JUDGING THE NATURAL RIGHTS VIEW, X

 

An advocate of natural rights continues his/her presentation[1] …

This blogger has commented extensively on the tumbled history of political science since the mid-point of the last century.  From historical based to behavioral to post behavioral to now critical theory-based research, that discipline has experienced an array of viewpoints by which its research has been guided.  As for its effect on civics education, the behavioral/popular values approach with a political systems/structural-functional model guidance has dictated its content in most classrooms.

          Whether in the behavioral or post-behavioral stage, the field is/was concerned with how political systems meet the needs of their individual members.  This view has maintained its popularity among secondary school educators.  They, the educators, see systems as overall sets of institutions that are formulated to be neutral to vying interests.[2]  One still observes, even in the post behavioral age, that approach in general government curricular literature and in classroom materials (for example, see the bestselling textbook, Magruder’s American Government[3]). 

That is, systems are depicted, to varying degrees, as meeting consumer needs or political demands of their respective citizenries.  And this general approach to the study of politics should be kept in mind as students of politics consider or critique this approach.  As the analysis in upcoming postings answers the questions posed by Eugene Meehan[4] to analyze the viability of this construct, this consumer/citizen orientation should be kept in mind.

Under the liberal/natural rights perspective, importance lies in the ability of schools to prepare students to make sure that their individual rights are understood and that they can pursue their individual interests with reliable knowledge and effective skills.  Their government instruction at the secondary level should be to provide that knowledge and skills.

If successful, students, as adults, can enter the political fray with reasonable chances of success.  This leads to what Robert Putnam advocates:  social capital.[5]  The natural rights perspective, therefore, is a highly practical approach.  In this vein, its focus should be where political powers lie. 

On that front, readers should keep in mind that the US has a federal system of government in which the power of the overall state is divided between the central and state governments.  But the balance between the two levels has through the history of the republic shifted in the direction of the central government.  This shift has been caused by a variety of reasons: 

 

·      the nationalization and now globalization of the economy,

·      the inability of state governments to meet the challenges of economic disasters such as the Great Depression,

·      the demands posed by foreign powers in the age of industrialized and nuclear warfare,

·      the increased sensitivities to egalitarian ideals and the consequent demands for uniform treatment by public and private entities,

·      the incorporation by the federal courts, beginning with the Warren Court, of the Bill of Rights’ guarantees against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment,

·      the multiplicity of problems in the modern economy which are truly national in scope,

·      the inability or unwillingness of states to tackle social problems such as segregation of the races or poverty, and

·      the cultural expression that has grown within the population to look toward Washington for solutions to social and natural problems.[6]

 

A secondary course in American government or civics should reflect these realities. 

Therefore, such courses should divide their attention so that the major concern be with the federal government and its operations.  Any issues that they analyze, and study should for the most part be national and international ones.  While state and local governments should not be totally ignored, they should not be given nearly the attention of that of the central government.

Political frays of the day are ones in which there are many competing cultural views and in which many important decisions are made by national institutions far from the control of either common individuals or local communities.  In this environment, as Maurice P. Hunt and Lawrence E. Metcalf wrote in 1968,

 

… we say that the chief role of education in a democracy is intelligent or critical transmission of cultural heritage, during the course of which disagreements among individuals and incompatibilities in personal outlook are exposed and resolved creatively.[7]

 

People have rights concerning their heritage in a diverse population such as that of the US.  The government that oversees this competing and conflict-ridden environment needs to, in the name of fairness and respect for individual and group rights involved, manage those contentions that such an environment is bound to generate.

          That is, it needs to manage the contentious arenas in an unbiased and procedurally neutral manner.[8]  How well is America doing?  Here are partial findings from a Pew Research Center study,

 

Despite these criticisms [referring to mixed feelings of support on the current quality of democratic rule], most Americans say democracy is working well in the United States – though relatively few say it is working very well. At the same time, there is broad support for making sweeping changes to the political system: 61% say “significant changes” are needed in the fundamental “design and structure” of American government to make it work for current times.

The public sends mixed signals about how the American political system should be changed, and no proposals attract bipartisan support. Yet in views of how many of the specific aspects of the political system are working, both Republicans and Democrats express dissatisfaction.

To be sure, there are some positives. A sizable majority of Americans (74%) say the military leadership in the U.S. does not publicly support one party over another, and nearly as many (73%) say the phrase “people are free to peacefully protest” describes this country very or somewhat well.

In general, however, there is a striking mismatch between the public’s goals for American democracy and its views of whether they are being fulfilled. On 23 specific measures assessing democracy, the political system and elections in the United States – each widely regarded by the public as very important – there are only eight on which majorities say the country is doing even somewhat well.[9]

 

Through the years, America has been considered one of the least – if not the least – statist or authoritarian nation.  Yet Matthew C. MacWilliams reports,

 

What I found is that approximately 18 percent of Americans are highly disposed to authoritarianism, according to their answers to four simple survey questions used by social scientists to estimate this disposition. A further 23 percent or so are just one step below them on the authoritarian scale. This roughly 40 percent of Americans tend to favor authority, obedience and uniformity over freedom, independence and diversity.[10]

 

With that cautionary note, one that an advocate of natural rights would deem as highly worrisome and serving to advance a commitment to support the natural rights approach in civics, this posting marks an end to this review of that approach.  Next will be the application of the approach – given Meehan’s concerns – as it affects the commonplaces of curricular development.

---

[1] This presentation continues with this posting.  The reader is informed 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 the natural rights view might present.  This is done to present a dialectic position of that construct.  This series of postings begins with “Judging Natural Rights View, I,” August 2, 2022.

[2] Michael J. Sandel, Democracy's Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1996).

[3] Daniel M. Shea, Magruder’s American Government (Boston, MA:  Prentice Hall/Pearson, 2019).

[4] Eugene J. Meehan, Contemporary Political Thought:  A Critical Study (Homewood, IL:  Dorsey Press, 1967).

[5] Social capital, using the thoughts of Robert Putnam, is characterized by having an active, public-spirited citizenry, egalitarian political relations, and a social environment of trust and cooperation.  See Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2000).  This state exists to the extent a citizenry chooses to adopt the entailed values.

[6] As these words are written, the City of Jackson, Mississippi, is seeking federal assistance to solve its water problems.  Currently, the water cannot be drunk safely.

[7] Maurice P. Hunt and Lawrence E. Metcalf, Teaching High School Social Studies:  Problems in Reflective Thinking and Social Understanding (New York, NY:  Harper and Row Publication, 1968), 35.

[8] Sandel, Democracy's Discontent.

[9] “The Public, The Political System and American Democracy,” Pew Research Center (April 26, 2018), accessed August 31, 2022, https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/04/26/the-public-the-political-system-and-american-democracy/.  To give readers a sense of the referred to measures, they include “Rights and freedoms of all people are respected” and “Elected officials face serious consequences for misconduct.”

[10] Matthey C. MacWilliams, “Trump Is an Authoritarian. So Are Millions of Americans,” Politico (September 23, 2020), accessed August 31, 2022, https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/09/23/trump-america-authoritarianism-420681.