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.
