JUDGING LIBERATED FEDERALISM, XIII

 

The last posting of this blog reviewed the “structure” of a liberated federalism model – a graphic representation of that model can be found in this blogger’s book, Toward a Federated Nation.[1]  This posting will begin to describe and explain the various relationships the model identifies in an ideal community that is guided by federalist values.

          The first component, the community, should ideally have the following condition, a “functioning community.”  That is a community where a certain tolerance of divergence and inclusion exists.  On the one hand, to engender a level of legitimacy for collective action, there should exist among the members of the community a general level of congruence in opinions, values, and goals.  In the US, that should especially pertain to constitutional values and beliefs.  The word to emphasize here is “general.”

          On the other hand, minorities should be respected and encouraged to participate in the actions of collective endeavors.  Of course, this tolerance – or better still, an invitational demeanor – and inclusion should include feelings of legitimacy for societal processes by which the minority can strive to be the majority or prominent minority, particularly in terms of political aims and goals.

          In short, a community is established that conveys the feeling of “the people as a whole.”  As such, there is an aversion to a raw majority rule as being sufficient to reflect the will of the people.  More of a consensus, at least among those affected by any policy proposal or implementation, should be sought and secured before collective action is initiated.

          The second condition is that there should be a “cultural commitment to federalist values in the community.”  Daniel Elazar argues that within the United States there are areas that have inherited a federalist, moral perspective from the tradition established in the New England colonies.[2]  In that tradition, localism is of prime importance and uniformity on a national basis is at least questioned before being justified.

          Pietro S. Nivola questions this quality in America today.  He writes,

 

In America, where examples of religiously or ethnically distinct jurisdictions are mild ones, like Utah and Hawaii, it seems hard to argue that the nation’s fifty states represent keen territorial diversity, and that they are the secret to this country’s cohesion. Put more generally, the sub-national entities of an increasingly mobile and assimilative society such as ours tend to demand less independence than they once did, and how much of it they get may not make as much difference for national unity.[3]

 

It is the claim here that one is treated to sufficient news items in the evening news broadcasts showing concerned citizens vehemently appearing at local city commission meetings and local school boards, making their demands known, to totally dismiss local authority in setting effective policies.  This account favors Elazar’s judgment on this point.

          And with that localism, one is delving into a certain moral stand.  To state the general beliefs of this moralistic perspective – one that this blog has pointed out as one of the three political subcultures Elazar identifies – they are:

 

1.     A political career is seen as a great calling.  It is the opportunity to do things for the betterment of the commonweal.

2.     The emphasis is on the commonweal, i.e., the search for the good society.  There seems to be the claim that individual welfare, ambitions, and efforts only make sense through the individual’s work within institutions.  Strong institutions lead to the advancement of the good society.[4]

3.     The values of honesty, selflessness, and commitment are emphasized.  In addition, citizens are admonished that it is their duty to participate in the public politics of the community.  They reject the notion that politics is the opportunity for some to advance their self-interests and/or their careers.

4.     The community bias leads to localism.  A good society is a function of people getting involved and sharing in the responsibility to improve their local communities.

 

The moralistic subculture does place on the citizenry certain moral expectations.[5]

          While this value is stated in terms of the general community, its concepts are equally applicable to more localized settings as in the community of a family, a business, a school, or any other arrangement.  If these qualities are sufficiently satisfied in any arrangement, one can consider that arrangement an association.  Ideally, arrangements should be associations and that claim is strengthened only by how important the arrangement is judged to be.

          Here, one can step back and consider that most references to federalism have had to do with its structural elements, and when applied to the US, they usually mean the relationship between the central government and the state governments.  But Elazar prominently points out that federalism is a more encompassing concept or construct.  He writes about the federalism’s processes and that they revolve around such concerns as community and individual participation or engagement in governance and politics.[6]

          Overall, federalist values do support and encourage an active citizenry not only from the perspective as when one’s self-interests are engaged, but also from the view that there exists a set of duties and obligations entailed with a citizenry that calls for such involvement.  Such a perspective relies on a palpable sense of partnership among the US citizenry.  To upgrade this notion beyond some platitude, one needs to appreciate the role civics education should play, for this goes beyond sterile roles that people hold, and verges on culturally based sentiments.

          The next posting will address the other two communal conditions that a federated community extols:  “set of functioning and interacting institutions” and “community with a moral primacy.”  Readers are reminded that what is being described and explained is proposed as ideal qualities that civics education should promote.

---

[1] Robert Gutierrez, Toward a Federated Nation:  Implementing National Civics Standards (Tallahassee, FL:  Gravitas/Civics Books, 2020).  The illustration is on page 230.  The book is available through Amazon and other online book sellers.

 [2] Daniel J. Elazar, American Federalism: A View from the States (New York, NY: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1966).

[3] Pietro S. Nivola, “Why Federalism Matters,” Brookings (October 1, 2005), accessed July 19, 2023, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-federalism-matters/.

[4] See Robert N. Bellah, Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven M. Tipton, Habits of the Heart:  Individualism and Commitment in American Life (New York, NY:  Harper and Row, Publishers, 1985).

[5] Elazar, American Federalism.

[6] Daniel J. Elazar, Exploring Federalism (Tuscaloosa, AL:  The University of Alabama Press, 1987).

JUDGING LIBERATED FEDERALISM, XII

 

With the four elements of a liberated federalist model described and explained over the last series of postings, this posting begins the description and explanation of the model itself.  To remind readers, the four elements are covenant or compact, equality, communal democracy, and covenant of reason.  Readers are encouraged to visit those postings – if not read already – and become familiar with these elements.  But for now, this blog will proceed with addressing the model.

          This blogger would like to emphasize that what follows in no way attempts to offer a model suitable for initiating professional federalist studies in political science.  Instead, the model is meant to provide a starting point, a source of ideas and questions that would be suitable for designing curricular content regarding the study of government and politics at the secondary level of American schools.

          The model is made up of three main components:  the community, participating entities, and the association.  A visual representation of the model is depicted in a graphic rendition and can be seen in this blogger’s book, Toward a Federated Nation.[1]  Unfortunately, the platform upon which this blog appears is not amenable to including that illustration, but the book’s rendition is well displayed, and the book is inexpensive (available through Amazon).  In any event, readers will be able to understand what follows without having the graphic version before them.

          In general, the model attempts to place the interactive elements and their aspects in relationship to each other.  The model is normative in that it presents an ideal set of relationships.  The model is also non-specific regarding levels of political activity.  That is, the model can be applied to local, state, regional, or national arrangements, both within and without government.

          The model is also situational, depicting situations in which political actors are confronted with politically challenging conditions.  Therefore, the community, participating entities, and the association are represented by different symbols.  There are outer boxes, made up of dashed lines and that symbolically enclose the community in which featured associations exist – these can be the government or other arrangements such as churches, schools, corporations, non-incorporated businesses, etc.

          An ideal community is characterized by the attributes identified along the boundary of the model, i.e., they are a functioning community holding cultural commitment to federalist values to a significant degree, a set of functioning and interacting institutions, and a community with moral primacy.  Of course, these are ideal characterizations and worthy, in real life, to pursue their eventuality to whatever degree possible.  They will be further explained in upcoming postings.

          Participating entities can be persons, arrangements (any organized groups), or associations within the community in which the studied association exists.  For example, that could be a labor union as a participating entity in the national community ruled by the US government, which in this example is the association under study.

The center of the model has an enclosed area that represents the association under study.  From that center, arrows emanate to the entity boxes and represent those bonds that ideally characterize the relationship between those persons, arrangements, or associations with the studied association.

          The characteristics of those bonds are preferred qualities such as equality and communal links.  Each entity ideally should extend to the studied association loyalty, trust, skills, and knowledge.  In exchange, the entity ideally should expect from the association equal standing and, if needed, allowances so that the entity can viably participate in the expected processes with the studied association.

          To further characterize each entity, it should be afforded constitutional integrity.  That affirmation refers to the individual or group rights that protect the integrity of each entity.  In terms of how the entity defines his/her/its station within the relationships denoted in the model, there are the following types of held qualities:  status of entity, its conscience, and its practical attributes.  These last elements identify the relevant assets and designations that the entity brings to the association. 

The large, central enclosure, the association, has in its encompassing character (or designation of its type) reference to its founding agreement which would be in the form of a compact, covenant, or charter.  In addition, the association ideally should be based on two qualities:  qualified majority rule and minority rights.  These are familiar to most people.

          In a more central sense of what an association is – what type it is – there are characteristics that establish the distinctive characteristics of the studied association.  Those would be the terms of the specific compact-al, covenantal, or chartered agreement among its members.  In this last concern, there are three characteristics which are fraternal ethos (or sense of partnership), elements of communal democracy, and a deliberative process by which decisions are made.

          Not all arrangements are associations; some are merely arrangements.  An association is an arrangement, making association a subclass under arrangement.  Associations need to be sufficiently federalist in their makeup – such as a sufficient sense of partnership among their members – to be so considered or defined as an association and not merely an arrangement.

          The final element of the model refers to the specific conditions that would be studied in an instructional lesson utilizing this model.  That is, a particular lesson would investigate a case in which the association is confronted by a politically challenging condition.  The study would apply an analysis of the situation based on the ideals presented by the model.

          Ideally, an association would produce some action that could be defended as a moral response and one which would portray the responsibility of the association to uphold the communal well-being of the community.  The condition studied is represented as an input to the association.  The ideal reaction by the association is illustrated by an output from the association.

          Hopefully, readers will have access to the graphic illustration of the model, but all of this will be described and explained in upcoming postings.  That material will review each of the above identified “interactions” among the elements of this model.  Again, readers without the illustration, this blogger believes, will be able to make sense of the model and how it portrays the ideas and ideals of the liberated federalist construct.  But, truly, feel free to purchase the book, Toward a Federated Nation, and look at page 230 for the graphic illustration.

---

[1] Robert Gutierrez, Toward a Federated Nation:  Implementing National Civics Standards (Tallahassee, FL:  Gravitas/Civics Books, 2020), 230.