LEARNING FROM SETBACKS

On my posting, dated April 21, I reported on the research of Carol S. Dweck. Dweck has derived a set of findings that might seem counter intuitive. She presents these findings as challenges to generally held beliefs which her research undermines with counter evidence. The first of these challenges is “[t]he belief that students with high ability are more likely to display mastery-oriented qualities.”¹ Common sense would seem to tell us that those students who are gifted with higher, natural ability levels would exhibit behaviors and attitudes that would in effect say, “bring it on” when faced with a difficult or daunting problem. They, one supposes, would relish such situations and when faced with a setback, they would find a way to overcome it. What Dweck found was that many of them exhibit more worry over failure and are more apt to question the possibilities of them solving or overcoming the obstacles before them. This sort of reaction, in turn, disposes them to a self-defeating pattern. Her research has led to important findings concerning the attitudes, particularly motivations, involved with difficult school work.

As I stated in that previous posting, a lot of what goes on with students faced with challenging work has to do with the particular view of intelligence that students and, for that matter, a lot of people in general hold. Do they believe intelligence is a fixed quantity or is it malleable and something a person can cultivate? Dweck found that a large portion of these students – and the population – believes intelligence to be a fixed resource. I indicated that I would have further comment on Dweck's findings. In this posting, I want to address the first faulty assumption, described above, that is just not true but held among too many naturally advantaged students.

This research indicates that for these students' vulnerabilities, the opposite of mastery is not a function of skill level or even past experiences of success. A sense of vulnerability is felt as helplessness. That is, these bright students, who, upon being challenged with a vexing problem, lack a sense of mastery and find themselves feeling the challenge as something beyond their control. These students express the situation as being denigrating to their intelligence. Their expectations plummet and their motivation to pursue a solution disappears. This is not the case for all high skilled students, but, in terms of Dweck's subjects, the rate was 50 percent. Why do so many of these opt to be negative, to be easily defeated in their quest to solve difficult problems?

What seems to be most at work among these students is their disposition to blame their lack of intelligence and voice the notion that they don't have what it takes to be successful in the situation they are facing. This reaction to setbacks is quite different from those who do hold mastery-oriented perspectives – the other 50 percent. Dweck reports that the “helpless” students did not perform any worse than students who were mastery-oriented. They often withheld formulating their defeated belief until encountering a setback or mistake even after experiencing earlier successes in which they maintained a positive view during those successes. But once an obstacle or failure was experienced, these students turned from a positive disposition to a negative one almost instantly. As opposed to mastery-oriented students, they had little to no belief they could solve the problems in the future – a third of them informed the researchers they could not solve the same problems, even after they did solve them, again. They also expressed boredom with the tasks and tried to deflect the failure by alluding to other areas in which they had been previously successful.

The patterns exhibited by mastery-oriented students were quite different. These students did not blame their intelligence for any failures – as a matter of fact, they didn't blame anything. Instead, they seemed to own the problem, engaging in self-instruction and self-incremental evaluations. Both of these activities were aimed at improving their performance. Setbacks were not disdained, but instead were often welcomed – they seemed to relish the challenge mistakes offered. This, in turn, led many to develop newer, more sophisticated strategies to attack the problem. Whereas the “helpless” students expressed failure as a reflection of their own lack of self-worth, mastery-oriented students did not talk this way. The self-defeated students saw failure in terms of risk, as a source for others considering them less worthy. Mastery-oriented students did not attach risk to their task or to the results of their efforts – they remained positive about themselves and their challenge. And one more thing: mastery-oriented students seemed to know more reasonably when to quit a problem either because they lacked the necessary sophistication or the problem was out of their league. Helpless students, the few who did not quit early, were more apt to stick to the problem beyond rational limits of time.

What does all of this work with bright students mean to the general population of students? One needs to remember that brighter students generally are faced with easy – for them – schoolwork most of the time. They go through the school day meeting one success after another. But what if they do face “difficult” work that, no matter how bright they are, will result in mistakes or failures? For example, what happens when these students face mathematics problems when they are confronted with new concepts or processes? By being able to focus on these encounters – and analyzing these students' reactions – researchers can gain insights about what other, less advantaged students might face on a more recurring basis. By being able to categorize two prevailing patterns – helpless and mastery – we can describe the patterns and begin to understand why a given student will follow one pattern as opposed to the other. One thing was clear from the research: a helpless response does lead to poorer performance and lower levels of productive results. The point is that helpless students adopt an unreasonable view of themselves in relation to the problem or task before them:

Students prone to the helpless pattern may easily react with self-doubt and disruption, deciding prematurely that they aren't any good in the subject. This would put them at a real disadvantage as school progresses, especially in areas of math and science that really ask the student to enter a new conceptual world.

This study showed that a helpless response could hamper learning of new material in a classroom setting, and made it even more important for us to understand the underlying causes of the helpless and mastery-oriented responses.²

My takeaway is to ask: if bright students become so disheartened and unreasonable, given a perceived challenge, what can we expect of lesser advantaged students? We need to work on conveying the true nature of learning and of academic content to all students. We need to have students see learning, given a particular content, not as something you can or cannot do, but as something you can work on and think about and try different approaches and angles, and enjoy working on. No matter how bright a student is, he or she will meet bewildering challenges eventually and he or she will make mistakes in trying to solve these challenges. What will the reaction be when this eventuality confronts the student? I am aware of an anecdotal case in which a young lady whizzed through her schooling – K through 12 and then four years of college – with practically straight As. She decided to enter a doctoral degree program in clinical psychology. There, she met her match and found herself unable to adjust to the new demands. Her “Waterloo” proved fatal to her academic career. While I don't know all the ins and outs of the case, I can't help believing that she fell into this helpless response mode – she voiced her inability to work in a more problem solving environment. For a more positive result, the student needs to understand that each of us has potential to improve. And also that even if at the moment the solution is not readily achievable – for appropriately gauged material – a student should be able to work it out and, by so doing, improve on his or her intelligence and opportunities.

1Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press, p. 1.

2Ibid., p. 12.

SIX CHANGES TO CONSIDER

Not so long ago I recommended, as a useful pastime, the creative exercise of devising amendments to our constitution. I “proposed” two amendments as the kind of thing I was suggesting. I even tried to write them as they would appear in their final form. I must admit the selection of the appropriate language is harder than coming up with the idea for one in the first place. Well, a far more influential voice than mine did exactly what I suggested although I am sure he came up with the idea all on his own. In a recently published book, former Supreme Court justice, John Paul Stevens, proposes six amendments. I have read the language the justice uses and it's a pleasure to see the work of a true professional. My intent here is to share these proposed changes to our basic law, as reported in a news account, but I want to first offer a short argument as to the timing of Justice Steven's efforts. Each of these proposed amendments deserves a response by each of us and I will offer mine in future postings.

As I have written often in this blog, changing the constitution is difficult. It's so difficult that any single attempt should be looked at as being highly unlikely to succeed – if you are a betting person, the rational choice is to bet against it being eventually ratified. But historically, if we look at a time in history when such efforts were successful – outside of the ratification of the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, and successful a multitude of times, two time periods come to the fore. First is the time period immediately after the Civil War. Then the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments were ratified. When a nation goes through an experience that caused the death of about 750,000 – both in combat and from other causes – then it seems that the nation would be in the mood to see what needs changing so that such a catastrophe does not happen again. Of course, many would argue that the changes entailed with these amendments were forced down the collective throat of the South. Be that as it may, they were ratified within a relatively short amount of time – five years. The second period that comes to mind is during what is considered the Progressive Era. Four amendments were added during that time: Sixteenth, Seventeenth, Eighteenth, and Nineteenth Amendments. All four were ratified in the years from 1913 to 1919. Not all of them can be attributed to the national consensus over progressive ideals. The Eighteenth, empowering the federal government to establish prohibition, was not, in my judgment, a product of progressivism, but the other amendments seem to be directly a result of the progressive political forces striving to achieve a more democratic polity. Consider the substantive issues: Sixteenth, establishment of the federal income tax, Seventeenth, direct elections of senators, and Nineteenth, extending the franchise to women. And nothing motivated that drive more than concerns over the concentration of wealth that was occurring during the years leading up to the end of the 19^th Century. That sort of thing should sound familiar to us living in the beginning of the 21^st Century. We are again facing a distribution of income and wealth skewed, to an unsavory degree, to the “one percenters.”

So, what are these amendments being offered by Justice Stevens? As reported by USA Today, they are: 1. “Changing the Second Amendment to make clear that only a state's militia has a constitutional right to bear arms;” 2. “Changing the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against 'cruel and unusual punishments' by including the death penalty;” 3. “Removing from First Amendment protection any 'reasonable limits' on campaign spending enacted by Congress or the states;” 4. “Requiring that congressional and state legislative districts be 'compact and composed of contiguous territory' to promote fair competition;” 5. “Eliminating states' sovereign immunity from liability for violating the Constitution or an act of Congress, which he calls a 'manifest injustice';” and 6. “Allowing Congress to require states to perform federal duties in emergencies.”¹ I know, just as with the case of prohibition, not all of these amendments address the concentration of wealth issue, but I just feel the issue can serve to put us in the mood for change.

I see that Justice Steven addresses one of my concerns that I expressed with my proposed amendments: the concern for reform in our election processes and structures. This does relate to wealth in that current law and political conditions serve the monied interests. Congressional districts as drawn do favor one party over the other and led to the fact that even though the Democrats received over a million more votes nationally in 2012 House elections, they still were not able to gain control. Given how the rich spent their campaign contributions, I judge the outcome to have been in their favor. Justice Stevens addresses election reform from the perspective of Congressional districts – in number 4. While the justice attacked one aspect of the problem, my approach takes on a more comprehensive view by setting up a commission. As I stated in the previous posting:

Proposed amendment two:

1 - The power to administer national elections is vested in a national election commission. The commission is comprised of seven members. The commission is to:

administer federal government's duties related to the election determining the members of the Congress, the President, and the Vice President;

determine the boundaries of the Congressional districts;

administer a non-partisan informational and promotional program to encourage active participation on the part of the citizenry.

2 - The electoral commission is comprised of members who serve seven year terms and will serve as long as they maintain lawful status. The terms of members will be established as staggered with one new member selected every year. Each member is selected by one of various bodies consisting of the House of Representatives, the Senate, the President, the Supreme Court, the chief officer of the Department of State, the chief officer of the Department of Justice, and the active members of the sitting electoral commission.

3 - Members of the election commission are limited to one full term of seven years. Those initial members whose terms are fewer than seven years can be reappointed for one full term.

4 - Congress shall pass necessary legislation to administer this provision.²

Whether or not this effort is worth considering, the attempt, I believe, shows what all an amendment must address. As I mentioned above, the language is tricky. I can hear you: don't give up my day job. Luckily, I'm retired.

Given the stature of Justice Stevens, we should give his proposals our attention and I look forward to seeing if they are given the attention they deserve. Perhaps his timing is timely.

1Wolf, R. (2014). Former justice Stevens wants to change the Constitution. The Tallahassee Democrat, April 22, Section B, pp. 1-2, citations for all the amendments on p. 2B.

2This proposed amendment was included in my posting for February 3, 2014, entitled A Better Way?

BETTER TOGETHER?

With the idea of secession popping up from time to time, a civics teacher might want to address this issue straight on. Not only is it something that is mentioned on the news, as when Governor Rick Perry who back in 2009 stated that his state, Texas, might secede from the union, but it is a topic that reflects the very reasons that smaller governmental entities join together – when they become federated. Of course, we fought a Civil War over this issue when southern states attempted to cut their political ties with Washington back in 1861. But it also brings to the fore the basic set of issues that a relatively small jurisdiction takes into account when the question is: should we join (or stay part of) a larger jurisdiction? When a civics teacher entertains this issue in class, it is the next best thing to having his/her students be able to attend the Constitutional Convention or the ratifying conventions of the late eighteenth century that resulted in our constitution. Further, to aid such a study would be a look at a contemporary example and there just so happens to be one.¹

The people of Scotland have an upcoming election. There is one dominant question on the ballot: should Scotland remain part of Great Britain? Scotland became part of Great Britain as a result of a messy process that took about 100 years and ended in 1707. In that year, the Acts of Union were finalized and Scotland formally joined England, Wales, and Ireland to form what we now call Great Britain – of course, most of Ireland has since broken away leaving only Northern Ireland remaining in the British union. The Scots have had a healthy segment of their population maintaining a desire to regain independence. But a desire for separation is not unanimous among the Scots. The upcoming vote has already proved to be contentious with vigorous debate, name calling, and active campaigns by both sides. The current momentum seems to be heading in the direction toward independence. But there is sufficient time for either side to win.

The side that is working to keep Scotland in the union seems to be stressing economic arguments. An independent Scotland faces many uncertainties. Will it be able to use the pound as its currency? If not, will Scotland adopt the euro – assuming the European Union will allow this? Will it be able to establish and maintain public pensions and public assistance programs? How about its very popular national health care? Will Great Britain maintain common market relations with the new nation or will it set up tariffs and other hindrances to trade between the two nations? If there are hindrances, what will that do to what promises to be – at least for the initial period – a fragile economy?

And what of the new nation's political standing? Domestically, will the smaller polity fall victim to single or limited faction politics about which James Madison warned us? That is, if the jurisdiction is small, it is very likely to contain one or two relatively large factions that will be able to control its politics for the benefits of the limited interests factions. Or, stated another way, the politics of that state will be highly undemocratic.

Internationally, a new nation faces challenges. Yes, I believe Scotland will readily get recognition from all European nations and from the US. And I don't think anyone sees any problems with it being allowed into the United Nations. But how about NATO? How about the European Union – what if the Scots want membership? Apparently, one of the issues driving the Scots toward separation is a desire to escape the more conservative government of the British and get politically closer to more liberal Europe. If so, how will London respond to this potential drift? No, I don't see any danger of armed conflict or anything like that, but a new nation needs active support from its historical neighbors and partners in order to meet the daunting challenges of establishing a new independent state.

But voting citizens might not take all of these concerns into account, because I believe the final decision will be more reflective of emotions than reason. If you are a Scot, the pride in establishing your own independence is a heady proposition. You will be part of the founding generation. So what adds enough emotional impetus for such a move? Do the majority of Scot voters feel sufficiently that they are a different people than the rest of the population making up the British union? Has the discussion over whether to break from London maintained a rational language or has the debate reached the point where an aura has developed and whatever is said both sides will manipulate it to mean what they see as being favorable for their position? For example: “[The] 'no' [pro independence] campaign emphasizes the negative, and the sense that the English are patronizing the Scots as ineffectual and incompetent also feeds the independence campaign, stirring indignation.”² When the debate reflects this type of interpretation, then added discussion just further solidifies and even intensifies whatever leanings a particular person might initially have.

Just to let you know, the vote is scheduled for September 18. There is still time for either side to launch a winning argument. But this debate symbolizes what is at stake when the question of whether a small jurisdiction should join or remain within a larger jurisdiction occurs. Seeing what is happening in Scotland is probably highly similar to what happened in our original states as each had its ratifying convention and debated over whether to join the proposed federal union of the United States. As in Scotland, those concerns were varied and included: by joining, how much of a people's way of life is in danger of being compromised or eliminated? What are the benefits in terms of that smaller entity's economy – more stable economic institutions and a larger unobstructed market? Or is the political union between a larger entity and a smaller one a way for certain vested interests to exploit the business interests or labor groups of the smaller jurisdiction? Why would the smaller entity join such a union if the aim is exploitation? The “marriage” could be pulled off by bought out interests who have inordinate influence and are in the position to secure or maintain the union. That is one of the claims that pro independence advocates say happened in Scotland and London back in 1707.

One way to approach this study is for students to compare and contrast two histories: one, that of the union between Texas – since its governor suggested secession and there was a previous attempt to secede – and the United States government and, two, the union between Scotland and the government of Great Britain. Of course, such a study could take all year, so teachers, so inclined, need to prepare enough material for students to review and also prepare targeted questions that will guide students to the concerns I have outlined above.

In such a study, certain concepts should be highlighted. I would emphasize that any future proposed breakaways need not lead to war or violent confrontation. Apparently, Britain has developed a peaceful means of deciding whether Scotland will remain in the United Kingdom – they're voting on the question. In the US, there also exists a peaceful way. If Texas or any other state wishes to leave us, it would call for a constitutional amendment. This is not an easy process and is one that is most likely to fail – but that is the way it should be. If the process were to be easy and states would begin to peel off, then the concerns of Abraham Lincoln should be considered. For example, if the South were to have been allowed to unilaterally decide and actually secede from the Union back in 1861, then the future of our democratic experiment would come under serious jeopardy. There is strength in numbers to accomplish all sorts of things and that includes democracy and republican based governance.

1The facts reported in this posting regarding the example in question, that of Scotland, were derived from: Erlander, S. and Bennhold, K. (2014). Scots ponder: Should they stay or should they go? The New York Times, April 27, Front Page/International section, p. 6.

2Ibid.

UNCLE SHOULD HAVE HIS DUE

Short posting this time. I can't let the Rancher Bundy case become yesterday's news before commenting on the federalist issue that his claims bring to the fore. For those of you who have not heard of Rancher Bundy, he is the Nevada rancher who has been using federal lands to feed his cattle. We usually call that trespassing if his cattle is feeding without permission, which is the case. This has been going on long enough to run up a bill for one million dollars that the federal government has issued. Tidy sum. He refuses to pay, claiming that the federal government has no legal ownership to the land. As a matter of fact, he has been quoted as saying he doesn't recognize the federal government and that the only legal authority who has the power to impose any punishment on him or any citizen is the county sheriff. I suppose his thinking runs along the lines that the legitimate government is the state and counties are the extension of state authority to carry out state law at the local level. One begging question is: what is the ownership status of the federal government in Nevada? I live in Florida and I'm not aware of the federal government owning grazing lands. I know we have a national park, the Everglades, and there are national forests. But, as in many eastern states, the federal government's ownership in Florida is limited. Out West, it's a different story.

Nationally, the federal government owns about a third of the land mass of the US. There are states that have more than fifty percent of their land owned by the federal government – e. g., Alaska (98.5 %), Idaho (63.8 %), and Utah (63.6 %). By the by, you might think about that in relation to the national debt. Most of the land owned by the federal government is west of the Mississippi. The basis of that ownership lies with the constitutional provision that state admittance into the union has to be authorized by Congressional action. In the case of most of these western states, as part of its acceptance, Congress made the provision that the federal government would keep ownership of these vast tracts of land. Should that be the case?

As it is, given that eastern states are not so affected, one can argue that this treatment of western states violates the federalist principle of equal treatment. To that extent, Rancher Bundy might have a legitimate point. But his actions in protest, in his refusal to pay his fees, and in his continued use of the federal lands to graze his cattle, all seem unjustified and definitely illegal. Let me add, the government grazing rates, according to the Chris Hayes show on MSNBC,¹ is a mere fraction of what it would cost Bundy on private land; the fact that the federal government owns this land turns out to be a subsidy for ranchers even when they pay. Owners of private grazing land would charge roughly sixteen times more than what ranchers are being charged on these public lands.

Those who have come to Bundy's defense, armed and ready to engage in violent behavior, are way over the line in terms of acceptable protest in that they make it harder to engage in reasonable debate over the prudence of the land-owning policies of the central government. It is this type of claim that gives the “state's rights” position a bad name. But Bundy's position on the legitimate authority of the federal government to enforce its laws has no reasonable, legal, or moral standing. We have a constitution that our ancestors established and defended – with untold sacrifices – for us. That constitution has vested in the federal government certain powers and the authority to exercise those powers. With Bundy's racist remarks that were brought to light today, perhaps his notoriety will come to an end. Perhaps he will be made accountable for his alleged misdeeds – if he owes the government of the people a million dollars, I, for one, want him to pay.

1Chris Hays' show, All In With Chris Hayes, broadcast, April, 23, 2014.

KNOWING IS NOT GIVEN

Suppose you possess something of great value to you. It is something you use, but it doesn't become depleted with its use. By using it, it leads to many other wanted things: places, people, objects, understanding, in all a better life. Your belief is that the amount you have of this thing is unchangeable – you either have enough or you don't, despite anything you might do. You might feel lucky you have it, but you can't increase the level you enjoy, and you can't decrease it either – at least under normal living conditions. According to Carol S. Dweck, this is the image many have of intelligence. Due to this perspective, it has led to some beliefs about education and learning that are counter- productive.

Before reviewing some of these beliefs, let me give this view a name. Dweck calls this notion a “fixed trait” view of intelligence and describes it as the theory of fixed intelligence. According to her research, the belief in fixed intelligence leads to some ironic concerns. If you believe your intelligence level is unchangeable, you live in fear that future challenges will be met with insufficient intelligence. This concern leads to some less than forthright behavior. One is tempted to act smart, hide any insecurity, and go about meeting challenges under a cloud of worry. You tend to avoid real challenges; heck, no one wants to seem wanting or dumb. To ease one's concerns, easy-effort assignments are sought so as to be able to outperform other people. Failures take on a greater threat; they might expose limited capabilities that can't be remedied. Efforts to promote self-esteem with baseless praise, either as a result of engaging in tasks of low level difficulty or being praised for mediocre performance, actually cater to this view of intelligence. Unfortunately, there has been a set of practices in our popular culture that do exactly that in the name of enhancing self-esteem. Dweck shows “… how we encourage vulnerabilities in our students when we try to boost their self-esteem within this system. The well-meant successes we hand out and the praise for intelligence we lavish on them do not encourage a hardy, can-do mentality.”¹ These efforts to bolster self-esteem, based on commonly held faulty assumptions, actually promote an aversion to challenges for they might point out the limit of one's intelligence, a limit that is impervious to improvement.

But what if this common view is wrong? What if intelligence is changeable; what if we are able to improve on our level of this valuable asset? A view that says to someone who mocks one for being a dummy: yeah, I might not know that right now, but I can learn it. Dweck has good news; her research demonstrates that intelligence is not a fixed trait, but an “incremental” one. She presents the theory of malleable intelligence: “[i]t's just that [people] focus on the idea that everyone, with effort and guidance, can increase their intellectual abilities.”² By the very act of learning – an active process in which we apply workable strategies to solve the mysteries we confront – we can increase our intelligence, our intellectual abilities. We can see difficult problems as opportunities to not only seek information and understanding, but also as those experiences that make us smarter, more intelligent, more able. Even those who have low levels of intelligence at any given point can have justified reasons to see challenges as those kinds of opportunities that will lead to higher mastery. Feeling smart is not overcoming easy tasks, but taking on the tough ones, working on them, and eventually solving them. The incremental view, if accepted, can have an enormous effect on not only how we learn, but also on how we teach. It helps us free ourselves from the concerns of looking smart to valuing learning through challenges, effort, and dealing with error.

Under the incremental view the following misconceptions come to light:

• high ability students are more apt to demonstrate “mastery-oriented” accomplishments – remember, given a big enough problem, we are all low ability individuals
• school successes encourage “mastery-oriented” characteristics
• praising a student's intelligence fosters “mastery-oriented” traits
• confidence in their own intelligence is key in promoting “mastery-oriented” characteristics among students

I will in future postings further distill this general view of intelligence – explain how the above is a list of misconceptions – and comment on the effects these misinformed assumptions have on school policies geared at addressing underachievement. After all, underachievement is an equality issue and, as such, becomes something we can legitimately address in civics education.

1Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press, p. 3.

2Ibid.

GRADING THE “END”

In a recent article,¹ the political scientist, John Mueller, gives us an update, of sorts, on the ideas contained in a provocative essay published in 1989. Francis Fukuyama claimed, those many years ago, “the end of history.” Of course, this pronouncement was meant to gain our attention – so he did, at least among the scholarly community. The article coincided with the tearing down of the Berlin Wall and the downfall of communism. Fukuyama was not arguing that that point in time marked the end of things happening – things we would consider history – but his claim was based on a Hegelian notion of history marching by the drum of ideological conflicts (thesis vs. antithesis: old organizing idea vs. new organizing idea). He saw that, with the fall of communism, our collective experience on the planet was at the point that such an advancement had come to an end. Mueller asks the question: was Fukuyama right?

With this posting, I want to begin presenting a number of pieces that will review this concern that Mueller presents, and comment. I will do this because in this blog I have been very critical of the dominance of the natural rights construct – the mental view associated with pure liberalism². I might have given the impression that my antagonism is deep seated in the sense that I find nothing meritorious with this view; this despite my effort early on to put my opinion in a more moderate context. The Mueller article provides an opportunity to further elucidate and more clearly express how I think a federalist should view the prevailing construct. Spoiler alert: the concern is more one of degree in my disfavor rather than one of profound rejection.

To further state Fukuyama's argument, he saw liberalism – belief in democracy/market capitalism – as the last ideology standing. He gives reasons for its longevity. In terms of democracy, the political component of liberalism, he points out that by 1945 the states run under democratic rule had been tested and revised to become a highly workable system. After 1975, it had spread to all of Western Europe with the conversion of fairly authoritarian states in Greece, Portugal, and Spain. With the fall of communism, Eastern Europe made a stunning move toward democracy, while in Africa many states moved in that direction, predominately South Africa, but others as well, e. g., Botswana. In the '90s, the largest Muslim nation became democratic, Indonesia. Mueller summarizes this development as follows:

Democracy is a governmental form, generally compatible with a vigorous and productive society, that functions rather well when people manage, on average, to be no better than they actually are or are ever likely to be: flawed, grasping, self-centered, prejudiced, and easily distracted. That is, democracy does not require a great deal from people; they do not need to be particularly good or noble, but merely to calculate their own best interests or, if so moved, to peacefully express them. There are, however, no guarantees that anyone will listen.³

Who knew? The secret to democracy is having a nation of unrequited complainers. According to Mueller, there is no need for exceptional cultural dispositions – “democratization” is not necessary. This goes in opposition to the “Third Wave” literature headed by Samuel Huntington. Mueller points out that democracy has spread without substantial economic growth or force. People merely have to be ready to accept a system that allows them to complain peacefully and elites to come around to the idea that democratic rule, in the public sector, is the best way to handle the issues of the political world.

As for capitalism, despite predictions from very insightful thinkers – from Marx to Schumpeter predicting some form of socialism to triumph – again, this mode of “doing business” seems to be the most viable, the most productive. Heilbroner is quoted as commenting: “... a market system of some kind will constitute their [socialist economists] principal means of coordination.”⁴ As with democracy, capitalist states vary and nowhere is there a pure form of the economic system. As such, there are ongoing controversies: perceived antagonism between growth and wealth distribution, need for and extent of regulation, role and rights of labor, etc. But these are “matters of degree” arguments. We see the attachment for the market model in times of crises. While changes are made, as after the most recent crisis, you don't see fundamental changes. We have come to the point that we don't consider trade restrictions, wage and price controls, confiscatory taxes on the rich, or nationalizing “too big to fail” corporations. And challenging movements, such as Occupy Wall Street, are mostly impotent. Our current state of affairs is that even in nations that are not so democratic, Russia and China, the capitalist mode of operating is very much in place. But when combined with some form of democracy – liberalism – we see it not only as prevailing globally, but also as the direction the world is moving toward in even greater numbers in the future.

Gone are the days of feudalism, fascism, and communism. Today, we have a growing liberalism or some form of authoritarian rule, which is becoming more and more scarce. I consider liberated federalism a view ensconced within liberalism – a form of it. While the natural rights view is a more pure form of it, it places, for a federalist, too much emphasis on the individual. Liberated federalism does not abandon the notion of a strong individual, but defines the liberty of the single citizen more in line with the obligations of the compact, solidifying them to the whole, as more binding. It shifts emphasis from the ideal of being free to do whatever one wants as long as one does not hurt others, to a liberty more in line with the admonition of being free to do what one should do to advance societal welfare. As such, laws, under this view, should encourage this form of freedom – as the Affordable Care Act does and the other laws we have from the New Deal and Great Society legacies. Free to act as one should does not call for force to implement; it calls for persuasion and modeling. And when coercion of some form is needed, a conclusion arrived at reluctantly, then liberated federalism calls for gradualism – an easing into change. I know that these laws are often not initially popular. After all, we live in a time of natural rights thinking. But, if these programs are, in effect, good for the society, the majority of that society will benefit from their effects and, eventually, become popular – look at Social Security and Medicare.

Yes, I agree mostly with Mueller: Fukuyama was correct; history, as he defined it, might very well be over. The current concerns over Russia's moves in the Ukraine give us pause. But this is not a battle of ideologies as such; it is reflective of one of the challenges liberalism faces today, not from other ideologies, but from more practical ambitions of nationalism, as in Ukraine, and fundamentalism – in those areas of the world not yet converted to liberalism. These will be addressed in future postings.

1Mueller, J. (2014). Did history end? Assessing the Fukuyama thesis. Political Science Quarterly, 129 (1), Spring, pp. 35-54.

2The term, liberalism, refers not to the position on the political spectrum we associate with progressives and the mainstream of the Democratic Party. Instead, it refers to the philosophic position which, as this posting will describe, is a belief in democratic principles and capitalism.

3Op cit. Mueller, p. 38.

4Ibid., p. 38.

JUST THE MEANS, MA'AM

A Family Affair is a 1937 film. It is the first of a series of films known as the Andy Hardy films with Mickey Rooney – whom we recently lost . This first edition also stars Lionel Barrymore and Spring Byington. The plot line concerns a judge, Barrymore, who holds up an aqueduct project that will in the long run be detrimental to the interests of local citizens, but which promises a host of short-term benefits. While the film's basic political conflict is relatively simple – moneyed interests versus the common good – it does demonstrate how political pressure on elected officials, the judge being one, can be strident and difficult to ignore. The film illustrates how decisions by officials, be they representatives or judges, can negatively affect a vast array of people who have at their disposal a wide range of political resources: money, emotional leverage, family ties, friendship, expertise, maybe even brass knuckles, and the like. When the stakes are high, you can count on them using these sources of power. What I want to focus on is the notion that technocratic projects, such as an aqueduct project, seem to have a certain level of inertia simply because they are technocratic.

Part of the natural rights' bias for positivist thinking is a prejudice toward favoring ways to control what is – both in our social and natural environments. This world we live in, for the pure technocrat, is one of objects. Our role, according to this view, is to control it. In order to control it, we need to know it. Hence, after an array of ways to accomplish this aim over the centuries, science has been developed – it has proven itself to be an awesome option to attain that knowledge. “Knowledge is power, and the aim of science is control and manipulation. Nature has no worth or meaning save as an inventory of natural resources.”¹ We, as a people, have drifted toward having an exploited relationship with nature. Nature has no use other than to provide those resources that are instrumental to the way of life we have developed. We have been exploiting nature to ever higher degrees of degradation and term it a good thing, as progress. And we seem very intent on enjoying the short term benefits such exploitation accrues and are oblivious to the long term consequences which promise to be ominous. But just don't blame it on science.

The growth of science in western nations, including the US, has happened in a transnational cultural tradition hospitable to the scientific-technocratic view with supportive religious beliefs. Judeo-Christian dogma is well-steeped in the biblical claim: man has domain over God's creation. The impetus for this posting comes from yesterday's 60 Minutes broadcast. One of its “articles” was about Pope Francis. The pontiff's namesake, St. Francis of Assisi, was known for his concern for the poor and other marginalized people. This present leader of the Roman Catholic church seems be following the saint's example. St. Francis was also associated with a view of nature as the object of his love, not as the target of his exploitation. He has been called the patron saint of ecology. He apparently saw nature as a venue in which to get to know God. Unfortunately, this saint's view of our natural surroundings did not have much of an effect on Christian thinking. Instead, what we seem to have, first, according to Philip Selznick, is a logic of dominance. The world, as stated above, is seen as made up of objects. We are free to pretty much control and manipulate these objects. Second, in our thinking about how to use this world, we treat ends, goals, aims, as given. Our emphasis is on processes to attain poorly conceived objectives. We spend scant interest on justifying these things we seek.² We want something and that seems to be reason enough.

From this perspective, the plot of A Family Affair has a more insightful angle. In its more “Hollywood” treatment, the film attempts to point out that this area of doing business is a dangerous source of short-sightedness. It is the same scientific community that is now beginning to warn us of how this short-sightedness is about to bite us if we don't change our ways. But then again, that is not what we have come to expect from that community. We have come to expect procedures from them, not aims: means not ends.

1Selznick, P. (1992). The moral commonwealth: Social theory and the promise of community. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, p. 54.

2Ibid.