To continue with this critique of the parochial federalism view of
governance and politics, this posting delves more extensively into that view’s
bias toward limited parameters of what or who should be included within its
purview and how that leads one to consider the issue of who is a person. As indicated earlier in this blog, the
construct did establish a general partnership of the citizenry under the auspices
of the US Constitution, but in practice, that did not include everyone,
at least as the common folk perceived that relationship.
That is, at least at an emotional level among
the people, its inclusion was limited to the descendants of Western Europeans. And even there, such nationalities – especially
the Italians and Irish – were not readily included. The last posting took this exclusionary bias
and was addressing how it expressed itself into high – even oppressive – levels
of conformity as late as the 1950s.
Given today’s notions of personal liberty, a product
of natural rights’ dominant position in American society in the last seventy
years, this level of social conformity seems unthinkable – as to, for example,
what one should serve at a dinner party.
And in parochial federalism’s opposition to the natural rights view, it
would not, if it somehow could replace the natural rights view, exert such control.
Basically, such control is
deemed as being disrespectful of individual integrity. Parochial federalism, for all its rhetoric of
individual integrity, was – in its day – never developed by its devotees in
such a way as to address that issue squarely.
As a consequence, in practice, abuses were not only common but
institutionalized.
Such decisions as whom one could marry, who
could buy the house next door, who could apply for a job, and so on, were based
on such arbitrary criteria as race, accent, marital status, religion, and the
like. Often such practices were
supported by local law and formal sanctions enforced a vast array of
exclusionary customs and norms.
Exclusivity became much more common than the
heralded guarantees of equality so eloquently defended and enshrined in the
documents of the founding fathers of the republic. This account asserts the claim that one of
the driving forces toward the social revolution that led to the dominance of
the natural rights perspective in the late 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s was the
desire of excluded groups to be treated in equitable ways. Actually, that process is still unfolding.
Such efforts as the civil rights movement of
African Americans to force the political and social communities of the nation
to live up to the promises contained in those founding documents proved, to a
degree, to change laws and even customs.
While the nation has not eliminated all vestiges of the more
exclusionary times, a more equitable social/political environment prevails. Unfortunately, that necessary revolution helped
overturn the whole federalist-republican ethos as the prevailing social/political
construct of the nation.
Individual integrity is primarily defined by how
rights are defined and thought of by the public. And closely associated with a lack of
definitional clarity as to what rights are, what rights people have, and what
constitutes individual integrity is the inability or unwillingness of the
American social/political culture to address who is a person.
A review of the Constitution demonstrates how
important the term or concept is. For
example, Amendment Five reads:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or
otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand
Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia,
when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the
same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private
property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
As this amendment demonstrates, the idea of “person” plays a central
role in identifying rights.
This problem – a lack of a clear definition – was
true during the period when parochial federalism was dominant and still exerts
a very serious concern today. The
inability of the political-social culture to arrive at an acceptable definition
of a person made it impossible to settle the slavery issue in the 1800s, short
of civil war. And today, the lack of
clear definition affects the whole contentious politics surrounding whether
women have the right to abortions.
Today, along with the abortion issue, there
exists impregnation through vitro fertilization. Currently, state legislatures, in the wake of
the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Organization decision – that overturned Roe
v. Wade (and related cases) – are considering defining the state of
personhood beginning at conception – a purely religious notion. But with a lack of previous definitional
agreement among the American people, this development can be seen as probably
inevitable and based on a less than majority supported solution or definition.
And that does not even mention various genetically
technical developments – such as cloning – which promises to present challenges
in the future. And those challenges will
probably include emotional issues because of this lack of a consensus. This is a question demanding a cultural
answer – more encompassing than a Supreme Court decision – because,
unfortunately, science or law cannot give a nation a definitive answer that
will be readily accepted.
At stake is the determination of who or what
will be given individual status with all the integrity and rights attached to
that status. Therefore, this nation’s
political/social perspective must have an answer for that question if it is to
avoid the constitutional turmoil that the nation is currently experiencing as a
reaction to the Dobbs decision. Unfortunately,
parochial federalism merely counted on local notions as to who was a person.
And the claim here is that the question demands
a national debate – one that should have been conducted after the Roe decision
– to arrive at an answer. So far, the
issue has been skirted with such questions as when does humanness at the
individual level begin.
One can argue that humanness or human life begins
at conception, but that embryo has none of the attributes one associates with a
human being – a person – and that includes any level of self-awareness. Or one could argue – as is often done – that
human life, as with that embryo, begins at conception, but the same can be said
of a human cancer cell (also human life, albeit with a damaged DNA). The concept “person” without any attributes
that denote an ability to think, consider, and be able to make decisions – at
least at some level – seems to be seriously deficient.
It, instead, smacks of some religious belief –
such as that a conceived being has a soul.
One might add, a belief not shared by all religions. To rely on such a rationale for the Dobbs
decision approaches, if not crosses, the barrier the First Amendment includes
against the establishment of a religion.
For one can establish a religion in various
ways, including the demand that citizens must live according to the precepts of
a religion or a group of religions.[1] And all this stems from parochial federalism
not providing an answer or enough conceptualized direction toward defining what
constitutes a person.
Another shortcoming of the traditional
federalist perspective is a lack of a clear structural component guaranteeing a
non-centralized system and that will be the topic of the next posting. But before leaving this concern over
personhood, this blogger cannot overemphasize how a lack of a clear and
definitive definition has led to untold suffering and wasted resources. And it is an issue that should be revisited
every twenty or so years – once per generation[2] –
so that the American people can live harmoniously with whatever definition a
given population – thru majority rule – decides is workable for the challenges it
is facing.
[1] Can religion play any role in the formation of policy? Yes, this blogger would claim, it can inform the
consideration of enacting policy or doing away with policy, but it cannot be
the sole basis by which policy is determined.
[2] Another possible way to meet this need is for a
system in which some percentage of the populace signs a petition calling for
the initiation of a process in which the issue is discussed, considered, and can
potentially institute a newer definition.
Of course, such considerations would include any costs entailed with
changing the prevailing definition.
No comments:
Post a Comment