An advocate of parochial federalism continues his/her presentation[1] …
Student Political Interests [2]
To address the political interests of
students in relation to parochial / traditional federalist ideals, an aspect of
the current American political landscape should be addressed. That is, Americans have come to place
enormous responsibilities on government that before were definitely under the
purview of private entities. So common
has this development been, the online service, Quizlet (an educational site), offers
the following general descriptive question and answer:
Question; How has the power of the federal government
developed over time?
Answer: The federal government’s power has INCREASED
over time, particularly through the New Deal programs during the Great
Depression.[3]
A more insightful account is offered by Robert Bellah, et al. They write:
We expect government to
protect children against abusive parents, wives against battering husbands, and
employees against sexual harassment by their bosses. More and more we think of problems that
government cannot or will not solve – infant mortality in poor communities, the
AIDS epidemic, rising drug use – as public problems for which government is
responsible. And this expansion of public responsibility leads us to experience
an interdependence that we both recognize and resent. Very little in our social world remains
“private” in a meaningful sense.[4]
When these
expectations are juxtaposed with a political culture that glorifies liberty –
what this account calls natural liberty – and a strong individualistic mindset,[5] the
match is ill-suited. Ironically, current
levels of consciousness of how interdependent Americans are politically, seem
to be generated more from their mutual dependence on government services than any
republican sense.
Further, this juxtaposition has led to
some curious practices. Among them have
been the systems tools such as cost-benefit analysis.[6] In accordance with the general liberal desire
to cast government as a neutral entity, cost-benefit analysis typifies the
process that government employs to determine public policy. Bellah et al.’s take on this issue still holds
up today:
Cost-benefit analysis has
the apparent virtue of allowing a purely neutral weighing of advantages and
disadvantages of any given policy in monetary terms, though its critics argue
that it systematically overlooks important public concerns that cannot be
quantified … [I]t holds out the possibility, however visionary, of an integrated
approach to policy, of doing what is really important rather than whatever
happens to be politically popular. Its
most fallacious, but equally appealing, claim is that it offers a set of
neutral rules, a methodology, for arriving at just decisions.[7]
Using this
tool, analysis can even neutrally place value on factors such as life itself. Value becomes a product of total preferences
expressed by autonomous individuals through their choices and measured in
market accounting terms (dollars and cents).
This method places an inordinate
premium on current preferences without any overarching moral principles or
theory to guide these choices and no accounting for the interests of those yet
to be born. The only real factor is
current utilitarian calculations to maximize perceived benefits. Defenders see this type of policy making as
truly democratic which avoids imposing someone’s values on others.[8]
The political interests of today’s students,
first, demand that students become aware of the way related policy decisions
are made. Applying parochial federalist
ideals, they, while seeing cost-benefit’s usefulness in public policy debates,
would demand that such practices are not the sole way to determine that
policy. They would deal with the
question of whether such analysis should replace meaningful democratic debate.
To rely solely on market choice models as cost-benefit analysis
would be to give up on people’s responsibilities to inform themselves and
others and discuss the issues. This
basically undemocratic practice as the exclusive method of determining policy
should become intolerable to people who are socialized according to the parochial
federal tradition.
To them, such calculations are
intolerable because they put dollar values on priceless commitments such as
human life, and chisel away at the moral assumptions and understandings that
hold a society together. Many of these
understandings are intangible, and those who harbor these cohesive views, even
if some do not live by their ideals one hundred percent, espouse them as the
moral glue in a republican society and government.
More recent literature has at least
given this concern some attention. For
example, in a more recent article, Pamela Misuraca adds this concern almost as
an afterthought in that article’s abstract.
She writes, “It [also notes, however, that because not
all costs and benefits can be quantified, measures other than CBA [cost-benefit
analysis] should be considered in making investment decisions.”[9]
Moral assumptions that support equal
opportunity are such an intangible.
Social policy should not undermine these intangibles, but should
preserve them, help to make them as real and tangible as possible, and preserve
the moral tradition from which they sprang.
This at times might lead to economically irrational policy (or seem to
be in the short run), but it would provide the opportunity to arrive at rational
or optimally disposed policy that would protect or even advance the common good
in the long run.
What are the implications at the
student level of such turns in the national political environment? Based on the general notion that one’s
interests are, if not advanced, protected by a political arena that does not
avoid quantitative analysis, but healthfully utilizes qualitative ones as
well. Parochial federalism demands that
political study strives to advance and protect justice (a normative, mostly an
intangible factor) within a polity and along with those resulting insights – as
to what creates what is (quantitative studies) – help to assure a civil
society.[10]
[1] This presentation begins with the posting, “A Parochial Subject Matter” (March 11, 2022). The reader is reminded that the claims made
in this posting do not necessarily reflect the beliefs or knowledge of this
blogger. Instead, the posting is a
representation of what an advocate of parochial federalism might
present. This is done to present a
dialectic position of that construct.
[2]
William H. Schubert, Curriculum: Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility
(New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing
Company, 1986). The meaning of this term
has been shared in previous postings and refers to the political interests of
students that curriculum developers should consider in their plans.
[3] “Inquisitive Questions,” Quizlet (n.d.),
accessed May 18, 2022, https://quizlet.com/269099694/inquisitive-questions-flash-cards/ .
[4]
Robert N. Bellah, Richard Madsen, William M.
Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven M. Tipton, The Good Society (New York,
NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1991), 113.
[5] The cultural literature is replete with sources
supporting this claim. Just of cite a
more recent source, see Ava Rosenbaum, “Personal Space and American
Individualism,” Brown Political Review (October 31, 2018), accessed May
18, 2022, https://brownpoliticalreview.org/2018/10/personal-space-american-individualism/ AND a more time honored source see Seymour Martin Lipset,
American Exceptionalism: A
Double-Edged Sword (New York, NY: W.
W. Norton and Company, 1996).
[6] Bellah, et al., The Good Society.
[7] Ibid., 115-116. This quote reminds one of incubation problems
– that might take the form of problems one does not know he/she doesn’t know
exist (a la Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld). See Sidney Dekker and Shawn Pruchinicki,
“Drifting into Failure: Theorising the
Dynamics of Disaster Incubation,” Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science
(2013), accessed May 15, 2021, Drifting into failure theorising
the dynamics of (safetydifferently.com) .
[8]
Bellah, et al., The Good Society.
[9] Pamela Misuraca, “Effectiveness of a Cost and Benefit
Analysis in Making Federal Government Decisions: A Literature Review,” MITRE (August 6,
2014) accessed May 19, 2022, https://www.mitre.org/publications/technical-papers/the-effectiveness-of-a-costs-and-benefits-analysis-in-making-federal OR for the actual article, https://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/publications/cost-benefit-analysis-govt-decisions-14-0929.pdf .
[10]
See Daniel J. Elazar Exploring
Federalism
(Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of
Alabama Press, 1987).
No comments:
Post a Comment