THE LIMITS OF LOYALTY

In my last posting, I reviewed the reasons for a person or a group to federate with others. That is, I shared the reasons a human entity agrees to enter an arrangement with others in which each entity commits to remain in the arrangement until the reasons for the union are met. Marriage vows, to many, are considered such agreements. Summarily, the reasons for entering such agreements are people sensing fear and/or perceiving an opportunity. In numbers, there is strength and strength can be beneficial in seeking protection or in seeking some opportunity that demands resources the individual person or group does not have unilaterally. It makes perfect sense to join others when such conditions – fear and/or opportunity – exist. On the other hand, what is the other side of this coin; what motivates a person or group to dissolve a federated arrangement before the danger is overcome or the opportunity is exploited? Or more immediately, what types of behavior constitute efforts to un-federate oneself?

Once in a federated relationship, by the rules of federalism, it takes mutual agreement between the parties to dissolve such an arrangement – or at least near mutuality. For example, take the issue of whether the southern states could secede from our national union in 1861. Our national union is a federated arrangement. Was there a legal way – that is, a way short of war – for those states to have left the union? The answer is yes. If the South would have proposed an amendment or series of amendments that proclaimed their federated relationship with the United States ended and if those amendments had been ratified, then the southern states could have “de-federated” themselves without a shot being fired. Technically, by this change to the compact that formed the union, these states could have set themselves up to make up their own framework of governance, be it united or separately. The exercise was not even started because the roughly two-thirds agreement among the states that would have been needed to even propose the amendment(s), much less have them ratified, did not exist. But my point is that while such a process calls for a great deal of agreement with such a proposed change, it need not be unanimous – at least not in the case of the southern states. What establishes this type of requirement is the original covenant or compact that defined the provisions of a federated union. In this case, that was the US Constitution and its provision for changing the agreement – the amendment process. But one should conclude that while a particular compact might not call for unanimity, in order for a federated union to be so considered, the provision should present a significantly high standard for dissolution or for any changes in the agreement.¹

Having established the difficulty of formally dissolving a federated national union, how about for an individual who lives within a federated governmental arrangement: can he or she just say I am not part of this union any longer? Does a criminal, in effect, say this as he or she defies the laws of the land? How about a person who moves to another country without any intention of returning? Is it prudent for a system to actively be concerned with whether its members (citizens) are sufficiently satisfied with the national arrangement and supportive of its existence? These are some of the questions that civics teachers can ask their students and they, in turn, can study.

These types of concerns range in the domain of those things we take for granted to those things lodged in our subconscious. Yet when we hear of criminal behavior or of groups being systematically disadvantaged by social norms, economic conditions, or legal practices, we surely are wise to think: are we pushing these people to the brink of – or beyond – the point of disaffection? It is amazing to me how disposed disadvantaged people are to not even consider the option of breaking away from the prevailing governing relations. Perhaps what they see and feel is that they don't have an option.

When I was a much younger man, back in the late '60s, and there was a slew of student demonstrations all around, I became interested in the motivations that led or leads people to engage in rebellion or even revolutionary behaviors. Without having to do a lot of research, I was introduced to the work of James Chowning Davies and his model known as the Davies J Curve. This basic model inspired a slew of work that included the scholarship of Ted Robert Gurr. In all of this academic work, the one unifying idea is that it takes more than absolute deprivation to inspire people to dissolve their personal commitment to the existing political order. This type of loyalty transcends federated governance. These scholarly works pointed to the psychological proclivity of people to measure one's social, economic, or political lot in relation to the expectations they hold about their future realities in these domains. In terms of Davies, he pointed out that rebellious behavior was more likely to occur in times that experienced sharp downturns after periods of significant improvements in the social, economic, and/or political conditions under which people live. Improvements lead people to have “rising expectations” and a sharp downturn causes an unbearable emotional gap between their reality and their expectations. Gurr's work emphasized the relative conditions people live under as compared to their fellow citizens. Again, if there is an unreasonable gap between what one group of people is experiencing and what those around them are experiencing, frustration brews and the disposition to engage in some form of rebellion increases.

If we apply these general ideas to our current conditions, should we be concerned? Are we under conditions in which people are disposed to unilaterally break their federated relations with our national unity? It could be that given that we are a federated union which is based on federal values, that such a system will be better able to withstand the pressures of expectations, as described above, than other types of governmental systems. But given the conditions that so many people today are experiencing – that their share of economic well-being has been relatively deteriorating – one would not be an alarmist to be concerned.

Are there signs of a rebellious mood? The Tea Party movement, 99 Percenters, an increase in extreme right wing groups and the like can be viewed as, to some degree, this type of disposition. I would also include crime rates as reflecting this type of frustration; that while presently crime rates are not at all-time highs, they are very high when compared with those in other advanced nations. Other conditions include our having a growing proportion of our population falling into poverty and having members of or former members of a middle class that, for some time now, are finding it harder and harder to maintain middle class lifestyles. I don't see throngs of people seeking to divorce themselves from the union, but we would be foolish to just assume people will remain committed to our union's compact as if their continued loyalty is merely a matter of course.

1Some question, I included, the provision of some state constitutions, such as California's, that allow changes in its constitution by a mere majority vote of the electorate. This is seen as being a non-federal provision.