A SYNTHESIS

With traditional federalism degraded in the collective view of Americans, although it is still strong within certain areas of the country, the natural rights view emerged as the prevalent perspective of governance and politics in the years following World War II.  One consequence of this construct’s upgrade is that it has become the subtext of the nation’s civics curriculum.  This blog finds this condition – the emergence of the natural rights construct – as deficient and, at minimum, an enabler of much of the nation’s civic problems.

          In its stead, this blog argues that, in terms of civics curriculum, natural rights should be replaced, in an organized way, by a revised version of federalism.  That version is given the name, liberated federalism, and subsequent postings will describe and explain what its tenets are.  The overview just presented over the last several postings of traditional federalism did much of the legwork, in terms of introducing the reader to the major ideas of federalism. 

Perhaps a good way to view the shift to a liberated federalism is to see it as a synthesis among the various mental constructs that are prevalent today.  In their curricular book, Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins describe their feelings concerning critical pedagogues with their near radical views on the problem of inequality and the excessive individualism that characterizes much of the curriculum in effect in our schools today.  They write:

Reflective educators realize that schools can nurture in students a celebration of the individual along with a concern for others.  Students can apprehend that competition [a natural rights concern] and cooperation [a critical theory concern] can be melded effectively.  It is evident that major change within society will come not from replacing one system of beliefs with another but rather in the generation of a new system that melds both evolutionary and revolutionary ideas and ideals.[1] (emphasis added)

Such melding, which can also incorporate the ideas and ideals of federation theory, should start with paying attention to what a proposed mental construct holds to be moral.  Moral commitments serve as a foundation of any political theory.  Even the most callous or self-serving political doctrine, at its basis, justifies the power distribution model it espouses through a set of moral positions.  These can range from the most secular and practical to the most spiritual and otherworldly.  But any system of governance needs to ground what it does in a view of morality.[2] 

While traditional federalism is of another time, a newer version can meet the challenge of providing an appropriate approach to civics education.  Its foundation is on a view of morality neither relying on a trump value of liberty, as in natural rights, nor of equality, as in critical theory.  Initially, in formulating an updated federalism, one needs to seriously address what such an approach would hold as its moral basis for governance and politics.

          One can ask:  what is the legitimate role of public schools in values education?  Replace the words “public schools” in the question with “government” and the concern becomes obvious.  The writer holds a related memory:  each of his parochial school days started with religious instruction.  Why don’t public schools have something similar by addressing moral or ethical issues, particularly in social studies classes?  Some are opposed to a government agency – schools – promoting political values; others with a collusion with an organized religion.

There is a prohibition of religious instruction in public schools.  This prohibition is not to say that such sectarian moral codes cannot be mentioned in public schools.  For example, any study of world history would refer to religious influence in determining many historical events and trends.  Sectarian beliefs of morality can also be provided to students as alternative views when considering moral questions if it is not the presented as the only or favored option.

The prohibition is against promoting religious beliefs or establishing a connection to a religion or religions.[3]  So, one can further ask: could such instruction be done within the constraints of the First Amendment and its clause prohibiting the “establishment” of religion and still be based on a moral, federalist view?  What would such an effort include? 

·        One, it cannot offend the constitutional restrictions of the First Amendment demanding a curriculum that is not sectarian, but secular.

·        Two, that it be committed to a substantive moral view which does not dissemble into a relativistic set of beliefs that avoids giving clear objective standards for good and evil.

·        Three, that it cannot promote a political ideology which would offend established beliefs of large segments of the population – those people whose tax money pays for our public schools.

·        Four, a moral view guiding such an effort does need to be flexible enough so that under its purview, the wide array of moral issues facing the nation at any given time can be addressed.

Stating the challenge, a bit differently:  such proposed instruction needs to be substantive enough so that students are clearly informed as to its sense of good and evil, but not so restrictive that half the population would be opposed to it.  It also needs to allow students to disagree with its beliefs; so that they can debate derived issues.

Another concern is that a secular based, moral instruction needs to utilize a consequential approach to moral reasoning.  That is, something is not moral or immoral in and of itself, but due to the consequences of that something happening, e.g., cheating is immoral because it shortchanges the legitimate interests of someone and, in turn, undermines trust, which in turn leads to other consequences, etc. 

But there is a point in this reasoning at which even a consequential approach hits upon a basic, trump value.  As such, that trump value, a value that is held to be the most important value and is deferred to in any contention among values, would be used to guide which issues students should investigate.  It would also guide in the choice of questions that are used in those investigations. 

It has been pointed out in this blog that the natural rights construct holds liberty as its trump value and critical theory holds equality as its trump value.  Any consequential approach logically needs a trump value eventually.  So, the first step in developing a moral view for liberated federalism is to settle on a trump value.  To arrive at one, a review of the Western philosophic tradition was deemed to be useful.  That review offered the following results:

Aristotelian ethics promote a morality anchored with the concerns of the polity – a collective sensitivity;

Utilitarianism, that while it supports a self-centered sense of human happiness, does establish a consequential moral system;

David Hume, who points out that while what is believed to factually exist (the is) cannot indicate or determine what – for normative reasons – is correct (the ought), one is reminded that certain factual conditions do correlate to certain desired outcomes and that values can be warranted only by sentiments;

Immanuel Kant, who argues that any resulting view must not sacrifice the integrity of each person and that there are categorical imperatives that ultimately determine what is good or evil;[4]

Pragmatism, that highlights a future orientation of pragmatic thinking, the inexorable connection between means and ends, and the tie between what is moral and the interests of associations; and

John Rawls, who argues, through the utilization of a mental exercise, that any person would seek true equal opportunity if he/she does not know a priori his/her position in a formulated polity or society and that advantages are arbitrarily distributed through natural causes (genetic factors and natural environments) or communal conditions (social factors). 

These are the primary ideas from the Western tradition – which deserve more space to flesh out – that were considered in developing the moral view offered in the next posting.  A quote by Aristotle gives one a good overall effect of these sources in the development of a federalist, moral view and a suitable message to end this posting:

In all arts and sciences[,] the end in view is some good.  In the most sovereign of all the arts and sciences – and this is the art and science of politics – the end in view is the greatest good and the good which is most pursued.  The good in the sphere of politics is justice; and justice consists in what tends to promote the common interest.[5]

---

[1] Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins, Curriculum:  Foundations, Principles, and Issues (Boston, MA:  Pearson), 143.

[2] One might find it difficult to see any sense of morality in a criminal regime that rules solely through force.  But the claim that “might makes right” is a moral claim.  It is a claim not shared by those who see life through modern eyes, but it is, unfortunately, one that has a rich history.  Ultimately, those who ascribe to it would argue, all political arrangements are based on this belief.  Even selfishness is a moral position (in its broadest sense), if only shared by a single person.

[3] For those interested, they should look up the Lemon Test, which is what the courts use to determine whether schools are offending the establishment clause.

[4] Through his use of categorical imperatives, Kant’s moral system is not a consequential approach to moral reasoning.

[5] Aristotle, “Aristotle: The politics,” in The Great Political Theories, ed. Michael Curtis (New York, NY: Avon Books, 1961), 87.