To understand what this
blog is promoting, it is necessary to review relevant historical
information. This blog is arguing that
civics teachers and curricular developers should use a mental construct,
federation theory, in their choice of content.
This theory has a rich history in America.
To this
point, past postings have pointed out that this construct is related to civic
humanism and that it was central to the thinking of the founding generation,
and finally, how through the years, it has been challenged mostly by a shift
toward natural rights thinking. But what
exactly is it and how is it related to civic humanism? With this posting, these questions will begin
to be answered.
To be
clear, this blog is not geared to promote an earlier form of federalism, which
will be called traditional federalism, but by reviewing it and its tenets, one
can appreciate what basic moral posture federalist thought is. That construct was essential in forming our
republic. Therefore, a person cannot
understand this nation’s constitution without having a working knowledge of
this set of beliefs.
According
to Elazar, there are federalist ideas and structures that have had essential
influences on not only current political realities, in terms of government, but
also in terms of economic institutions.[1] And traditional federalism is the source of
civic ideas and ideals that are functional in promoting social capital.
But it
has its shortcomings which are due mostly to its age. Traditional federalism, in its totality, is of
another time, but it is not irrelevant.
In its time, it was an antithesis to aristocratic and monarchical
privilege and some of its attributes might sound like what the advocates of
Locke were seeking, but the distinguishing characteristic is its reliance and
promotion of communal citizenry.[2]
Essentially, federalism is a construct emphasizing the collective
and organic nature of society. It does
this while not sacrificing the integrity of the individual. It defines society and its government as a
social entity that comes about because of a process in which individuals and/or
groups consciously form a union based on agreement over fundamental principles
and beliefs.
For those who are familiar with political theory, this view of
societal and governmental establishment is one of reflection and choice as
opposed to force or accident. The
members of the group formulate this agreement as a mutual promise among the
individuals or groups making up the union.
The agreement has the following qualities: it is made in perpetuity; it states the
purpose(s) of the union; it determines any structural arrangements; it
identifies any rights the individuals or groups have under the arrangement; it
establishes sanctions that its governing apparatus can administer for
infractions against its provisions; and if a covenant, calls on God to witness
the promise.
Our most
well-known example of a federated arrangement, not covenant but a compact, is
that of the United States. In that case,
the central government was formed by an agreement among both the people of the
United States' nation and among the states of the United States. As such, the US is a complex example. A much simpler example is a marriage. In both examples, a member, whether an
individual or a group, is equal to all other members, be it a spouse or a
nation full of people and/or states.
By
definition, federated arrangements strive to secure equality. Along with equal treatment, each member has a
set of responsibilities and duties so that the union can progress toward
accomplishing its purposes. One way to
see this union is to consider it as a partnership among its members whose
interests are mutually advanced, at least, in the long run.
Federalism
has a long history in the US. It arrived
with the Puritans who landed on the shore along Massachusetts Bay. They adopted the old Judaic tradition of
covenants which had been used to bind people together. But even before the Puritans, the Mayflower Compact, drawn up by Pilgrims,
was a covenant.[3]
The idea
is that, unlike a contract, people from time to time need to rely on others in
such a way that that reliance will not waiver through challenging times. It is not an agreement in which one party
provides something in exchange for something else from another party, as in a dollar
for a bag of peanuts. It does, instead,
define a relationship in which all members' interests are bound together.
That
would be the case under a government (or a marriage). A government is formed so that a people can
be afforded mutual protection and for other purposes. A people needs to rely on this institution no
matter what might happen. By using a
covenant, the Puritans established a government based on federalist principles
– the term federalism has its origins in the meaning of covenant as will be
further explained in a subsequent posting (along with what a compact is).
This
historical occurrence began a theoretical tradition that would have enormous
influence on the nation's foundational philosophy.[4] Its most immediate influence was in
formulating our foundational documents such as subsequent constitutions and
charters which were written during the colonial days and in all the original
thirteen colonies and then states. All
the subsequent state constitutions follow the federalist format outlined above.
While
the construct served as the dominant view of government and politics, its reign
suffered from a continuous diminution.
According to Kramnick, as pointed out in a previous posting, the beginning of its
diminution followed the Revolutionary War.[5] Others place the start of this diminution at
other times. Gordon S. Wood writes that federalist ideas held an unchallenged
position through the writing of the Constitution
by those who led the fight for independence.[6]
This
more traditional, purer rendition of federalism, with an accompanying
assumption of homogeneity, had to be surrendered as our politics had to
accommodate a pluralistic reality. The
homogeneity of the nation or even of localities within the nation was slipping
away within a very short period of time after the establishment of communities
became standard practice and the urban areas attracted more people.
As was
pointed out in earlier postings as they described the various political
subcultures that emerged, America was not of one mind concerning basic biases
and beliefs over governance. Whatever
the beginning of its demise, as a study of the American political culture points
out, the more moralistic, federalist view of government and politics was
seriously challenged by transcendental thought.
This will only be the first of serious challenges to the more moralistic
view.
Each of
these challenges, in turn, undermined the more communal beliefs of federalism
and bolstered the individualism of the natural rights construct. This diminution was not a simple, one-way
trend. The nation’s history indicates
that some of the challenges were very complex in their effects (for example,
the New Deal while providing extensive bureaucratic programs, did reignite a
“we’re in this together” spirit to combat the drastic effects of the Great
Depression).
But
before the natural rights construct took hold as the dominant construct, a
federalist view held sway, at least more so than any other view. It hung on as a pervading atmosphere which
was mostly instrumental in relaying a sense of duty and, when appropriate,
shame when its moral precepts were offended.
And this dominance can be detected in place till mid twentieth century. During its years of dominance, its influence
held beyond the concerns of government and included the family, the church, and
education.[7]
Stephen
L. Schechter[8]
provides a good sense of how intimately federalist ideas affected the development
of our political tradition starting in the 1600s. These recurring processes started with small
settlements, evolved into colonies, and then into a large nation.
America
engaged in a development characterized with “reflection and choice” as opposed
to “accidental” development – a natural growth usually characterized by
monarchial rule. The US can point to a
definite period, of short duration, in which its basic constitutional ideas
were proactively thought of and implemented.
The created
political entities were the product of well thought-out considerations,
including these five essential attributes:
·
the
almost missionary application of covenants,
·
the
reliance on rational-choice (an Enlightenment ideal),
·
the
establishment of republican government characterized by popular consent and
limited government,
·
the
reliance on the rule of law principle which picks up on the Anglo-American
common law tradition,
·
and
the incorporation of “the principle of organizing polities by distributing and
sharing power between general (central government) and constituent governments
(the state governments).”[9]
Adding to one’s understanding is the
writing of Jack N. Rakove:
The American decision for
independence added a further dimension to the concept of informed citizen …
Americans began writing new constitutions of government to replace the old
colonial regime, and these constitutions took an avowedly republican cast
[known for] the virtue of their citizens:
their public-spiritedness, their
willingness to subordinate private interest to public good, their capacity
to monitor their rulers for signs of tyrannical ambition, their knowledge of
the essential rights government existed to protect. A republican government required a republican
society.[10]
(emphasis added)
These are federalist
values in operation.
[1] Daniel J. Elazar, “How Federal Is the
Constitution? Thoroughly,” Readings for classes taught by Professor
Elazar (Steamboat Springs, CO:
National Endowment for the Humanities Institute, 1994), 1-30. A booklet of readings prepared for an
institute for teachers. In a booklet of
readings.
[2] Communal citizenry will be identified by the term
civic humanism, mentioned earlier, which will be more formally defined in
subsequent posting.
[3] The Mayflower
Compact was not written and agreed to by Puritans, but by Pilgrims who
landed on the Massachusetts Bay at Plymouth Rock.
[4] Donald S. Lutz, “The Mayflower Compact, 1620,” in Roots of the Republic: American Founding Documents Interpreted,
ed. Stephen L. Schechter (Madison, WI:
Madison House, 1990), 17-23.
[5] Isaac Kramnick, “John Locke and Liberal
Constitutionalism I,” in Major Problems
in American Constitutional History, Volume I:
The Colonial Era Through Reconstruction, ed. Kermit L. Hall
(Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Company,
1992), 97-114.
[6] Gordon S. Wood, The
Creation of the American Republic 1776-1787, (New York: W. W. Norton and
Company, 1998). Wood uses other
terminology.
[7] Daniel J. Elazar, “How Federal Is the
Constitution? Thoroughly” AND Michael J.
Sandel,
Democracy's Discontent: America in Search
of a Public Philosophy, (Cambridge,
MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press, 1996).
[8] Stephen L. Schechter, introduction to Roots of the Republic: American Founding Documents Interpreted,
Stephen L. Schechter (Madison, WI:
Madison House, 1990), 1-16.
[9] Stephen L. Schechter, introduction to Roots of the Republic: American Founding Documents Interpreted.,
4.
[10] Jack N. Rokove, “Once More into the
Breach: Reflections on Jefferson,
Madison, and the Religion Problem,” in Making
Good Citizens: Education and Civil Society, ed. Diane Ravitch and Joseph P.
Viteritti (New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 2001), 233-262, 240.
