. To be clear,
the thesis of this struggle is traditional/parochial federalism (referred to as
parochial federalism below). This
posting will begin a presentation in positive terms about what that construct
is. Later, this blog will do the same
for the antithesis, the natural rights view.
But
before initiating this presentation, a word on the importance of having a clear
understanding of what is at stake. To
ruin the drama of the struggle, parochial federalism will be overtaken by a
synthesis mostly based on natural rights’ ideals that through its application –
in the years since World War II – has had profound effects on the American
political, economic, and social landscapes.
What the nation has experienced is an ever more intense form of that
construct.
In
2010, Chris Hedges did an admirable job of capturing the consequences of that
dominance. He writes,
Anger
and a sense of betrayal: These are what
… tens of millions of … disenfranchised workers express. These emotions spring from the failure of the
liberal class over the past three decades to protect the minimal interests of
the working and middle class as corporations dismantled the democratic state,
decimated the manufacturing sector, looted the U.S. Treasury, waged imperial
wars that can neither be afforded nor won, and gutted the basic laws that
protected the interests of ordinary citizens.
Yet the liberal class continues to speak in the prim and obsolete
language of policies and issues. It
refuses to defy the corporate assault. A
virulent right wing, for this reason, captures and expresses the legitimate
rage articulated by the disenfranchised.
And the liberal class has become obsolete even as it clings to its
positions of privilege within liberal institutions.[1]
While this blogger sees a good deal of truth in the above quote, he does
not agree to the extent that Hedges takes his argument. But to the degree he is accurate, Hedges goes
on to point out that since John Stuart Mill, liberalism opted to include
within its claims the obligation to reasonably redistribute wealth and to
establish a welfare state. Yet, as the
natural rights view took dominance and reinforced its basic beliefs, these more
“liberal” tenets have fallen by the wayside.
This blog has cited the
years after World War II as the years in which that synthesis took hold. Hedges believes that the date should be at
the turn of the twentieth century. The
confusion or disagreement stems from the effects of the New Deal, in which
America institutionalized a whole agenda of liberal reforms. Due to those reforms, one can observe a
continued dominance by the parochial federalist view until the end of the
1940s.
Of course, these transitions
are not clear cut, but reflect complex social / political / economic changes. For example, America’s foreign policy played
a role in which its reaction first to Nazism and then Communism, led in the 1950s
to policies of containment and even engagement in wars (Korea and Vietnam) and this,
in turn, affected central government spending to inordinate amounts.
But overall, in a bizarre mix of laws,
policies, and practices, the US government, to increasing levels, shed its
responsibilities to meet the needs and demands of its lower classes. In all of this, what of parochial federalism? That is, what was the dominant perspective among
Americans going into this transitionary period?
Here, in the way dialectic arguments are
expressed, the argument will be proposed that it, parochial federalism, should
be the dominant view within the American citizenry. Generally, the reasons for this argument are varied,
but they direct one to see this perspective legitimately and viably as
promoting the interests of good citizenship and social capital.[2]
The perspective, in terms of how it would influence
civics education, demonstrates its functional qualities in its treatment and
handling of the subject matter of government and politics, its expectations of
teachers and students, and its influences on the milieu of the instructional
setting at the school site.[3]
In terms of the subject matter,
parochial federalism would have civics education accomplish the following:
·
Teach the
constitutional foundations of the American people as defined by the founding
generation
·
Teach the
philosophical basis of the government’s existing structural arrangements
(especially emphasizing the functions and roles of local elements)
·
Legitimize
the expectations of a citizen’s duties to the commonweal
·
Establish
and justify a political morality
·
Extol the
exclusive virtues of the governed people
·
Emphasize
the integrity of the individual in liberty and equity within a compact-al
arrangement
·
Point out a
preference for local unsophisticated decision-making to detached professional
expertise.
By accomplishing these elements, parochial federalist argument views that
the subject matter of governance and politics will be presented in such a way
as to advance the above cited good citizenship and social capital.
In terms of the
foundational tradition of the nation when it began, the prevalent political
perspective was parochial federalism.
This view of politics traces its presence in America to colonial days
with the arrival of the Puritans at Massachusetts Bay.[4] The perspective has several defining
characteristics as indicated earlier in this blog. They include a covenantal/compact-al
founding, a genuine concern for equality, and a respect for federal liberty
(the right to do what one should do).
The Puritans began this
traditional view and through their activities had an enormous influence on the
foundational philosophy of American democracy.[5] The tradition affected all institutions of
the emerging colonial and then independent nation, starting with the subsequent
constitutions and charters that were drawn up during the colonial period and
throughout the early histories of the thirteen original states.[6]
That is, this view of
government held dominance in the US through the seventeenth, eighteenth, and
nineteenth centuries. Toward the end of
the 19th century, it began to be seriously challenged, mostly by the
laissez-faire view associated with the corporate entities that emerged
toward the end of that century. The takeover
by the natural rights view was accomplished by the end of the 1940s.
During its reign of
dominance, parochial federalism provided, more than any other view, the
fundamental political assumptions of the nation’s institutions.[7] These institutions included the family, the
church, and the school. A parochial
federalist reemergence today would have to consider fundamental changes that
have occurred within the nation since the early days of the republic and their
effect on these institutions. The
following argument will attempt to describe those changed conditions.
Children who come to
school and progress through the years within a school system, by and large have
very little knowledge or understanding of the historical events and
developments that formulated the basic ideas and ideals of the American
constitution.[8] In order for the population to appreciate the
legitimate claim of the polity and the society from whence the government came,
its citizenry must be knowledgeable about the professed values and beliefs and
their origins.
Therefore, as part of a civics
curriculum, the content should include a historical study of the origins of
those ideals. Current political
conditions and shared beliefs might be counterproductive in imparting an
accurate understanding of those origins in that they might motivate a
particular segment of the population to distort original beliefs. By doing so, they might justify various
counter acts from the past by the biases of today.
Surely, the socialization
of any cultural belief system entails imparting some myths.[9] But excessive distortions would result in
incorrect understandings of the current conditions and an erroneous view of
human behavior within the context of those misunderstandings. Believing George Washington owned up to
cutting down a cherry tree might have its beneficial effects on young children,
but older students need to have a more realistic view of politicians in order
to pragmatically deal with the real political world.
That total history must
be analyzed within the context of the historical American experience to be
beneficial. What follows in subsequent
postings will attempt to do that. The reader should be reminded that what this
posting and the ones that follow are presenting are the arguments of each of
the constructs forming the dialectic history of American politics as their
defenders see things and not the political beliefs of this blogger. One should read these postings as being
written by the advocates of the various constructs.
[1]
Chris Hedges, Death of the Liberal Class (New York, NY: Nation Books, 2010), 6.
[2] As defined by Robert Putnam, i.e., having an
active, public-spirited citizenry, egalitarian political relations, and a
social environment of trust and cooperation.
[3] The previous two postings review the methodology this
analysis will employ including definitions for such terms as the “commonplaces
of curriculum.”
[4]
“The Mayflower Compact, 1620,” in Roots of the Republic: American Founding
Documents Interpreted,” ed. Stephen L. Schechter (Madison, WI: Madison
House, 1990), 17-23.
[5]
For example, “The
Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, 1639” (24-35), “The Declaration of
Independence, 1776” (138-145), and “The Articles of Confederation, 1781”
(227-248), in Roots of the Republic: American Founding
Documents Interpreted,” ed. Stephen L. Schechter (Madison, WI: Madison
House, 1990).
[6]
And
as a foundational force, it should be remembered by the reader that what one is
concerned with here is the espoused values – as opposed to operational values –
of the people.
[7] 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 AND Michael J.
Sandel, Democracy’s Discontent:
America in Search of a Public Philosophy (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University
Press, 1996.
[8] John J. Patrick and John D. Hoge, “Teaching
Government, Civics, and Law,” in Handbook of Research on Social Studies
Teaching and Learning ed. James P. Shaver (New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1991), 427-436.
[9] Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth (New York,
NY: Anchor Books, 1988).
No comments:
Post a Comment