This posting begins this blogger’s account of the
liberated federalist construct. These
upcoming postings are termed to be judgments.
Usually, this blogger prefaced these “judging” postings for the other
constructs (e.g., the natural rights construct) with an editorial message that
what was presented in the posting was done so in terms of how an advocate of
the construct under consideration would argue for that construct. In the case of liberated federalism, this
blogger happens to be an advocate; hence the message is not needed.
So, with this posting,
this blog begins its “judging” of liberated federalism by addressing the first
of the upcoming divisional categories (identified in the last posting), that of
subject matter. In terms of this
category, the liberated federalist approach would argue the following:
·
It teaches the view of
government as a supra federalist institution of society in which collective
interests of the commonwealth are protected and advanced.
·
It teaches the
philosophical basis of government’s role as guardian of the grand partnership
of citizens at both the individual and associational levels of social and
political intercourse.
·
It conveys the needs
of government to engender levels of support that promote a general sense of
obligation and duty toward goals and processes aimed at advancing the agreed
upon proposals which are aimed at the betterment of the commonwealth.
·
It establishes and
justifies a political morality, including a process to assess that morality in
relation to the changing times.
·
It emphasizes the
integrity of the individual in liberty and equity within a compact-al arrangement
and congruent with the spirit of the Bill of Rights.
·
It points out a
preference for local unsophisticated decision-making to detached professional
expertise, but with an appreciation for national resources, national federalist
values, and legitimate national interests (including appropriate expertise when
the conditions demand it). This is a
highly nuanced claim.
By accomplishing these objectives, the liberated
federalist argument believes that the subject matter of government and civics
will be presented in such a way that advances good citizenship and social
capital.
The
above elements reflect dualities or balances between forces that either focus
political studies at local communal levels or at national levels. This synthesis – recall that this is a
synthesis between the dominant view of natural rights and its main challenging
view, critical theory – in which liberated federalism is both concerned with the
dignity of the individual and with the troubling arguments that critical
theorists present about exploitive relationships within the nation.
It
is also sensitive to the dichotomy of parochial federalist ideals – concerning
localism – and the realities of national forces that originally were introduced
with industrialization in the 1800s and have only intensified in the ensuing
years.
The argument here is not
to reestablish parochial federalism as a guiding construct regarding the nation’s
governance and politics, but to incorporate the concerns for individualism and communalism
to the degree that a federalist approach can accommodate the current cultural
proclivities concerning individuals’ and communal needs while still being of
use to educators and others in today’s world – all of this will be explained.
What
is presented in the following postings will be a true synthesis of not only two
opposing constructs – natural rights and critical theory – but of the American
tradition regarding its governance and politics. And this effort begins with this posting and,
more substantially, with the next posting which will highlight the subject
matter by addressing assumptions
regarding decision-making, central to the subject of civics education.
