An advocate of parochial federalism continues his/her presentation[1] …
Student Political Interests [2] (cont.)
With a backdrop of an objectified,
general approach by which to consider political issues – one that counts on
such methods as cost-benefit analysis – and one that avoids normative
questioning, what remains for students to consider as they grow old enough to
enter the political fray? One focus or related
concern: American institutional support
for political debate has become weak when the need for that debate has become
more important.
That is, as the citizenry has become
more dependent on governmental services in a more complex, post-industrial
society, institutions such as political parties have not collaterally met the
task of providing the arena(s) for such debate.
Instead, single-issue interests, such as political action committees
(organizations that pool political assets of members to fight for some vested
interest), have maintained their activities although the general landscape has
changed since the final years of the last century.
Today, those pacts are caught up in an overarching polarized
political environment where these pacts find themselves, out of necessity,
embroiled in alliances – one of two grand alliances. But their functions are still the same.
By financially supporting candidates,
they gain access not so much to debate the issues, but to inform the beholding
politicians of their promotions on the specific issue(s) that interest
them. Oftentimes such issues are little
known or understood by the general public.
What discussion exists is not in the content of the general good but is
constrained by the concerns associated with the particular issues in question. Even the introduction of social media has not
changed this basic dynamic.
Those who
served to coalesce demands through the processes of compromise, such as leaders
of political clubs, parties, and even political “machines” (which in these days
take the form of a national polarized side – the left or the right – the
liberals/progressives or the conservative/nationalists) have had their roles
changed. Now, the coalescing happens out
of emotional leaguing as opposed to thought-out debate. As such, it takes on an Us-Them
characterization.[3]
The current national arena is characterized by these two sides
coalescing an array of interest groups of broad breadth. Why? Because the opposition is similarly arranged,
and one interest cannot face that broad alliance singularly and have any chance
of success. This blogger, in his pending
book (From Immaturity to Polarized Politics), expends quite a few pages
describing these phenomena and relies heavily on the modeling proposed by E.
E. Schattschneider.[4]
Until
recent years, negative opinion polls concerning politicians, the political
process, and low voter turnouts serve as evidenced of the general dislike that Americans
are feeling. The Pew Center regularly issues
a report on this sort of concern. Here
is a sample of what it has reported:
Though
the public is unhappy with government generally, Americans are largely divided
on key measures of their ability to influence how it runs, including the impact
of voting on government and the ability of motivated individuals to influence
the way government works.
When asked which
statement comes closer to their own views, most Americans (58%) say that
“voting gives people like me some say about how government runs things,” while
fewer (39%) say “voting by people like me doesn’t really affect how government
runs things.”
The public is somewhat
more skeptical when it comes to the ability of ordinary citizens to influence
the government in Washington. Half (50%) say ordinary citizens can do a lot to
influence the government in Washington, if they are willing to make the effort,
while about as many (47%) say there’s not much ordinary citizens can do to
influence the government.[5]
While this
general view of a despondent electorate prevails (a true republic would have a
much higher rate of influence over public policy), it should be pointed out
that in 2020, the electorate voted at an over 60% turnout – very high by American
standards. Perhaps intensified polarized
politics is revving up emotions and encouraging a higher rate of participation.
But even with this relative uptick,
generally, Americans are noted for their indifference. The current negativity, regardless of how
many go out and vote, in the form of alienation and withdrawal (and if engaged,
being done out of anger and disgust) toward politics is a far cry from the
reported rapport Americans felt among the founding generation in the eighteenth
century.[6]
If government is to again issue policies
perceived to advance the common good and earn a more positive reaction from the
populace, citizens must develop a better awareness. Of what?
Of the basic sources of their discontent and become convinced that
political work needs to be done to recreate the necessary political
institutions that lead to general welfare policies.
Such a realization must begin in the nation’s social studies
classrooms, particularly in government or civics courses. This is particularly important for the
typical student who will most likely not be represented directly by high priced
lobbyists or political action committees that make influential contributions to
politicians on the behalf of those lobbyists and committees.
For citizens to regain control, a
resocialization of the republican values that wrestled control from the British
in 1776 must take place. Such a
socialization is the nation’s historical heritage. One element of such a campaign would be to
reestablish the political theory that informed and motivated Americans not only
at the beginning, but through most of its history, the parochial/traditional
federalist construct.[7]
This blog will next address its last
position concerning the commonplace of curriculum development, the student,
before it turns to the next commonplace, that being teachers. The last position of the student commonplace
is “pedagogic student interest.”
[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] Frank Schweitzer, Tamas Krivachy, and David Garcia, “An
Agent-Based Model of Opinion Polarized Driven by Emotions, Hindawi (April 10, 2020).
[4] E. E. Schattschneider, The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America
(New York, NY: Hole, Rinehart and
Winston, 1960).
[5] “8. Perceptions of the Public’s Voice in Government
and Politics,” Pew Research Center (November 23, 2015), accessed May 22, 2022, https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2015/11/23/8-perceptions-of-the-publics-voice-in-government-and-politics/ .
[6] Gordon S. Wood, Creation
of the American Republic 1776-1787 (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North
Carolina Press, 1969/1968). This
conclusion is questioned. Critical
scholars have cited evidence that perhaps this sort of rapport might have been limited
to the privileged segments of the population.
But even with these advocates, a certain level of agreement exists with the
general support the Revolution enjoyed, for example, which was needed for that
effort to have succeeded. See Ray Raphael,
A People’s History of the American Revolution: How Common People Shaped the Fights for
Independence (New York, NY:
Perennial, 2001).
[7] Daniel Elazar contends that that theory, federalism,
is still held in prominence. See Daniel J.
Elazar, Exploring Federalism
(Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of
Alabama Press, 1987).
No comments:
Post a Comment