A VIEW OF POLITICS USED BY A NATURAL RIGHTS CURRICULUM

When a curriculum developer determines the content of a school offering, he/she needs to rely on the relevant area of study that produces reliable knowledge in that field.  For civics education, the primary area of study is political science.  In the age of natural rights dominance (which this blog has described), American educators have chosen a unified theoretical foundation, the political systems model.[1] 

This model has its origins in the work of David Easton.[2]  In the 1950s and 1960s, his theoretical work dominated the direction political research took.  In turn, because of this dominance, the nation’s growing allegiance to the natural rights view and other historical occurrences, educators saw political systems model as highly adaptable to their needs. 

Therefore, they more thoroughly saw governance and politics as a complex set of activities and structures aimed at providing public services.  The approach is designated as systemic in that the resulting entity of activities and structures is visualized as having intra-active components.  As will be further explained below, the entity is self-regulating, including its pursuit of its own survival. 

The general process that the model identifies is as follows:  the government or the political system takes in demands and supports from the population – inputs – and, reacting to those stimuli, issues outputs.  These issuances are usually in the form of policies.  If the policy is of any importance, they are authoritative; that is, they are backed by law. 

Obviously, before a government or the system acts, it must decide to act.  In terms of Easton’s model, this is done in what some have called a black box since the model provides little insight into what the decision-making process is.  The model instead shifts attention to those policies or “output,” such as laws and regulations.[3]

In terms of the model’s view of citizens, they are assumed to be generally self-sufficient and can for the most part solve their own needs and desires.  Typically, people are reluctant to seek government services beyond those generally provided, such as police and fire protection. 

But there are times when they encounter conditions that deprive them of satisfying important enough needs or desires.  At those times, individually or, more commonly, collectively, they make their dissatisfaction known to government officials to seek those things or services that they perceive will meet their demands.  This view of governance and citizenship has been described by Michael J. Sandel as a consumer perspective.[4] 

Consequently, government takes on a third-party role which in effect creates a psychological separation between government and its citizens.  This view is further enforced by certain assumptions:

·        One, government's main purpose is to be protective of individual rights.  In turn, those rights afford the individual the ability to pursue those ambitions they themselves determine.

·        Two, government acts as a neutral arbiter and is limited to overseeing a competitive process among the populous as they seek the governmental decisions that are favorable to their interests.

·        And three, individuals are motivated to engage in the competition to advance their self-interest. 

There are important implications derived from these assumptions. First, the process will result in winners and losers since resources are limited and certain outcomes, by their very nature, exclude other outcomes.  As a result, certain citizens will be disappointed to some degree.  This inevitability concerned Easton as he identified stress management as a main political concern.  If the process creates enough stress, this can lead to serious systemic problems. 

And the second implication is that this view of governance and politics places a high dependency on an individualistic view.  This has further implications on how moral concerns are to be considered.  In the last posting, the influence of Machiavelli’s writings was reviewed.  It was pointed out that that influence gave politics, both in its practice and study, an amoral bent.  The only moral concern seems to be the concern for liberty.

Many consider this approach to government as a mechanical view.  The analogy goes as follows:  inputs in terms of a machine consist of fuel and in terms of a political system there are demands and supports; conversion of a machine is an engine and in a political system the government; and outputs in a machine is the activity it performs, for example moving a car and its passengers, and in a political system the laws and regulation the government issues. 

Scholars who utilize a systems model to guide their research often dismiss this analogy.  They point out that a human, such as a political system, has a feedback capacity.  That is a self-reflected response to the way people react to outputs.  Machines cannot do that, although, with advancements in computers, they have been programmed in many ways to provide feedback. 

It is this writer’s contention that the distinguishing characteristics between machines and human systems is the ability of human systems to feel, either on an individual basis or on a collective basis.  This distinction suggests an important aspect of systems theories that one can find wanting. 

---

[1] This writer’s use of the terms theory and model need to be defined.  A theory is a proposed explanation of some reality, such as gravity or evolution, that has had strong empirical evidence to support it.  The theory of evolution is an example.  A model is an explanation or description that has some evidence to support it, but is much less able to predict and/or control the reality it addresses.  In the social sciences, generally, scholars are dependent on models since their research has not afforded scholars or policy makers with much predictive or controlling power.

[2] David Easton, The Political System (New York, NY:  Alfred A. Knopf, 1953) AND David Easton, A System Analysis of Political Life (New York, NY:  John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 1965).

[3] This mirrors a behavioral approach to psychology, especially as that study was viewed back in the days when systems models were initially offered.  In that approach, in terms of attempting to be scientific, the claim was made that one cannot see what goes on in a subject’s mind, but one can see and measure a subject’s behavior.  Similarly, political scientists saw the study of politics as seeing and measuring what governments did in the form of outputs.

[4] Michael J. Sandel, Democracy's Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy, (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1996.

NATURAL RIGHTS LEADS TO SYSTEMS APPROACH

There is a general descriptive statement one can make concerning scholarly, scientific work that attempts to record, describe, and explain what is real.  Scholars seek unifying theories or constructs that provide them a holistic view of what they study.  This is more readily attainable in the natural sciences – there is a unifying theory in biology and chemistry, for example.  Physics is searching for such a theory that accommodates what is known about both relativity and quantum mechanics.

On the other hand, the social sciences have been unable to even approach developing unified theories.  Take political science; as with the other social sciences, it is easily affected by notions of right and wrong – normative considerations – which interfere with the ability of political scientists to objectify political behavior.  Therefore, various approaches to the subject, in the form of various models, are bound to be developed.

Consequently, among political scientists, choices are made as to what model will be utilized.  Naturally, this does affect civics education since this subject matter in the curriculum demands an overarching theoretical approach to the study of government and politics – if for no other reason, it helps in producing and selling textbooks for a national market.

For a variety of reasons, mostly historical, civics educators have chosen the political systems model as their theoretical foundation.  This perspective is logically derived from the natural rights construct.  But more fundamentally, one should not see such a choice as inevitable – as it tends to be – but rather a product of a choice over other options.

The average classroom teacher is not conscious of this choice; the option is simply in place.   It’s what the textbook reflects and is the theoretical foundation of a state defined curriculum and state standards.  Of course, this choice has consequences in that it determines, to a great degree, the resulting content that the teacher presents in his/her lessons.  That includes what is emphasized, what is asked about, and what desired outcomes are sought.

To provide an overview, a political systems model, as it reflects natural rights perspective, is to guide educators to see politics as a grand procedure in which a compromise is sought over competing ambitions.  Generally, the studied procedure is deemed to be a legitimate, competitive process. 

The model does this by defining citizenship, government, and politics in terms that are conducive to this competitive imagery.  It indicates or seeks explanations about how, in generic terms, these elements coordinate to arrive at distributive decisions – who gets what, when, and where – and how those decisions are implemented. 

One could ask:  what other options are there?  Well, the choice could be a construct in which more communal concerns are highlighted (as with efforts to promote social capital as described in this blog).  Instead, the choice of the natural rights/political systems option is one that promotes a more individualist and consumerist approach to the study of government and politics. 

This blog has identified the origins of the natural rights view in the writings of John Locke.  In terms of political systems, it philosophically can be traced to two sources:  the Enlightenment and the ideas of Niccolo Machiavelli. 

The effect of the Enlightenment is to promote three qualities:  a bias for rational thought, the use of logical analysis, and a genuine appreciation for what is natural.  These biases have been expressed through a call for and a reliance on science and scientific research methodologies. 

In terms of Machiavelli’s influence, the Italian theorist’s writings have the effect of encouraging political scholars to dismiss their concerns over whether governmental policies are moral and, instead, to view politics as amoral.  That is, they are to study the selfish ambitions of political actors and this, in turn, reflects an objectified search for how these actors attain and implement power.[1] 

Overall, such a search will uncover certain claimed truisms concerning politics.  That is, politics is merely part of our human nature, as it is and not in as it should be.  Ironically, though, normative elements cannot be totally ignored in that such a view of politics dictates how governmental officials – Machiavelli focuses on the prince – should conduct their responsibilities.  He summarizes this mode of governing as a leader being both a lion and fox.

How?  For example, concerns by a leader for the welfare of constituents are misplaced.  Consequently, he/she should not provide resources to the poor. To do so would make the ruler seem weak because he or she would apparently be motivated by sentimentality and inevitably hated when he or she cannot afford to provide the assistance.

The leader sees his/her interests in relation to citizens as being limited to policies that advance his/her power.  As such, this “allows” a political actor – who is not sentimental – to seek his/her political ambitions with few restraints other than those imposed by actors who have more power.  In its purest form, it is known as being “Machiavellian.”

This is not to say that either the ideas of the Enlightenment or of Machiavelli dictate what constitutes a study or a lesson plan that utilizes natural rights/political systems perspective; instead, these sources provide philosophical underpinnings to the perspective.  But, having pointed that out, one should see these sources as two guiding influences on how the perspective guides either political science research or lesson planning in civics.

In addition, it also reflects how most citizens view government and politics.  While most do not hold this bias in its purest form – see the previous posting – there is among the citizenry a leaning toward believing everyone is about taking care of his/her own interests with little concern for the common benefit. 

While most would not describe politics as amoral, they do tend to objectify its study – assuming the issue in question does not directly affect the person being asked.  It is quite amazing how many of the most ardent proponents of natural rights views seem to be more in favor of government action being “sympathetic” to their needs when their interests are threatened – often using communal language to further those interests.  But short of that, being sensitive to communal concerns is generally seen as being naively idealistic.[2]

---

[1] By stating that the concern is over a citizen’s interests, a citizen is free to define those interests in terms of promoting the welfare of others.  He/she is free to be as selfish or altruistic as he/she deems is best for him/herself.  That is, “selfish ambitions” could be defined as being concerned with others.  Yet, this is not seen as a very likely expression of an actor’s ambitions.

[2] Norman Ornstein, “American Democracy and the Common Good,” The Huffington Post, accessed September 22, 2016, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/norman-ornstein/american-democracy-and-th_b_3354628.html.