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.

DECIDING TO FEDERATE

Why would any human entity, be it an individual or group, decide to federate¹ himself, herself, or itself with other entities? The entity might do so out of a sense of fear over some danger or a sense that a significant opportunity is available; of expecting, by becoming federated, to receive a rich reward or avoid an unwanted development. Historically, we are probably most familiar with the example of the original thirteen colonies coming together to form the origins of our political union. The instruments that bound those thirteen entities into a union also bound all of us into a form of partnership which originally fended off a danger and eventually has been parlayed into an enormous gain.

The decision to unite initially was spurred, among many reasons, by the fear of an impending invasion from what by that time was beginning to be viewed as a foreign force. On July 2-3, 1776, as the Continental Congress was about to announce our national independence, the British Empire was instigating a military presence on our shores of over 30,000 well disciplined regular infantry soldiers. The purpose of the landing force was to quash our attempts to establish ourselves as a self-determining people. They were landing on Long Island, New York and posed a danger to that colony – a danger that that colony could not possibly defeat on its own. But a united effort by all the colonies was seen as the only way to fend off this threat.

Now each of those men who were meeting in Philadelphia to form the covenant we call the Declaration of Independence had to consider the situation very seriously. They were all men of means; they all had a great deal to lose if this venture they were entering were to fail. Yet, on the one hand, they feared a future where they would to some degree be treated as inferiors by their British masters if the colonial arrangement that existed continued. On the other hand, they were in line to lose all their property and likely to have their necks stretched at the end of a rope.² A serious choice, indeed.

Given the options before them, central to their consideration was the strong belief that those with whom they were federating would not find the overall challenge of the coming years too much to bear. The covenant they formed had to be perpetual through the time frame of their challenge. One can question how long they viewed the upcoming struggle, but adding to the pressure they must have felt was the indeterminate nature of what was going to happen in the coming years. Once the covenant was formed, only through mutual agreement could this formulated bond be broken – at least that is what each assumed the others believed – and they were willing to gamble all they had on this assumption.

And in what ways might the bond have been broken? What if, for example, the British made separate deals with one or more of the colonies, offering them special treatment in exchange for their abandonment of the independence movement? Entering into this agreement, each delegation at the Continental Congress had to believe that this would not happen. As it turned out, it didn't happen, but what guarantee was there that all of them would remain loyal to the cause? These were very intelligent men and, given the stakes, I'm sure they each thought of every possible eventuality. Yet they signed the agreement and, as it turns out, they all lived by it.

Of course, this initial promise led, over ten years later, to our present constitutional compact. This was upping the ante, for now the fate in question was not of a group of rich men in a temporal pickle, but of a nation setting about a framework for a perpetual future. Here, as stated above, the union was of independent states and of the citizens of those states. In such an agreement, if you're in, you're in for good. One party or one group within the union could not simply decide to leave the union, not legitimately, anyway. A nation cannot proceed if its parts can just decide they have had enough.³

In everyday life, are there covenanted or compacted agreements to which we can more readily relate? Marriage used to be such a commitment. I say used to be because marriage has evolved into more of a contract than a covenant or compact. Marriages have become easily dis-solvable. Is that good? It is a good question but beyond the purview of this posting. One aspect of this development, though, is a mental approach to family affairs that shortchanges the importance of what is involved, such as the responsibilities of parenting. One should not enter into human arrangements lightheartedly when the potential consequences can be so costly. One should give such decisions much thought. But, from time to time, life calls for commitments of this type in order to avoid serious negative eventualities or to be able to seek highly prized opportunities. Look around; these founders of whom I write, both in 1776 and 1787, sought after a future that we are living today. Our lives would be drastically different today if the founders would not have secured the union we have; instead, we would have been a compilation of small political units competing for the resources of this continent.

1As I am using the term, to federate is to enter into with another party or parties a solemn agreement in which the parties promise to abide by the agreement. This is done through the instrument of a covenant which calls on God to witness the promise or a compact which does not call on God as a witness. The Declaration of Independence was a covenant; the US Constitution is a compact.

2For an account of George Washington's decision to join in this effort see Ellis, J. J. (2004). His excellency: George Washington. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

3Of course, this was the basic issue confronting Abraham Lincoln when the southern states decided to secede.