This blog has been in the first phase of an extended argument by using the
dialectic model offered by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and
made commonly known by Karl Marx. That
is, at any given time, a major or array of clashes is taking place, and, in
Hegel’s case, those reflect opposing ideas.
These are summarily known as dialectic struggles.
At
a given time, there is the dominant view, the thesis, the counter position, the
anti-thesis, and the eventual resolution, the synthesis. This blog, for some time now, has been reviewing
the thesis that existed going into the period of World War II. That thesis was a more liberal version of
parochial/traditional federalism which by that time had become somewhat
softened by the late 1940s but was being challenged by a more moderate form of natural
rights.
This
blog has taken up this ongoing struggle as the natural rights advocates were
mounting, in a mostly un-reflected fashion, a winning challenge to the dominant
view. The result was a shift toward a
softened version of natural rights thinking.
Simplified, the version states that people have the right to form their
own values and goals and the right to pursue them as long as they do not hinder
others having the same rights.
This
blog takes up this dialectic progression as the last gasps – as a dominate
ideal – of the parochial federalist position – one that argues for
·
a view of governance and politics as best conceptualized
as the product of a compact among the citizenry, and
·
in which each citizen is a partner and has
the responsibilities and duties to promote and defend the welfare of the
national partnership.
That compact is the US
Constitution.
With
a review of that thesis completed – written from the perspective of current day
conditions – this blog will now present a critique of that thesis and provide
its – the blog’s – position as to whether parochial federalism should be reestablished
as the nation’s dominant social/political purview of governance and politics.
This
blogger is an advocate of federalist principles. As such, most of the sentiment expressed by parochial
federalism’s ideals and goals are judged to be legitimate and correct for the
reasons stated in its defense, which was the topic of the last twenty-five
postings. There are, though, some major
reservations held by this blogger. He
feels that in both substantive areas and in areas having to do with pedagogic
applications, the traditional federalist approach has serious limitations.
The
upcoming postings will be dedicated to those concerns. By way of previewing this postings’ content,
the following reservations will be explained:
·
The definition of rights and the definition
of individual integrity are vague and as such, subject to extensive abuse.
·
The designation of person is not
addressed.
·
Structural guarantees for the protection
of a non-centralized system are wanting.
·
There is a hereditary assumption –
favoring the descendants of Western European nations – to the dynamic elements
of the federalist model which discourages current definitional development.
·
There is a lack in the global view within
the traditional federalist perspective.
·
There is no accounting for meaningful
ethnic/racial/nationalistic diversity.
·
There is a lack of flexibility for diverse
classroom approaches.
·
Communal dimensions are limited only to
geographic types.
Historically,
there has been a social/political context one needs to understand to appreciate
this critique. From the earliest colonial
period, ideal government on the North American continent has been associated
with majority rule. With a strong
religious foundation, separate communities formed. That American experience has had a strong
congregationalist character.[1] A lot of that social bonding was organized
around religious practices, but that trend of late – resulting from growing social
developments over the years – has been diminished in that less than half of the
population is so engaged today.[2]
In
short, while the federalist spirit contained elements of individual integrity,[3] these ideals were ill
defined and in practice were subject to extensive abuse by today’s
standards. While one can cite through
the years those leaders or thinkers who harbored more liberal sentiments and well-thought-out
arguments promoting more inclusive beliefs, values, and aims, overall, the
American public was extensively parochial along various lines. These lines included race, nationality,
ethnicity, and regionalism.
By
way of completing this concern, while the shift to natural rights overall has
advanced more inclusive beliefs and practices – documented by the enactment of
such laws as the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 – today’s political
environment is rife with exclusionary elements as demonstrated by the level of
polarized politics (highly characterized as identity politics) with which the
nation is currently dealing.
But
to pick up the historical development, the early trend of exclusion became institutionalized. Local communities could be and often were
highly oppressive to any signs of unusual behavior or actions which went
counter to overly sensitive moral standards.
Actually, local restraints are not unique to the American
experience.
Perhaps
America, with its isolated communities of the eighteenth and nineteenth century
frontier experience, had a more intense version of a very human condition in
which local values and procedures are highly intolerant of non-conforming
beliefs and ways of being. Writes Robert
Nisbet:
Much of the argument of the
individualist with respect to the nature of freedom derived from the apparent
fact that the most intellectually creative ages in history have been ages of
the widespread release of individuals from ties of traditional values and
relationships … the individual escaping his social group, his class, family,
and community. Such relationships may
give security but do not excite the imagination.[4]
The implication is
clear. Such eras of tolerance and
liberal acceptance in history are the exception, not the rule. In America, the rural communities that dotted
the landscape as settlements stretched westward institutionalized strong moral
codes of behavior – codes that could be oppressive, priggish, and insulting to individual
integrity.
This posting ends with a fairly telling citation from 1960
when there still existed residues of parochial/traditional sentiments among
American households,
The social life of these Park
Foresters [typical 1950s suburbanites] embodies the same principle. Their parties must be modest but show some
signs of originality in the kind of food served and entertainment
provided. There are periodic waves of
food fashions so that the household is never completely at a loss for
acceptable new dishes. [David] Riesman’s
concept of “marginal differentiation” expresses well the kind of “individuality”
that Park Forest encourages. Wandering
too far from the margin brings penalties, as the housewife who was discovered
reading Plato and listening to The Magic Flute learned. In this community, even the ways of “being
different” are standardized.[5]
This simple description of suburban life in the 1950s captures the
extent in which social norms were able to control individual life and its
choices. This element of this critique
will continue in the next posting.
[1] Seymour Martin Lipset, American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword (New York, NY:
W. W. Norton and Company, 1996).
[2] Scott Neuman, “Fewer than Half of U.S. Adults Belong
to a Religious Congregation, New Poll Shows,” NPR (March 30, 2021),
accessed July 6, 2022, https://www.npr.org/2021/03/30/982671783/fewer-than-half-of-u-s-adults-belong-to-a-religious-congregation-new-poll-shows.
[3]
Daniel J. Elazar, “Federal Models of (Civil)
Authority,” Journal of Church and State, 33 (Spring, 1991), 231-254.
[4] Robert Nisbet, The Quest for Community: A Study in the Ethics of Order and Freedom
(San Francisco, CA: Institute of
Contemporary Studies, 1990), 208.
[5] Maurice R. Stein, Eclipse of Community: An Interpretation of American Studies
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1960), 206.
