An advocate of parochial federalism continues his/her presentation[1] …
In progressing through Eugene Meehan’s (plus two from this blogger)
elements[2] of
evaluative attributes by which to judge constructs, the next element is compatibility. But before leaving isomorphism, this and the posting
will share some related commentary by the founding fathers, John Adams and
Thomas Jefferson.
Consideration of
isomorphism had the last posting look at and comment on the American colonial
experience. Again, the concern over
isomorphism is: does the construct line
up, element-by-element, with that to which it describes, explains, and/or
evaluates? Or specifically to the
concerns of this blog, how well does parochial federalism help civics educators
in identifying those factors affecting the governance and/or politicking within
the American republic?
To meaningfully address that concern, the last
posting gave a general example of how parochial federalism functions. How it relates to the colonial experience and,
by doing so, demonstrates how inclusive its governmental/political factors are
to anyone studying the political record of how the nation’s political
arrangement came about.[3] But one should keep in mind that his review is
merely a case study to demonstrate its usability.
For example, a look at the expressed ideals
around the time of the American Revolution will demonstrate how the
foundational perspective survived and was instrumental in drawing up the
constitutional framework of the nation.
In his Thoughts on Government, 1776, John Adams identified a
moral basis for political arrangements:
We
ought to consider, what is the end of government, before we determine which is
the best form. Upon this point all
speculative politicians will agree, that the happiness of society is the end of
government, as all Divines and moral Philosophers will agree that the happiness
of the individual is the end of man.
From this principle it will follow, that the form of government, which
communicates ease, comfort, security, or in one word happiness to the greatest
number of persons, and in the greatest degree, is the best …
If there is a form of government then,
whose principle and foundation is virtue, will not every sober man acknowledge
it better calculated to promote the general happiness than any other form?[4]
And with this, one can detect yet another
domain of interest or factor that parochial federalism addresses, that being
the moral domain.
Adams succinctly explains that governments
should be established to promote the happiness of its citizens and that end is
best attained through foundation of virtue.
That is, the ideal is a state in which what is moral, righteous,
responsible, and serious is sought. As
such, politics is not merely an area of practical concern, but also of goodness
or evil, right or wrong.
Foundationally, the moral precepts that the
Puritans first established seem fresh in the mind of this founding father. The Thoughts on Government was a
published work that proved to have a profound effect on many of the delegates
to the Continental Congress as they went back to their respective states (the Declaration
having already claimed the nation’s independence) and worked on devising the
first state constitutions.[5]
Of course, the central document depicting the
political perspective of the founding fathers was/is the Declaration of
Independence, 1776.
The
Declaration of Independence was not written in a vacuum. It did not suddenly spring from the mind of a
few men. Thomas Jefferson himself said
in a letter to Henry Lee written on May 8, 1825: “Neither aiming at originality of principles
or sentiments, nor yet copied form any particular and previous writing, it was
intended to be an expression of the American Mind.” Apparently [sic] Jefferson attempted to
summarize what he felt were the beliefs generally held by Americans on the
basis of what was written in the political documents, newspaper articles, and
political pamphlets. It could not have
succeeded otherwise. [6]
But as this blogger reported earlier in this blog (“The Meaning of Unalienable,”
February 5, 2019), here is another view:
A
person’s life, liberty (to do good), and happiness are part of his/her
nature. The individual has a sense for
morality, a sense that that is not subject to being alienable or transferable
to others. Therefore, they are
unalienable. In all this, according to [Gary]
Wills, Jefferson was highly influenced by Francis Hutcheson and this latter
writer explains this distinction between rights over one’s person and the right
to pursue the moral sense.
Wills
[reports]:
Rights arises in, and because of,
society; it is a power over others so long as benevolence or innocence are
directing the powers. The test is public
good.
Hutcheson
… divides rights into perfect and imperfect.
The perfect, as essential to the public good, can be defended even with
private force. The first example he
gives is the right to life. The basis of
the societal bond is benevolence, and no society can undermine its own
fundamental value. Yet security in the
possession of life is not only the basis for all goods one can bestow on
others; it is, more important, the necessary precondition for doing good – no man can be benevolent
unless he is first alive…
He
asserts the right of liberty on similar grounds: “As nature has implanted in each man a desire
of his own happiness and many tender affections toward others in some nearer
relations of life, and granted to each one some understanding and active
powers, with a natural right [to] exercise them for the purpose of these
natural affections, it is plain each one has a natural right to exert his powers,
according to his own judgment and inclination, for these purposes, in all such
industry, labor, or amusements as are not hurtful to others in their persons or
goods, while no more public interests necessarily require his labors or require
that his actions should be under the direction of others. This right we call natural liberty.”[7]
Sorry for the overly
philosophic language, but here is this writer’s understanding: Liberty seems key, but the meaning of it
takes on an unaccustomed turn in that it is ensconced in one’s social context
or setting. The term, natural liberty,
today has been co-opted by natural rights advocates, a la an altered Lockean view, by its current devotees and dismisses
this more social foundation.
Regardless,
parochial federalism leads to such questions and basic definitions that
unfortunately have been mangled and distorted for a variety of reasons, not the
least, short-term political goals. The
next posting will continue describing this evolving set of ideas in which the
founders illustrate their task to bring their federalist precepts to meet the
political challenge of their time.
Again, the effort is to illustrate how granular parochial federalism is
in how it was utilized by those who established a new national polity.
[1] This presentation begins with the posting, “A Parochial Subject Matter” (March 11, 2022). The reader is reminded that the claims made
in this posting do not necessarily reflect the beliefs or knowledge of this
blogger. Instead, the posting is a
representation of what an advocate of parochial federalism might
present. This is done to present a
dialectic position of that construct.
[2] Eugene J. Meehan, Explanation in Social
Science: A System Paradigm
(Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press, 1968). The complete list is comprehension, power, precision, reliability, isomorphism,
compatibility, predictability, and control.
This blogger adds abstract level and motivation.
[3]
Stephen L. Schechter, “Introduction,” in Roots
of the Republic: American Founding
Documents Interpreted, edited by Stephen L. Schechter (Madison, WI: Madison House, 1990).
[4] John Adams, “John Adams’s Thoughts on Government,
1776,” in Roots of the Republic:
American Founding Documents Interpreted, edited by Stephen L.
Schechter (Madison, WI: Madison House,
1990), 129-137, 129-130.
[5]
Richard B. Bernstein, “John Adams’s Thoughts on Government,” in Roots of the Republic: American Founding Documents Interpreted,
edited by Stephen L. Schechter (Madison, WI:
Madison House, 1990), 118-128.
[6]
Donald S. Lutz, “The Declaration of Independence,
1776” (138-145) in Roots of the Republic: American Founding Documents
Interpreted, edited by Stephen L. Schechter (Madison, WI: Madison House, 1990).
[7] Gary Wills, Inventing
America: Jefferson’s Declaration of
Independence
(New York, NY: Vintage Books, 2018/1978), 216-217.
Emphasis in the original.
No comments:
Post a Comment