ACCOUNTING FOR FEDERALIST ATTRIBUTES

Civics classes often try to hit on summary ideas that capture the constitutional nature of our government. One thing that needs to be explained to students is that as opposed to most nations, ours is not developed around a sense of an historical people that can trace its origins to either prehistoric times or the ancient world. We are a people who got started at an identifiable time – the early 1600s. Our history is well documented from the time of its origins. We are not a “biological” people or anything that can be described as a race; we are a people based on a set of ideas. Civics classes are where students usually are introduced to these distinguishing ideas and, in order to simplify this most complicated reality – complicated in the sense that the implications of this truth go a long way in explaining why our politics are what they are – teachers need ways to view our system that can generalize and simplify more of these complications. Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein¹ provide us with a shorthand set of what can be described as attributes. They claim that these attributes have been, more so than not, descriptors of our constitutional makeup. They also argue that our current politics are threatening the actuality of these attributes and therefore it has become more difficult to govern.

While these writers don't attribute their list of constitutional attributes to what I consider the prevailing political construct of the founding generation – federalism – I think their list amply demonstrates the type of politics that that construct helped institutionalize. While individually each of the attributes might be descriptive of other systems, their combination and the way they are actually put into effect within our system give them their American character. They are “debate and deliberation,” “divided powers competing with one another,” “regular order” and “avenues to limit and punish corruptions.” Perhaps the terms “considering different sides,” “separation of powers,” “usual ways of doing things,” and “ways to stop cheating” might be more appropriate for younger students. As a set, these attributes support the central federal ideal of equal and highly individual entities – be they individual persons or groups – coming together to form a federated union for purposes of governing themselves. Let us look at each attribute and point out how our American version of them promotes federated politics.

Many systems can boast that they are based on debate and deliberation. A view of C-SPAN several times a week, for example, shows how the British Parliament members yell at each other, during Questions, over policy proposals and decisions. Mann and Ornstein point out that we don't call our legislative body a parliament; we call it a congress. The difference in this distinction is one of emphasis. While in the British system, the majority party can pretty well ram its agenda through in the form of laws, regulations, and other policy decisions, our Congress is based more on a sense of coming together as a whole and deciding what the best course of action is. Our form of debate and deliberation was set in motion by our framers. Given the potential for national expansion, both in terms of population and in terms of geography, the framers foresaw a vastly diverse politics with a large array of interests and concerns. This approach to governance which relies on coming together guarantees a slow process in formulating policy. But it assumed good will; that is, a level of tolerance and forbearing that would lead to compromise. “This model would enable the representatives [in government, particularly Congress] to understand each other's viewpoints and ultimately reach some form of consensus in policy-making.”²

Yet, isn't this type of debate likely to become stagnant? If there are a multitude of interests from a vast geographically diverse land and the system is depending on agreement among opposing parties, aren't the chances extremely high that such a nation's politics will become stuck? I would argue that in order for such a system to work at all in an efficient and timely fashion, federalist values need to be prominent among the citizenry. There has to be an overarching ethos that has strong communal values and emotions to provide a cultural support for this type of governance. When we wonder why Washington doesn't work anymore, perhaps much of the answer lies in our abandonment of federalist values and supporting emotions. This blog in the past has provided an historical account of the diminishing strength of such values and emotions among our population.

Given the time factor – of inherent delays – our system needs to be more conscious of its “regular order.” Mann and Ornstein focus on the following essential procedural elements: in terms of law making – regularity, opportunity for amendments, openness, transparency, and timeliness; in terms of executing the law – regulation, transparency, responsiveness, and articulation, and in terms of judicial judgment – fairness, access to legal representation, ability to appeal, and lack of arbitrariness. These encourage an informed citizenry and a citizenry that is not unduly burdened by procedural obstacles in its attempts to become involved. Also, citizens need to feel a certain level of reasonable empowerment; they need to believe that participation is not a waste of time.

Last, our system's need for legitimacy is heightened when one understands its reliance on voluntary participation. In turn, the concern for limiting and punishing corruption becomes even more central not only in our ability to provide good governance but to ensure the system works as it was designed – both in terms of its ideals and in terms of practical political concerns. We count on people believing that they are not being taken in or taken advantage of; therefore, procedural polices need to be able to detect and respond to incidents of corruption in viable and effective ways.

According to Mann and Ornstein, each of these attributes is currently being undermined. Our system is not living up to the demands upon which each attribute relies. There are several reasons for this and the shortcomings are manifested in a variety of ways. But overall, the problem is that our politics have become excessively polarized. The polarization is debasing these federalist attributes. I will further elucidate, in future postings, how this is taking place.

1Mann, T. E. and Ornstein, N. J. (2013). Finding the common good in an era of dysfunctional governance. Daedalus: Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 142 (2), 15-24.

2Ibid., p. 17.