For over nearly two years, this blog has presented
a dialectic argument which ended with a promotion of a mental construct to
guide the teaching of civics in American classrooms. That mental construct is what this blogger
calls liberated federalism, a version of federalism. In turn, federalism offers a view of
governance and politics which many scholars have adopted as a theoretical base
for their work. In a few words, the
construct promotes a citizenry that is federated. That is to say that among the citizens, there
is a sense of partnership.
As
such, they are highly encouraged to be participants in the formulation of
policy that the government issues, and that they support a polity with certain
qualities of governance which include an abiding concern for the common good –
the hallmark of a commonwealth. Those
postings that have been issued over the last months have described and
explained this view extensively. Many of
them have depended on numerous citations, probably a good number from the late
twentieth century.
This posting relies on a contemporary journalist,
David Brooks, and his recently published book, How to Know a Person[1]
– a book this blogger wholeheartedly recommends. This posting will ask questions of the author
and supply Brooks’ “answers” by quoting his book. Readers will hopefully see the relevance and
support of Brooks’ work to the basic ideas of liberated federalism.
Question: Mr. Books, how do you see the state of the US
today?
Answer: “We live in an environment in which political
animosities, technological dehumanization, and social breakdown foster
distrust. We’re living in the middle of
some sort of vast emotional, relational, and spiritual crisis.
…
Depression rates have been surging since the beginning of the twenty-first
century.”[2]
Question: Can you be more specific?
Answer: “More to the point, 36 percent of Americans
reported that they felt lonely frequently or almost all of the time, including
61 percent of young adults and 51 percent of young mothers. People [are] spending much more time alone.
The
thing we seem to suck at most is relationships.”[3]
Question: Assuming you are correct, what are the major
consequences for Americans of your overall view?
Answer: “The effects of this are ruinous and
self-reinforcing. Social disconnection
warps the mind. When people feel unseen,
they tend to shut down socially. People
who are lonely and unseen become suspicious.
They start to take offense where none is intended. They become afraid of the very thing they
need most, which is intimate contact with other humans. They are buffered by waves of self-loathing
and self-doubt. After all, it feels
shameful to realize that you are apparently unworthy of other people’s
attention.”[4]
Question: Have people in the US reacted to the state
you describe?
Answer: “[P]eople want to find ways to heal.
… Sadness, lack of recognition, and loneliness
turn into bitterness. When people
believe that their identity is unrecognized, it feels like injustice – because
it is. [They] often lash out, seek ways to humiliate those who they feel have
humiliated them.
… In 2021, hate-crime reports surged
to their highest levels in twelve years.
In 2000, roughly two-thirds of Americans gave to charity; by 2021, fewer
than half did.
… The social breakdown manifest as a
crisis of distrust. … High-trust societies have what Francis Fukuyama calls ‘spontaneous
sociability,’ meaning that people are quick to get together and work
together. Low-trust societies do not
have this. Low-trust societies fall
apart.”[5]
Question: What is it about the American nation that has
wrought these conditions?
Answer: “In our society, we confer huge amounts of
recognition on those with beauty, wealth, or prestigious educational
affiliations, and millions feel invisible, unrecognized, and left out.”[6]
Question: Are there political implications deriving
from these conditions?
Answer: “The crisis in our personal lives eventually
shows up in our politics. According to
research by Ryan Streeter of the American Enterprise they [these disaffected
people] are active in politics. For
people who feel disrespected and unseen, politics is a seductive form of social
therapy. Politics seem to offer a
comprehensible moral landscape. We,
the children of light, are facing off against them, the children of darkness. Politics seems to offer a sense of belonging.
I am on the barricades with other
members of my tribe. Politics seems
to offer an arena of moral action. You
just have to be liberal or conservative, you just have to feel properly enraged
at the people you find contemptible.
… Healthy societies produce the
politics of distribution. How should the
resources of the society be allocated?
Unhappy societies produce the politics of recognition. Political movements these days are fueled
largely by resentment, by a person’s or group’s feelings that society does not
respect or recognize them. The goal of
political and media personalities is to produce episodes in which their side is
emotionally validated and the other side is emotionally shamed. … [A person so
moved] is trying to affirm his identity, to gain status and visibility, to find
a way to admire himself.
[But
such an attempt] doesn’t actually give [that person] community and
connection. People join partisan tribes,
but they are not in fact meeting together, serving one another, befriending one
another. … [That sort of politics is] marked by a sadistic striving for
domination. You may try to escape a
world in the pulverizing destructiveness of the culture wars.”[7]
Question: So, what can we expect the future to be given
what you describe?
Answer: Ultimately, the sadness and dehumanization
pervading society leads to violence … These young men often have no social
skills. Why doesn’t anybody like me? As one research put it, they are not loners;
they are failed joiners. … [G]uns can
provide a narcotic sense of power.”[8]
Question: Why is that so?
Answer: Why[?]
… We can all point to some contributing factors: social media, widening inequality, declining
participation in community life, declining church attendance, rising populism
and bigotry, vicious demagoguery from our media and political elites.
…
I see as a deeper cause of our social and relational crisis. Our problem, I believe, is fundamentally
moral. As a society, we have failed to
teach the skills and cultivate the inclination to treat each other with
kindness, generosity, and respect.
… ‘[M]oral formation’ … is really about three
simple, practical things. [They are]
restrain their selfishness [,] … helping people find a purpose [in their
lives], teaching the basic social and emotional skills so you can be kind and
considerate to the people around you.”[9]
Question: Have American schools contributed to these
developments?
Answer: “Over the centuries, our schools reflected
the failings of our society – the racism, the sexism, and all the rest. But over those centuries, for all their many
failings, schools really did focus on moral formation. They thought it was their primary job to turn
out people of character, people would be honest, gentle, and respectful toward
those around them. But starting just after
World War II, the focus on moral formation gradually fell away. … [As] Edward
McCellan argues … ‘Educators who had once prided themselves on their ability to
reshape character now paid more attention to the STAT scores of their students,
and middle-class parents scrambled to find schools that would give their
children the best chances to qualify for elite colleges and universities.’”[10]
Question: And how about parents and the rest of the
culture; do you share your blame with them?
Answer: “Parents started practicing ‘acceptance
parenting.’ They were less inclined to
mold their children’s moral lives, and more likely to just cheer them on for
their academic and athletic achievements.
… American culture became
demoralized. … In 2018, the Pew Research Center asked Americans what gives them
meaning in life. Only 7 percent said
helping other people. Only 11 percent
said that learning was a source of meaning in their life.
In short, several generations,
including my own, were not taught the skills they would need in order to see,
understand, and respect other people in all their depth and dignity. The breakdown in basic moral skills produced
disconnection, alienation, and a culture in which cruelty was permitted. … We
need to rediscover ways to teach moral and social skills.”
And this blogger would add that a liberated
federalism guided civics education curriculum, broadly implemented, would be
the way to start what Brooks so aptly argues the nation should be about doing.
[1] David Brooks, How to Know a Person: The Art of Seeing Others Deeply and Being
Deeply Seen (New York, NY: Penguin
Random House, 2023).
[2] Ibid., 97. The
answers of this “interview” are directly quoted from Brooks’ cited book.
[3] Ibid., 98-99.
[4] Ibid., 99.
[5] Ibid., 99-100.
[6] Ibid., 100-101.
[7] Ibid., 101-102.
Emphasis in the original.
[8] Ibid., 102-103.
Emphasis in the original.
[9] Ibid., 103.
[10] Ibid., 103-104.
