OPIOID CRISIS GRADUATES

[Note:  This posting is a continuation of a report on the development of a civics unit of study.  This unit is directing students to formulate informed positions on the opioid epidemic.  Presently, this development, in real time, is reviewing the history of this epidemic.]

As the twentieth century reached its latter years, there was an increasing demand for what is now called opioids.  In the 1970s two drugs particularly, and their names, started to become common and known by many if not most Americans.  Despite initial apprehension over prescribing Vicodin and Percocet, doctors began to regularly prescribe these drugs in the 1980s.  This despite the fact that there were warnings against readily prescribing these addictive drugs.[1] 

Unfortunately, in January 1980, a short letter appearing in the New England Journal of Medicine had a bit of influence and helped change the thinking regarding these opioids.  Apparently, the letter issued by a group of Canadian researchers indicated that these drugs were not as dangerous as initially thought.  Their findings determined that only a handful of people who took one of several opioids became addicted.[2]

Years later, a follow-up comment by this journal further explained that the Canadians were only reporting on research regarding hospitalized patients and not people out in the general public after hospital visits – an observation that seems obvious upon reading the letter.  An author of the initial letter claims that his intent was not to give a green light to prescribing these drugs.[3]

          As the 1980s progressed another drug took center stage.  Crystalized cocaine, a drug that became popular during the 1970s, has a history stretching back 3500 years in South America.  There the coca plant, from which cocaine is derived, has been grown over all those years and has been used for a variety of purposes such as fatigue, depression, and sexual dysfunction.

Eventually, a German chemist, Friedrich Gaedcke isolated and purified the drug from the plant back in 1855.  Further “improvements” found a way to better extract the drug and this was accomplished by a German grad student, Albert Niemann, who first used the name, cocaine, for this product.  His work was done in 1859.[4]

This cocaine chapter in the drug story is important because of the crack epidemic in the 1980s led to government policies that were in place to meet the opioid epidemic.  Crack consumption resulted in an almost 2 per 100,000 population death rate and, under the leadership of Vice President George H. W. Bush, led to CIA and US military interdiction policies.  This initiative was given the name, War on Drugs.[5]

Under that general governmental posture, the opioid crisis grew some years later and became central in the nation’s consciousness as it resulted in vast devastation to numerous American communities.  This development began to take hold in the late 1990s.  And central to that growth was a well-thought out marketing strategy (1996-2001) for the opioid, OxyContin.  That strategy was aimed at alleviating concerns over the addictive qualities of that drug.[6]

A private pharmaceutical company, Purdue Pharma, organized more than forty promotional meetings at three locations in both the southeast and southwest US.  They coined the term, “Partners Against Pain.”  This was a marketing strategy that offered bonus system to incentivize sales of OxyContin.  Part of the strategy was to downgrade beliefs in the addictive danger of the drug.  They claimed that addiction affected less than 1 percent of users.  Along with incentives, this claim encouraged doctors to liberalize prescribing the drug.[7]

Nationally, the uptake in prescribing and subsequent consumption led to the death of 10.3 per 100,000 population and, in New Hampshire death rate of 30 per 100,000 and West Virginia, a rate of 40 per 100,000.[8]  In a 2016 national survey, conducted by Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, it was reported that more than 11 million people in the US misused prescribed opioids.  In addition, one million used heroin and 2.1 million fell into addiction of either prescribed opioids or heroin.[9]

One final statistic to end this short history is the following:  from the year, 2010 to the present, overdoses of illicit opiates have tripled.  There are signs, as the dangers of this type of drugs have become more readily known, that upsurge has leveled off.[10]  This writer is beginning to see public service announcements informing viewers of the dangers involved.  This development of the unit of study will continue in the next posting with reports on the usage of various opioids.

---

[1] Clare Waismann, “The Devastating Effect of Opioids on Our Society,” The Hill, August 26, 2016, accessed June 18, 2018, http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/293473-the-devastating-effect-of-opioids-on-our-society .

[2] “Opioid Crisis:  The Letter That Started It All,” BBC, June 3, 2017, accessed June 21, 2018, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40136881 AND Jane Porter and Hershel Jick, M.D., “Addiction Rare in Patients Treated with Narcotics,” The New England Journal of Medicine, January 10, 1980, accessed June 21, 2018, https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198001103020221 .

[3] Pamela T. M. Leung, Erin M. MacDonald, Matthew B. Stanbrook, Irfan A. Dhalla, and David N. Juurlink, “A 1980 Letter on the Risk of Opioid Addiction,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 376, no. 22, 2194-2195, accessed June 21, 2018, https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1700150 AND “Opioid Crisis:  The Letter That Started It All,” BBC.

[4] Erik MacLaren, “Cocaine History and Statistics,” DrugAbuse.com, no date (some of the statistics reported through the year 2014), accessed June 21, 2018, https://drugabuse.com/library/cocaine-history-and-statistics/ .

[5] Peter Dale Scott and Jonathan, Cocaine Politics: Drugs, Armies, and the CIA in Central America (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1991.).

[6] Art Van Zee, “The Promotion and Marketing of OxyContin: Commercial Triumph, Public Health Tragedy,” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 99, no. 2, (Februray 2009), 221-2273.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Christopher Caldwell, “American Carnage:  The Landscape of Opioid Addiction,” First Things, April 2017, accessed June 18, 2018, https://www.firstthings.com/article/2017/04/american-carnage .

[9] Neil Doherty, Scott Gottlieb, Elinore McCane-Katz, Anne Schuchat, and Nora Volkow, “Federal Efforts to Combat the Opioid Crisis:  A Status Update on CARA and Other Initiatives,” National Institute on Drug Abuse, October 25, 2017, accessed June 21, 2018, https://www.drugabuse.gov/about-nida/legislative-activities/testimony-to-congress/2017/federal-efforts-to-combat-opioid-crisis-status-update-cara-other-initiatives .

[10] Deborah Dowell, Rita K. Noonan, Debra Houry, “Underlying Factors in Drug Overdose Deaths,” JAMA, vol. 318, no. 23 (December 19, 2017), 2295-2296.

A DRUG PROBLEM INITIATED

This is the second posting reporting the development of a civics unit of study regarding the opioids epidemic.  This development is in real time and this posting will begin looking at the history of the epidemic.  In reviewing that history, it is useful to make a distinction; a distinction that is no longer observed.  Historically, people used the term opiates to indicate all drugs derived from opium.  Later, the term, opioids, was used to distinguish between opiates from synthetic opiates.  Today, the term, opioids, is generally used to include both categories.

          This posting makes this distinction because this history of “opioids” stretches back to the nineteenth century when opiates were introduced to the US.  During the Civil War, morphine, an opiate, was an effective pain reliever.  Afterwards, the famous company, Bayar (as in Bayar aspirin) sold heroin (1898 to 1910) as a cough-suppressant; claiming it was non-addictive.

Apparently, experience with it proved otherwise and in due time concern among doctors were expressed by their increased reluctance to prescribe opiates. Shortly after, the US Congress enacted the Harrison Narcotics Act in 1914 which imposed a tax on opiates and, still later, the Anti-Heroin Act of 1924.  In this latter legislation, Congress made the importation or manufacturing of heroin illegal.[1]

In terms of general awareness among Americans, it was, at that time, quite limited.  One can detect during the 1950s a belief that an addiction problem existed among jazz musicians but not a problem affecting typical Americans.  Instead, the mere presence of heroin in the country was considered a frightening condition but limited to small groups within the population.[2]  As a young person, this writer can remember this general aversion to illegal drugs.

Then, during the years of Vietnam protest, there seems to have been a shift in public opinion.  In the 1960s and 1970s, one could readily detect the popularization of drugs among certain segments of the population – such as, on college campuses.  Chief among the favored drugs was marijuana and hallucinatory drugs, aka psychedelics.  The consumption of these drugs became common and, in popular media, often referred to and depicted.  There was even a much-highlighted event in which drug taking was featured; i.e., the Woodstock music festival.[3]

The war in Vietnam became a contributing factor since soldiers, coming home, often came with addictions, such as on heroin.  In Vietnam, these drugs were easily acquired.  In addition, there were highly publicized events, including the overdose death of Janis Joplin, that furthered the general awareness of the problem.  How extensive was drug-use among returning soldiers?  A Congressional report stated that 10 to 15 percent of returning vets were addicted to heroin.

This drew the attention of the president; he, President Nixon, declared drug abuse as the nation’s number one enemy.[4]  And the noted statistics did not undermine the conclusion.  In 1973 the estimate was that 1.5 deaths per 100,000 population were due to overdoses.[5]  What was not known, at the time, was that this level of drug-taking was only an introduction to what was to follow.  The next posting will continue this history and how the emphasis shifted to prescribed opioids.

---

[1] Sonia Moghe, “Opioid History:  From ‘Wonder Drug’ to Abuse Epidemic,” CNN, October 14, 2016, accessed June 18, 2018, https://www.cnn.com/2016/05/12/health/opioid-addiction-history/ .

[2] Christopher Caldwell, “American Carnage:  The Landscape of Opioid Addiction,” First Things, April 2017, accessed June 18, 2018, https://www.firstthings.com/article/2017/04/american-carnage .

[3] Ibid.

[4] “Interview:  Dr. Robert DuPont,” Frontline, 2014 (estimated), accessed June 18, 2018, https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/interviews/dupont.html .

[5] Christopher Caldwell, “American Carnage:  The Landscape of Opioid Addiction.”

A DEFINITE CRISIS

One of the suggestions this blog has offered is for civics teachers to use local civic problems to illustrate governmental action and to provide opportunities for students to engage in some sort of political engagement.  Unfortunately, one such problem is the opioids epidemic that has ravaged many communities across the US.  Starting with this posting, this blog will report, in real time, the development of a unit of study that looks at this epidemic.

          As way of background, this blog did a similar development with another issue area, foreign trade.  That issue was one that could be considered an international issue and was treated as such.  The opioids epidemic could either be treated as a national problem or a local one.  This treatment will treat it as a local concern.  As such, if the resulting unit were to be situated within a course of study, it is recommended that it be placed toward the beginning of the course.

          Picking up on the recommended approach this blog has described, there are three main elements upon which a course should be built. 

·        One, the course should highlight political problems or issues suitable for students to participate with politically relevant action. 

·        Two, the course, in a progressive way, should develop from discussion to formal debate.  As the course provides appropriate instruction, the students should be expected to participate in more sophisticated modes of discussion. 

·        Three, the course should tackle political conditions – usually one per unit – that offends federalist values. 

The regular readers of this blog know that it has dedicated significant space explaining each of these elements.

          The overall approach has been given the name, historical dialogue-to-action.  As a reminder, here is what the blog had to say about the “dialogue” aspect of this approach:

In terms of the total course, this development is to advance by students, at the beginning of the course, engaging in discussions.  This is followed by students participating in arguments or the development of arguments.  In the final phase, students compete in, to some degree, formal debates. 

This development is one that has students, during the arguing stage, choose between offered opinions, usually between two polar-opposite opinions that address a chosen topic.  The goal in this initial phase would be to have students identify and defend supportive data – factual information.

In the second phase, students argue a position that should be more specific than one in which they espouse by expressing a broader opinion.  This is of course, to a great degree, determined by the questions asked by the teacher.  The general aim should be to ask questions that get students to be more concrete and policy directed:  should the government do X or Y or, as the students become more sophisticated, Z or be able to choose from even more options.  In terms of foreign trade, an example would be:  should the US manipulate the value of its currency to help its balance of trade with other countries?

In the final phase, the one that would align with the final unit, students take on the responsibility to conceptualize the issue area into subtopics and policy considerations.  This is more complex, and a teacher should exercise judgement as to what his/her students are prepared to do as the course evolves over the term(s).  In all of this, the process is organized by what constitutes a logical argument.[1]

Since this unit is about a local problem, the unit would arise early in the course.  Therefore, dialogue would mostly zero-in on the first phase of this progression.

          With that bit of background, this development can begin.  The opioids crisis seems to many Americans as a sudden mushrooming problem that befell the nation all at once.  But there is a history to it and knowing and understanding that history seems essential to finding solutions that meet its challenges.  The detrimental use of prescription and non-prescription opioid drugs to notable numbers began in the late 1990s.  Since then, as the statistics below demonstrate, their use escalated.

          What are opioids?  They are a collection of painkillers and originally – and of late – are prescribed to relieve both short-term pain – as for example in post-surgery treatment – and chronic pain.  They include the following:  oxycodone, hydrocodone (Vicodin), and the synthesized drug, fentanyl.  In terms of killing pain, they work well and, therefore, despite their addictive qualities, they are sought after by patients in pain.

          As an addictive set of drugs, they are also popular for recreational purposes.  And overdosing has potentially fatal effects.  Here is part of the biology involved:  their sedative qualities are caused by the effect on that part of the brain – the respiratory center in medulla oblongata – that controls breathing.  If taken in high enough doses, they can function to depress respiratory processes, potentially resulting in respiratory failure and even death.[2]  That has been the fate for many who consume these drugs.

          How many?  The US Drug Enforcement Administration has described the levels of these deaths with this characterization:  “overdose deaths, particularly from prescription drugs and heroin [another related, illicit drug], have reached epidemic levels.”[3]  What adds to the tragedy of these deaths is that there is evidence of related abuses among the medical corps:  almost half of those deaths in 2016 resulted from consuming opioids attained through prescriptions.  This practice smacks of a scandal.

          Here are some initial statistics: 

Males account disproportionally for number of deaths lowering their overall life expectancy from 76.3 years to 76.1 years.[4]

In 2015 almost 53,000 died from overdoses, 38,300 people died in car accidents that year; in 2016, more than 64,000 died of overdoses, a 21% increase over the year before.  The death figure in 2010 was 16,000 and in 1999 it was 4,000.[5]

With those types of figures, one can readily understand why the term epidemic is being used to describe the problem.  It turns out that the numbers are concentrated in certain localities.  It is those communities that might find it useful for students to take a close look at what is happening and ask what should happen regarding this unfortunate state of affairs.  An appropriate look in their civics classrooms is judged as a legitimate place to do so – not because it is a “popular” issue, but because it offends federalist values.  Next posting will continue this effort.

---

[1] See posting “A Progressing Process,” August 8, 2017.

[2] “Information Sheet on Opioid Overdose,” World Health Organization (UN), November 2014, accessed June 14, 2018, http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/information-sheet/en/.

[3] “2015 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary,” Drug Enforcement Administration, US Department of Justice, October 2015, accessed June 14, 2018, https://www.dea.gov/docs/2015%20NDTA%20Report.pdf.

[4] Lenny Bernstein and Christopher Ingraham, “Fueled by Drug Crisis, U.S. Life Expectancy Declines for a Second Straight Year,” Washington Post, December 12, 2017, accessed June 14, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/fueled-by-drug-crisis-us-life-expectancy-declines-for-a-second-straight-year/2017/12/20/2e3f8dea-e596-11e7-ab50-621fe0588340_story.html?utm_term=.975df0e5e2cc .

[5] Josh Katz, “Drug Deaths in America Are Rising Faster Than Ever,” The New York Times, June 5, 2017, accessed June 15, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/05/upshot/opioid-epidemic-drug-overdose-deaths-are-rising-faster-than-ever.html AND “Provisional Counts of Drug Deaths, As of 8/6/2017,” United States:  Centers for disease Control and Prevention Source – lists of US totals for 2015 and 2016 by states, accessed June 15, 2018, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/health_policy/monthly-drug-overdose-death-estimates.pdf AND German Lopez, “In 2016, Drug Overdoses Likely Killed More Americans Than the Entire Wars in Vietnam and Iraq,” Vox Media, accessed June 15, 2018, https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/7/15925488/opioid-epidemic-deaths-2016 AND Dan Nolan and Chris Amico, Frontline, February 23, 2016, accessed June 15, 2018, https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-bad-is-the-opioid-epidemic/ AND “America’s Addiction to Opioids:  Heroin and Prescription Drug Abuse,” National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), May 14, 2014..

COLLABORATIVE AND CONCRETE

This blog, as its title indicates, is dedicated to civics education.  In turn, civics is concerned with imparting to a younger generation that knowledge about the political system under which they live and in which, hopefully, they will decide to participate as adults.  That participation does not need to wait till the student turns twenty-one or eighteen – voting age – but can begin immediately, during his/her teenage years as he/she takes a civics course in middle school and an American government course during high school years – usually the senior year.

          Being that the main subject in civics is government, one cannot ignore the contribution the discipline of political science has on this school subject.  Therefore, an accounting of that influence is useful when dealing with civics education issues.  This posting provides a comment or two on this relationship between this discipline and the school subject of civics.

Political science has experienced a bit change since the years after World War II.  Most, current political science work has taken a definite behavioral turn.  Actually, that turn had its origins back in the 1950s.  Up to that time, political science research took on a more historical character.  The assumption was that by investigating the history of political/governmental activity, one could glean what would happen politically and/or what should happen politically as policy-makers tackled the ongoing governmental challenges of the day.

          But the track record of such an approach was not too good.  After all, such political analyses led to governmental policies resulting in two world wars with their untold numbers of violent deaths, vast amounts of destruction, and psychological costs to millions of survivors.  That study also led to governmental policies that supported economic and business activities culminating in the Great Depression. 

Apparently, policy-makers needed to adjust how to view politics, economics, and world events.  With that baggage, the discipline was ready for a transformational adjustment.  The result was the behavioral revolution – a purer scientific approach.  That is, political scientists began incorporating the scientific protocols that the natural scientists had been using for years.  That included a heavy reliance on statistical analysis of political behavior.

          Since the revolution of the ‘50s and ‘60s, there has been a “counter revolution” that has questioned a sole reliance on the “scientific” mode of analysis.  That mode of analysis, beyond relying on mathematical analysis, is based on identifying, measuring, and juxtaposing variables – independent and dependent variables – and accounting for other factors (controlled variables) – in formulating claims that suggest cause and effect relationships.  A la Hume’s insight, technically one cannot determine cause and effect, therefore behavioral findings seek correlations or tendencies.

The counter revolution, of late, has been a reaction to this mathematization of political science. More current consensus is that there should be a variety of methods to the study of politics.  This can include historical study, analyzing case studies, action research, theoretical analysis, survey research, and so on.  But as for political science being the main source of disciplinary information for the study of civics, the demands of education can tolerate only so much variety. 

That study, in terms of the needs of teachers and the expectations of students, calls for civics to be anchored in a predominant view of politics and in how to study it.  Why?  Because, to students, a wide variety of approaches promises to be confusing.  That confusion is like what would happen if a political scientist jumped from one research approach to another.  Political scientists home in on one approach to their research and build their careers around that methodology. 

Secondary students, whose main concern should be learning how to become good citizens – not effective political scientists – are not equipped to be varying their approach in how they study their government.  As such, a singular approach should be emphasized.  This does not mean various approaches should be totally avoided.  Once an approach is identified, then others can be introduced for limited purposes. 

The question is: which approach should be center stage?  And that decision, in turn, should depend on two concerns:  what approach matches best with the ability of typical teenagers to abstract and what approach matches best with the goals of teaching civics in the first place?  This blog has chosen federation theory as a substantive source for guiding its efforts; but that also favors a historical methodology.  The claim here is that it offers the best answer to the above second question. 

The blog has given various accounts as to why it has chosen federation theory.  Here is another one and, following, there is a stab at answering the abstraction question.  In terms of the purposes, as noted above, the aim is to assist students to become good citizens.  How can this subject matter – what constitutes governance and politics – be presented so that the student is encouraged to adopt modes of behavior one can consider good or active citizenship? 

Federalism is readily matched to the task since central to its aim is to address what leads to citizens becoming federated amongst themselves.  A federated sense on the part of citizens leads naturally to collaboration in meeting effectively practical political challenges.  Here is what Daniel Elazar has to say about the general aims of federalism:

That is, federal theory, to be good theory, must prove itself empirically, and the practical application of federal arrangements must always rest on some set of theoretical principles.  Thus the study of federalism is central to political science because of its linking of theoretical and practical wisdom, which is what all political science should do.[1]

As one reads on, Elazar reports historical information to make his points over the advantages of using federalism to analyze federalist arrangements such as what exists in Switzerland and the United States.  Using comparative methods, he also comments on non-federated arrangements.  Lacking in his analysis is the language of independent and dependent variables – although some are identified in a more holistic fashion.  Federalism is not a reductionist approach.

          Instead, it is more suitable to devising narratives and narratives match more accommodatingly to the abstracting levels in which students think – a level that favors a concrete, but story-like portrayal of what is offered to be studied.  Hence, not only does federation theory portray a more suitable approach to encouraging good citizenship, it also aligns with the cognitive developmental needs of most secondary students.

---

[1] Daniel J. Elazar, Exploring Federalism (Tuscaloosa, AL:  The University of Alabama Press, 1987), Preface (Kindle edition).  Emphasis added.

FEDERALIST STANDARDS

This posting is the next in a series of postings reviewing the National Council for the Social Studies’, College, Career and Civic Life (C3 Framework for Social Studies State Standards).  The reader is welcomed to review those postings.  The last posting looked at the second category of standards, Participation and Deliberation: Applying Civic Virtues and Democratic Principles. 

The third and last category of standards is Processes, Rules, and Laws.  Here are those standards and the accompanying commentary – thoughts that link the standard to federalist concerns.  Since these first three standards are closely related, the commentary will address all three of them simultaneously:

·        Individually and with others, students evaluate multiple procedures for making governmental decisions at the local, state, national, and international levels in terms of the civic purposes achieved.

·        Individually and with others, students analyze how people use and challenge local, state, national, and international laws to address a variety of public issues.

·        Individually and with others, students evaluate public policies in terms of intended and unintended outcomes, and related consequences.

These standards are federal if the subsequent instruction takes a further step.  Not only should students make judgements over the performance of governments or government agencies at various levels, but they should learn how to interact with them and seek policy options those agencies should choose.  Yes, this instructional aim is hinted to in previously listed standards, but not addressed directly.  And here is the opportunity to get real.

          Part of the value of the federalist structure is that it allows for various levels of government to address various types of problems.  It also allows for citizen to choose which governmental agency he/she addresses his/her claim or demand.  In relation to this, it allows that choice to match the political resources a voter might command. 

For most citizens, appealing to the national government for most problems is beyond their means; but most citizens can take their demands to local governments.  Now this might not be totally satisfying, given that the nature of many problems; they take on national or even global dimensions.  But for the typical governmental concern – e.g., getting a traffic light a certain intersection – federalism is a highly functional form of governance. 

And this practical perspective can get citizens in the habit of interacting with government and can lead to more expanding roles and actions:  writing to an elected official, volunteering, writing letters to the editor, participating in election campaigns, joining an advocacy group(s), and the like.  Not only can this develop but the student, through appropriate instruction, can be encouraged to reflect on what constitutes responsible engagement.[1]

·        Individually and with others, students analyze historical, contemporary, and emerging means of changing societies, promoting the common good, and protecting rights.[2]

This is the last civics standard of the 3C Framework.  As such, it serves well as a summary, federalist standard.  Admittedly, it could also be the summary standard for a civics curriculum of a centralized, republican nation – such as the French’s civics curriculum.  But the Common Core Standards project is submitted as the US Department of Education’s statement as to what is the ideal in terms of curriculum and education and that refers to a federalist polity.

          As a matter of fact, by highlighting the common good, the standards recognize that, at least, a primary priority of this project is a collective or, better still, a communal concern.  Yes, there should have been more commentary on how one should weigh the common good vs. individual interest, but there is no reference among all the 3C standards to an aim of self-interests although self-interests – especially in a capitalist economy – are legitimate.

          And this last distinction gets at why the 3C Framework should have expended some space to make a more substantive reasoning as to the boundaries between these two important matters.  When it comes time to make socio-political-economic decisions, where related values clash, people would be helped by an educational experience that warned and otherwise prepared them to make responsible decisions.

          With that reservation stated, it is the judgement here that the NCSS’ effort is enough of a green light to pursue a civics curriculum that can be guided, in terms of content, by federation theory.  In so doing, a resultant instructional approach can directly address those forces associated with the natural rights view that undermine the societal health of this nation.

---

[1] This account has pointed out the prevalence of disruptive political engagement in the US as pointed by Charles C. Euchner.  See Charles Euchner, Extraordinary Politics: How Protest and Dissent Are Changing American Democracy (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1996).

[2] National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS), College, Career and Civic Life (C3 Framework for Social Studies State Standards), 34.  Each of these standards are taken from this source.

CIVIC VIRTUE STANDARDS

This posting is the next in a series of postings reviewing the National Council for the Social Studies’, College, Career and Civic Life (C3 Framework for Social Studies State Standards).  The reader is welcomed to review those postings.  The last posting looked at the first category of standards, Civic and Political Institutions standards. 

The second category of standards is Participation and Deliberation: Applying Civic Virtues and Democratic Principles.  This category has a more targeted offering in relation to federation theory.  Using the concept, civic virtue, a directed message is being communicated and that message can be logically linked to federated issues.

Here are those standards and accompanying commentary that one can attach to federalist concerns:

·        Individually and with others, students apply civic virtues and democratic principles when working with others.

If one defines civic virtue as a moral quality and that quality places on the individual a responsibility to federate him/herself to others within the polity, then this is very much a federalist standard.  The word that most captures this sense is partnership.  Here is what Daniel Elazar has to say about this quality:

Federalism involves a commitment to partnership and to active cooperation on the part of individuals and institutions that also take pride in preserving their own respective integrities.  Successful federal systems are characterized not only by their constitutional arrangements in the narrow sense of the word but by their permeation with the spirit of federalism as manifested in sharing through negotiation, mutual forbearance and self-restraint in the pursuit of goals, and a consideration of the system as well as the substantive consequences of one’s acts.  Political institutions common to different political systems, when combined within a federal system and animated by federal principles, are effectively endowed by those principles with a distinctive character.[1]

One should think about what a good partnership is; it is when the benefit to one partner is the benefit of all partners.  This might sound a bit idealistic especially to those who adhere to the natural rights construct.  But there is nothing unreasonable or impossible to have a set of espoused values that one believes are worth pursuing. 

It is in this spirit that a federalist view, a federalist moral code, is offered and guides one’s public posture.  That one “sins” against it, as with any value commitment, does not mean one should abandon it and its effects to potentially encourage “good” behavior.  In this sense, it defines what good is and what good citizenship looks like.

For example, this sense of partnership places a reasonable bar on one’s ability to judge a position as legitimate on moral grounds.  There are those policy positions that are unquestionably immoral, but if one is too apt to judge disagreeable options in that light, comprise becomes almost impossible.  Federal systems count on compromise and if people are disposed to viewing opposing positions as immoral or otherwise distasteful, the citizenry becomes divisive and compromise beyond reach – nothing gets done.

·        Individually and with others, students evaluate social and political systems in different contexts, times, and places, that promote civic virtues and enact democratic principles.

This standard can lead to lessons that one can consider comparative study.  By comparing systems generically or over time, one can ask questions that lead to political generalizations – or hypotheses – that give better insight to what is political or governance.  In so doing, students can look at other systems – other types of republicanism – that would give them a better sense of what their system is, represents, or is seeking to accomplish.

          Other systems can have different forms of federalism – consociations, leagues, confederations, etc. – and students should have a good sense of what these options are.  In addition, there are republican systems that are centralized; i.e., follow a Jacobin/French approach.  And within federal systems there are various styles or cultural bases by which citizens adopt federalist structural elements to an area’s traditional definitions of what federalism means.

          For example, Elazar identifies three separate subcultural traditions in the US upon which its federal system was formulated.  They are the moralistic subculture (originating in the New England colonies), individualistic subculture (originating in the mid-Atlantic colonies), and traditional subculture (originating in the Southern, slave-owning colonies).[2]

In addition, there has been the more nuanced relationship-based views of federalism.  For example, how various areas of the country see pluralism vis-à-vis territory.  There are: 

-         neutrality of territory view which is based on market values – prevalent in mid-Atlantic states;

-         homogeneous commonwealth view based on a religious purity – prevalent in New England states;

-         hierarchical pluralism based on caste (human slavery and rigid caste arrangements) – prevalent in Southern states;

-         associated pluralism based on membership on service/social associations (such as churches or organizations such as the Lions Club) – prevalent in mid-Western states; and

-         radical pluralism based on a disassociation to any groups but relies on individuals seeking their own aims and views of morality – prevalent initially in California, but more recently broadly becoming dominant throughout the nation.[3]

·        Individually and with others, students use appropriate deliberative processes in multiple settings.

Those who study debating make a distinction between forensic discussions and debates and deliberative discussions and debates.  Forensics is about passing judgements over what happened in the past.  Deliberative judgements are about what should happen in the future.  Most meaningful governing issues have to do with what the government should do in terms of some perceived social/economic condition.  Civics, as opposed to history, has a future orientation.

          The federalist link here is how one identifies and defines the problematic nature of the issues a civics class considers and chooses to highlight.  Appendix II addresses this aspect of instruction.  At its core, educators, using federation theory to guide their choices in terms of content, view the contemporary political landscape and find the situations or conditions that offend federalist values.

·        Individually and with others, students analyze the impact and the appropriate roles of personal interests and perspectives on the application of civic virtues, democratic principles, constitutional rights, and human rights.[4]

A key, recurring challenge for individual citizens who feel it a responsibility to conduct his/her affairs within a federalist mode of behavior, is to pursue self-interests within the interests of the common good.  No responsible interpretation of federalist values denies the individual his/her seeking to advance legitimate self-interests.  This can be considered as part and parcel of respecting each citizen’s individual integrity.

The questions are:  how do people define his/her individual interests and how do he/she act upon those interests within the realities of a social community or polity?  Good citizenship demands that those interests not impinge on what is seen as the interests of the commonwealth.  This can be more challenging then what one would intuitively think it to be. 

At times, due a lack of information judgements to be adequately prudent and even well-intended, parties can choose to hinder the common good unintentionally.  This might become evident after ample investment has already been incurred.  This is but one sort of development that can make seeking the common good very difficult to attain.  But this type of political drama makes for interesting and revealing scenarios for student to ferret out through instructional activities.

The next posting looks at the third category:  Processes, Rules, and Laws.

---

[1] Daniel J. Elazar, Exploring Federalism, 154 (Kindle edition).

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

[3] Daniel J. Elazar, Exploring Federalism.  A further word on radical pluralism:  this view is not considered, by this writer, to be federalist at all.  Instead it is an adoption of the natural rights perspective that has a historical link in the US to the time of the writing of the US Constitution and its ratification.  That tradition has evolved, and the current form is significantly different from its form back in the late 1700s.

[4] National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS), College, Career and Civic Life (C3 Framework for Social Studies State Standards), 33.  Each of these standards are taken from this source.