The last posting of this
blog presented an argument: open
societies depend on sufficient numbers of their entities (individuals and
groups) to meet needed societal obligations and be willing to accept
injunctions in the pursuit of that polity’s health and survival. This is a federalist argument; an argument
applicable to polities that are arranged by a people getting together to
formulate them. The process includes the
promises these parties make through instruments of a covenants or compacts. The US is an example.
Currently, a supportive, matching mental construct, one
that supports a federated populous, is not prominent in America. Instead, the natural rights construct –
probably with little reflection among the population in general – has been
dominant since the years after World War II.
This blog has presented various arguments and has described various bits
of evidence to back up this claim. To
add another bit of information, the electorate in the last presidential
election elected a self-admitted nationalist.
One
can see such a choice as logically flowing from an increasing alignment with a
natural rights view. As such, a
dysfunctional number of people in the US today tends to deny it has any obligations
beyond those people choose to recognize.
Of course, for many, that’s no obligations at all.
Such a view actively seeks to prevent governmental policies
that are based on obligations – for example, be willing to pay higher taxes to
fund such programs as public health care or public schooling – from being
enacted and implemented. The Tea Party,
in its public messaging, seems to exemplify such a position.
But
a question arises. Are federated or
federalist arguments, by their nature, progressive or liberal ones or are they,
by definition, anti-conservative? If one
ascribes to federation theory, does one necessarily hold a political allegiance
to a left of center ideology? Not
necessarily so. This posting presents
how both liberals and conservatives can ascribe to federation theory.
If
anything, this federated theory precludes adherents from the more extreme
positions on the political spectrum – socialism and communism as well as
nationalism and fascism. As a populous, its
people among themselves, moves to the more extreme positions on the spectrum, that
makes the ability to give and take and, eventually, arrive at compromise seriously
more difficult if not impossible.
This
factor, among others, makes such allegiance to natural rights – a position that
makes liberty a trump value – incompatible with federalist beliefs which depend
on citizens interacting in viable communal “squares” and “arenas.” It is not that being federated depends on
everyone agreeing, but to be able to discuss, argue, and debate as to what
should be done and pursued. And that, in
turn, counts on citizens holding societal survival or health as a trump or, if
not trump, a higher value than liberty.
That
is so because very important norms and assumptions are dismissed as
unacceptable compromises when liberty is the trump value. While this shift to natural rights makes the
give-and-take of political discussion and compromise more and more impossible,
a previously federated populous, as the US, becomes unfederated.
And
this can have repercussions in other aspects of social life. As seems to be happening among Americans, this
is characterized by severed friendships and bifurcated family
relationships. Does this sound familiar within
America’s current social political landscape?
The media outlets – of both sides of the current political divide – seem
to describe today’s politics in those terms.
To
illustrate a healthier federalist national arena the following is offered. One can probably readily see how a liberal or
progressive can form an attachment to a federalist sense of obligations and
injunctions, yet probably having much less tolerance for injunctions. For example, a liberal supports national
programs such as the Affordable Health Care program – with its accompanying
increases in taxes – that was initiated during the Obama administration. But they are probably more likely to strive
to eliminate injunctions against marijuana smoking.
Each
position can be held not necessarily from a personal interest perspective –
they may neither need a public health program nor smoke marijuana. They hold such positions because they believe
each – public health and legalization of marijuana – serve the society best. They see government having limitations in
what authority they should have, but that does not preclude that government
does have legitimate interests in what can be regulated or otherwise
criminalized. Natural rights proponents
disagree.
On
the other side of center, what one calls a moderate conservative, those
advocates have a heightened suspicion over governmental authority but are
willing to hear the arguments and even willing to be convinced that such
authority is necessary if certain needs can be demonstrated. Conservatives generally for example, support
public schooling. They might also question
whether prison systems should be administered by private companies. In other words, the difference between
moderate conservatives and moderate liberals is not that wide.
Therefore,
moderate conservatives do not, a priori, find as illegitimate
injunctions governments might enact – as a matter of fact, they tend to favor
drug laws or blue laws, like prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages on
Sunday. They are more likely to be
sensitive to traditional beliefs or practices such as those associated with
religion. They also favor lower levels
of business regulations – especially those affecting small businesses. And they favor lower taxes; they tend to
believe taxation functions to discourage business investment.
But
the important thing is, they agree enough with liberals on basic assumptions
making the disagreements discuss-able and subject to compromise. It’s just that they more readily see the
common good ill-served by governmental efforts to solve the various
social/economic/political problems of the day and better-served by the efforts
of people, on their own, to meet, ameliorate, and/or solve those woes.
Oh,
they are more readily wary of government being able to solve or even help a
problem area. Even if they think
government can help, they worry about unforeseen consequences that government
action can initiate – a complaint, by the way, that can also be levied against
the efforts of the private sector.
So,
in summary, one cannot accuse conservatives or liberals of being
anti-federalist as defined by federation theory and described and explained by
the late political scientist, Daniel J. Elazar – a scholar this blog writer has
often cited in this blog.[1] An assumption this blog holds is that this
nation can regain a federalist perspective to be, if not dominant, more influential
in defining what is acceptable political thinking and action.
[1] For example, Daniel J. Elazar, American Federalism: A View from the States, (New York, NY: Thomas
Y. Crowell, 1966) and Daniel J. Elazar, Exploring
Federalism (Tuscaloosa, AL: The
University of Alabama Press, 1987).
No comments:
Post a Comment