Does a republic foist community on a person? That is, does living in a true republic, as
opposed to a liberal polity,[1] a means
by which communal arrangements are expected and even insisted upon by
government? Richard C. Sinopoli[2] presents
an argument that alludes to a view of republics as just that kind of place. His approach, I believe, is a bit mischievous. He begins by claiming that the founding
fathers of our republic were not so community minded as recent historical
revisionist work makes them out to be.
He quotes Cass R. Sunstein: “It
is no longer possible to see a Lockean consensus in the founding period, or to
treat the framers as modern pluralists believing that self-interest is the
inevitable motivating force behind political behavior.”[3] Sinopoli counters this view by citing how
much the founders were concerned with the ability of the individual to protect
him/herself from the whims of the majority both through the delineation of
rights and their much focused concern for the protection of property. Through this analysis, it seems to become
clear that Sinopoli is making his case for liberalism – natural rights
perspective[4]
– as the preferred general construct by which to view our constitution,
governance, and politics.
My argument in this blog has been that the natural rights
view enables an anomic populous. There
is a virtual literature of sociological and political research that supports
the general description of an American citizenry characterized by self-centered
concerns, narcissistic biases, and very low levels of political involvement. The last national election, for example, was
able to attract only about one-third of the electorate to vote. Sinopoli argues that while the US is a
liberal polity, it does engage in a full range of discussions and debates over
a host of issues; that liberalism does not by its nature preclude citizens from
being so engaged. But such observations
do not pass judgment on how extensive such engagement is or the quality of the
discussions. He admits that liberal
polities do not encourage much participation and describes what involvement the
citizens partake in is more in the form of interest-group intercourse which is
aimed at advancing those interests.
This blog has not argued for a foisted community. What it has encouraged is a civics curriculum
in our schools that holds community as a general goal – more as an ideal than a
policy of promotion. It has stated that
this can be done by arranging lessons that have students ponder issues and
specific social and political problems in which their underlying tensions are
caused or affected by the affront the issues or problems have on
federalist/republican values. Those
values are summarized by being of two types:
the value for societal survival and the value of progressing toward
those societal goals and aims that democratically determined decisions have
identified. Yes, these same objectives
can be pursued in a liberal polity, but are they?
Let’s consider one issue:
climate change. Here we have a
developing problem, one that promises to be quite costly if not addressed. It is caused by the consumption of the
commodities, fossil fuels, central to our economy and the source of enormous
wealth for very influential people. The
problem, we are told by scientists, is already causing significant costs to
many. The current winter could very well
be a product of climate change. What
have been the costs this year are hard to calculate. But since a definite determination cannot be
attributed to us spewing carbons into the environment and therefore changing
our climate, we officially choose, to date, to deny the connection. We elect public officials who simply bypass
the issue by claiming they are not scientists.
The discussion so far has been reflective of liberal approaches: everyone is merely looking out for his/her
immediate interests. These might be in the
form of the price of oil stocks they own, cheap gas for their cars, their
jobs. Few really look at the general
effect the conditions are having on the common good. And this seems to include a common good that
might be centered on the survival of our society. Under a worse-case scenario, climate change
can threaten our very survival as a viable society.
Our history as a federal republic has had its cases of
oppressive mores, customs, and even laws.
As I often have stated, the liberalization of our national, cultural
mode of being has been more good than bad.
But we have at times gone too far.
We don’t have to love everyone, but we would benefit from understanding
that in more ways than many of us want to admit, our common fate is more
pervasive than our public policies often assume. We would be well served to view all of our
fellow citizens as partners in trying to fulfill the promise of federalist
values. This is enhanced by a general
sense of kinship among us – a mutual loyalty that is based on a common fate.
[1] A liberal polity is one in which community is not
seen as an a priori goal. See footnote # 4.
[2] Sinopoli, R. C.
(1992). The foundations of
American citizenship: Liberalism, the
constitution, and civic virtue. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
[3] Ibid., p. 25.
[4]
By liberalism, I am referring in this posting to
the political philosophy that promotes individual rights that include the right
to determine what course of action one takes in life as long as one does not
inhibit the same such right of others. I
am not referring to the general political orientation that is leftist and
associated with the positions of the Democratic Party. As a matter of fact, the liberalism I am
writing about is more associated with conservative politics or libertarian
political positions and is more readily associated, but exclusively, with the
positions of the Republican Party.
No comments:
Post a Comment