JUDGING LIBERATED FEDERALISM, I

 

This posting begins this blogger’s account of the liberated federalist construct.  These upcoming postings are termed to be judgments.  Usually, this blogger prefaced these “judging” postings for the other constructs (e.g., the natural rights construct) with an editorial message that what was presented in the posting was done so in terms of how an advocate of the construct under consideration would argue for that construct.  In the case of liberated federalism, this blogger happens to be an advocate; hence the message is not needed. 

So, with this posting, this blog begins its “judging” of liberated federalism by addressing the first of the upcoming divisional categories (identified in the last posting), that of subject matter.  In terms of this category, the liberated federalist approach would argue the following:

 

·       It teaches the view of government as a supra federalist institution of society in which collective interests of the commonwealth are protected and advanced.

·       It teaches the philosophical basis of government’s role as guardian of the grand partnership of citizens at both the individual and associational levels of social and political intercourse.

·       It conveys the needs of government to engender levels of support that promote a general sense of obligation and duty toward goals and processes aimed at advancing the agreed upon proposals which are aimed at the betterment of the commonwealth.

·       It establishes and justifies a political morality, including a process to assess that morality in relation to the changing times.

·       It emphasizes the integrity of the individual in liberty and equity within a compact-al arrangement and congruent with the spirit of the Bill of Rights.

·       It points out a preference for local unsophisticated decision-making to detached professional expertise, but with an appreciation for national resources, national federalist values, and legitimate national interests (including appropriate expertise when the conditions demand it).  This is a highly nuanced claim.

 

By accomplishing these objectives, the liberated federalist argument believes that the subject matter of government and civics will be presented in such a way that advances good citizenship and social capital.

          The above elements reflect dualities or balances between forces that either focus political studies at local communal levels or at national levels.  This synthesis – recall that this is a synthesis between the dominant view of natural rights and its main challenging view, critical theory – in which liberated federalism is both concerned with the dignity of the individual and with the troubling arguments that critical theorists present about exploitive relationships within the nation.

          It is also sensitive to the dichotomy of parochial federalist ideals – concerning localism – and the realities of national forces that originally were introduced with industrialization in the 1800s and have only intensified in the ensuing years. 

The argument here is not to reestablish parochial federalism as a guiding construct regarding the nation’s governance and politics, but to incorporate the concerns for individualism and communalism to the degree that a federalist approach can accommodate the current cultural proclivities concerning individuals’ and communal needs while still being of use to educators and others in today’s world – all of this will be explained.

          What is presented in the following postings will be a true synthesis of not only two opposing constructs – natural rights and critical theory – but of the American tradition regarding its governance and politics.  And this effort begins with this posting and, more substantially, with the next posting which will highlight the subject matter  by addressing assumptions regarding decision-making, central to the subject of civics education.