An advocate of parochial federalism continues his/her presentation[1] …
Eugene Meehan provides a list of concerns that guides a researcher in
choosing a theoretical construct[2] by
suggesting questions he/she can ask of a perspective construct. This blog has identified this list and has
used the elements of it to critically review parochial federalism not to guide
research, but to guide the development of a civics curriculum. That is, such a construct suggests the
direction – what questions and themes it should pursue – that a curriculum
should utilize in classroom instruction.
To remind the reader, the
list is comprehension, power, precision, reliability, isomorphism,
compatibility, predictability, and control.
This blogger has added two more elements that more directly relate to
the concerns of educators: abstraction level, and motivation. Following the order of this listing as
presented here, the blog has shared this presentation’s application of the
first five elements (from comprehension to isomorphism) in its presentation of
what an advocate of parochial federalism might judge this construct to be.
That is, each element
suggests a conclusion concerning the construct and this blog has reported how it
sees parochial federalism measuring up to the ideals that this listing identifies. The sixth conclusion is that parochial
federalism is conducive to other explanatory theories/models of American
government because it absorbs them all.
Quite a claim to make,
but here is how this assertion is offered.
All other theories or models are intermediary explanations that attempt
to analyze some aspect of federalist theory as it pertains to the US. Such constructs or theories or approaches are
mid-range. For example, systems theory
(which will be further addressed as this blog presents the argument for natural
rights) looks at complex interdependent attributes of some social/political
arrangement and studies their interaction and control mechanisms.[3]
While this is quite inclusive of governance and
politics, it still does not address all the concerns a political science
discipline sets out to address. There is
nothing in systems theory that refutes parochial federalism; they are parallel
views – their distinction is in terms of normative concerns. And here, one needs to consider why political
study is conducted.
According to Daniel Elazar, the purposes of
political study are to:
·
pursue the quality of justice as an
integral part of government’s role in establishing and maintaining order,
·
discover generalizable factors that
correlate with various political acts within the polity under study, and
·
discover, communicate, and promote those
policies that create and sustain a functional civic environment – through a
civil society and a civil community.[4]
As utilized, systems theory ignores the first and third and focuses on discovering
generalizable insights (the second aim).
Why? The
utilization of systems theory was meant to reflect its advocates’ commitment to
turn political science into being more “scientific” and avoiding normative concerns,
which the first and third aims above are.
But to the extent the two constructs coincide in their attempts to
reveal the reality of politics, systems theory helps one see why parochial
federalism works in day-to-day politics from the perspective of this other systems
model.
Another example is to compare parochial
federalism to chaos theory. By trying to
explain the underlying order from what appears to be disorder,[5]
chaos theory is a mid-range theory.
Specifically, chaos delves into the diverse forces of ethnic politics
and centers on the challenges they pose the polity. As such, it sheds light on the federalist
processes which bring pluralist elements into a cohesive whole.
Both chaos theory and systems theory are
parallel in some focused factors to parochial federalist construct. Parochial federalism is the all-encompassing
theory for explaining and prescribing the operation and structure of an
extended republic, i.e., one that attempts to bring together heterogeneous
populations within organized cultural structures. In America, that would be the Anglo-based
foundation of its polity.
Moving on, the seventh and eighth conclusions
from the above evidence (over the last several postings) are closely
linked. That is, the parochial
federalist construct has both predictive and controlling power. Given the explicit values prescribed by the
construct, implementation of its principles and organizing tenets led and
continues to lead to a healthy and viable republic. As a matter of fact, any signs to the
contrary can be attributed to the fact that America, since World War II, has no
longer held this construct as dominant within its political culture.
While definitional issues had to be developed
through the course of this nation’s history, as those mentioned earlier in this
blog dealing with inclusions of groups such as African Americans, the basic
logic and values were being worked out and truer federalist arrangements were
manifesting themselves in a civil society.
The movement away from federalist/republican
principles, as predicted by many founding fathers and a whole tradition of
political philosophers – starting with Aristotle – has led to the level of
incivility and lower levels of civic capital the nation is experiencing today. The construct makes it clear that the way to recapture
what one can describe as a fuller civil society is to reapply the same
parochial federalist principles that launched this nation back in the late 1700s. As such, the construct has demonstrated its
predictability and control, the last two Meehan concerns.
And that leaves the two added concerns this
blogger attaches to Meehan’s list:
abstraction level and motivation.
This blogger’s published book, Toward a Federated Nation, delves extensively
into these elements. Good marketing
would merely state here: go get a copy
and not only be informed as to how federalism is of an appropriate abstract
level and instrumental in being motivational, but also instructs the reader as
to how it does these two desirable aims.
Albeit using another version of federalism
(liberated federalism), the book not only addresses these two elements, but also
gives examples of lesson ideas. These
ideas not only demonstrate how understandable (workable abstraction levels) the
use of federalism can be, but also how motivating it can be. That is the case since the construct encourages
instruction to focus on local political-social subjects and, therefore, more apt
to be relevant to the concerns of students and their parents.
The book highlights the opioid crisis, tort
law, and loss of jobs to low-wage nations such as China and Vietnam. Each of these refers to current conditions
that challenge the federated status of the nation by undermining equality within
the American population. For example,
the opioid crisis has been the source of rendering to many Americans tragic
personal fates in which their dignity and ability to engage in the American
political experiment have become inoperative.
The next posting will boast of the methodology upon
which parochial federalism relies. By
way of foreshadowing, this construct does not rely on reductionist methods, usually
prevalent in political science today. Instead,
in a more conducive manner to how ordinary people talk politics, it relies on
historical analysis.
[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] Theoretical constructs provide guidance to
researchers in that by representing descriptions or explanations, they suggest
research questions and hypothesized resolutions to those questions. By doing so, they identify specific research
inquiries.
[3]
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).
[4]
Daniel J.
Elazar, Exploring Federalism
(Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of
Alabama Press, 1987).
[5] Daniel P. Moynihan, Pandaemonium: Ethnicity in International Politics (New
York, NY: Oxford University Press,
1993).
No comments:
Post a Comment