The last posting of this
blog reviewed the “structure” of a liberated federalism model – a graphic
representation of that model can be found in this blogger’s book, Toward a
Federated Nation.[1] This posting will begin to describe and
explain the various relationships the model identifies in an ideal community that
is guided by federalist values.
The first component, the community, should ideally have the
following condition, a “functioning community.”
That is a community where a certain tolerance of divergence and
inclusion exists. On the one hand, to
engender a level of legitimacy for collective action, there should exist among
the members of the community a general level of congruence in opinions, values,
and goals. In the US, that should
especially pertain to constitutional values and beliefs. The word to emphasize here is “general.”
On the other hand, minorities should be respected and
encouraged to participate in the actions of collective endeavors. Of course, this tolerance – or better still, an
invitational demeanor – and inclusion should include feelings of legitimacy for
societal processes by which the minority can strive to be the majority or
prominent minority, particularly in terms of political aims and goals.
In short, a community is established that conveys the feeling
of “the people as a whole.” As such,
there is an aversion to a raw majority rule as being sufficient to reflect the
will of the people. More of a consensus,
at least among those affected by any policy proposal or implementation, should
be sought and secured before collective action is initiated.
The second condition is that there should be a “cultural
commitment to federalist values in the community.” Daniel Elazar argues that within the United
States there are areas that have inherited a federalist, moral perspective from
the tradition established in the New England colonies.[2] In that tradition, localism is of prime
importance and uniformity on a national basis is at least questioned before
being justified.
Pietro S. Nivola questions this quality in America today. He writes,
In America, where examples of religiously or
ethnically distinct jurisdictions are mild ones, like Utah and Hawaii, it seems
hard to argue that the nation’s fifty states represent keen territorial
diversity, and that they are the secret to this country’s cohesion. Put more
generally, the sub-national entities of an increasingly mobile and assimilative
society such as ours tend to demand less independence than they once did, and
how much of it they get may not make as much difference for national unity.[3]
It is the claim here that one is treated to
sufficient news items in the evening news broadcasts showing concerned citizens
vehemently appearing at local city commission meetings and local school boards,
making their demands known, to totally dismiss local authority in setting effective
policies. This account favors Elazar’s
judgment on this point.
And
with that localism, one is delving into a certain moral stand. To state the general beliefs of this
moralistic perspective – one that this blog has pointed out as one of the three
political subcultures Elazar identifies – they are:
1.
A political career is seen as a great
calling. It is the opportunity to do
things for the betterment of the commonweal.
2.
The emphasis is on the commonweal, i.e., the
search for the good society. There seems
to be the claim that individual welfare, ambitions, and efforts only make sense
through the individual’s work within institutions. Strong institutions lead to the advancement
of the good society.[4]
3.
The values of honesty, selflessness, and
commitment are emphasized. In addition, citizens
are admonished that it is their duty to participate in the public politics of the
community. They reject the notion that
politics is the opportunity for some to advance their self-interests and/or
their careers.
4.
The community bias leads to localism. A good society is a function of people
getting involved and sharing in the responsibility to improve their local
communities.
The moralistic subculture does place on the
citizenry certain moral expectations.[5]
While
this value is stated in terms of the general community, its concepts are
equally applicable to more localized settings as in the community of a family,
a business, a school, or any other arrangement.
If these qualities are sufficiently satisfied in any arrangement, one
can consider that arrangement an association.
Ideally, arrangements should be associations and that claim is
strengthened only by how important the arrangement is judged to be.
Here,
one can step back and consider that most references to federalism have had to
do with its structural elements, and when applied to the US, they usually mean
the relationship between the central government and the state governments. But Elazar prominently points out that
federalism is a more encompassing concept or construct. He writes about the federalism’s processes
and that they revolve around such concerns as community and individual
participation or engagement in governance and politics.[6]
Overall,
federalist values do support and encourage an active citizenry not only from
the perspective as when one’s self-interests are engaged, but also from the
view that there exists a set of duties and obligations entailed with a
citizenry that calls for such involvement.
Such a perspective relies on a palpable sense of partnership among the
US citizenry. To upgrade this notion
beyond some platitude, one needs to appreciate the role civics education should
play, for this goes beyond sterile roles that people hold, and verges on culturally
based sentiments.
The
next posting will address the other two communal conditions that a federated
community extols: “set of functioning
and interacting institutions” and “community with a moral primacy.” Readers are reminded that what is being
described and explained is proposed as ideal qualities that civics education should
promote.
[1] Robert Gutierrez, Toward a Federated Nation: Implementing National Civics Standards (Tallahassee,
FL: Gravitas/Civics Books, 2020). The illustration is on page 230. The book is available through Amazon and
other online book sellers.
[3] Pietro S. Nivola, “Why Federalism Matters,” Brookings
(October 1, 2005), accessed July 19, 2023, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-federalism-matters/.
[4] See Robert N. Bellah, Richard Madsen, William M.
Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven M. Tipton, Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life
(New York, NY: Harper and Row,
Publishers, 1985).
[5] Elazar, American
Federalism.
[6] Daniel J. Elazar, Exploring
Federalism (Tuscaloosa, AL: The
University of Alabama Press, 1987).
No comments:
Post a Comment