ACCOUNTING FOR FEDERALIST ATTRIBUTES

Civics classes often try to hit on summary ideas that capture the constitutional nature of our government. One thing that needs to be explained to students is that as opposed to most nations, ours is not developed around a sense of an historical people that can trace its origins to either prehistoric times or the ancient world. We are a people who got started at an identifiable time – the early 1600s. Our history is well documented from the time of its origins. We are not a “biological” people or anything that can be described as a race; we are a people based on a set of ideas. Civics classes are where students usually are introduced to these distinguishing ideas and, in order to simplify this most complicated reality – complicated in the sense that the implications of this truth go a long way in explaining why our politics are what they are – teachers need ways to view our system that can generalize and simplify more of these complications. Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein¹ provide us with a shorthand set of what can be described as attributes. They claim that these attributes have been, more so than not, descriptors of our constitutional makeup. They also argue that our current politics are threatening the actuality of these attributes and therefore it has become more difficult to govern.

While these writers don't attribute their list of constitutional attributes to what I consider the prevailing political construct of the founding generation – federalism – I think their list amply demonstrates the type of politics that that construct helped institutionalize. While individually each of the attributes might be descriptive of other systems, their combination and the way they are actually put into effect within our system give them their American character. They are “debate and deliberation,” “divided powers competing with one another,” “regular order” and “avenues to limit and punish corruptions.” Perhaps the terms “considering different sides,” “separation of powers,” “usual ways of doing things,” and “ways to stop cheating” might be more appropriate for younger students. As a set, these attributes support the central federal ideal of equal and highly individual entities – be they individual persons or groups – coming together to form a federated union for purposes of governing themselves. Let us look at each attribute and point out how our American version of them promotes federated politics.

Many systems can boast that they are based on debate and deliberation. A view of C-SPAN several times a week, for example, shows how the British Parliament members yell at each other, during Questions, over policy proposals and decisions. Mann and Ornstein point out that we don't call our legislative body a parliament; we call it a congress. The difference in this distinction is one of emphasis. While in the British system, the majority party can pretty well ram its agenda through in the form of laws, regulations, and other policy decisions, our Congress is based more on a sense of coming together as a whole and deciding what the best course of action is. Our form of debate and deliberation was set in motion by our framers. Given the potential for national expansion, both in terms of population and in terms of geography, the framers foresaw a vastly diverse politics with a large array of interests and concerns. This approach to governance which relies on coming together guarantees a slow process in formulating policy. But it assumed good will; that is, a level of tolerance and forbearing that would lead to compromise. “This model would enable the representatives [in government, particularly Congress] to understand each other's viewpoints and ultimately reach some form of consensus in policy-making.”²

Yet, isn't this type of debate likely to become stagnant? If there are a multitude of interests from a vast geographically diverse land and the system is depending on agreement among opposing parties, aren't the chances extremely high that such a nation's politics will become stuck? I would argue that in order for such a system to work at all in an efficient and timely fashion, federalist values need to be prominent among the citizenry. There has to be an overarching ethos that has strong communal values and emotions to provide a cultural support for this type of governance. When we wonder why Washington doesn't work anymore, perhaps much of the answer lies in our abandonment of federalist values and supporting emotions. This blog in the past has provided an historical account of the diminishing strength of such values and emotions among our population.

Given the time factor – of inherent delays – our system needs to be more conscious of its “regular order.” Mann and Ornstein focus on the following essential procedural elements: in terms of law making – regularity, opportunity for amendments, openness, transparency, and timeliness; in terms of executing the law – regulation, transparency, responsiveness, and articulation, and in terms of judicial judgment – fairness, access to legal representation, ability to appeal, and lack of arbitrariness. These encourage an informed citizenry and a citizenry that is not unduly burdened by procedural obstacles in its attempts to become involved. Also, citizens need to feel a certain level of reasonable empowerment; they need to believe that participation is not a waste of time.

Last, our system's need for legitimacy is heightened when one understands its reliance on voluntary participation. In turn, the concern for limiting and punishing corruption becomes even more central not only in our ability to provide good governance but to ensure the system works as it was designed – both in terms of its ideals and in terms of practical political concerns. We count on people believing that they are not being taken in or taken advantage of; therefore, procedural polices need to be able to detect and respond to incidents of corruption in viable and effective ways.

According to Mann and Ornstein, each of these attributes is currently being undermined. Our system is not living up to the demands upon which each attribute relies. There are several reasons for this and the shortcomings are manifested in a variety of ways. But overall, the problem is that our politics have become excessively polarized. The polarization is debasing these federalist attributes. I will further elucidate, in future postings, how this is taking place.

1Mann, T. E. and Ornstein, N. J. (2013). Finding the common good in an era of dysfunctional governance. Daedalus: Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 142 (2), 15-24.

2Ibid., p. 17.

A WILL TO BARGAIN

In this blog's last posting, I described a metaphor that is useful in conceptualizing the nature of morality. By using the metaphor of wealth and its associated idea of bookkeeping, I utilized George Lakoff's¹ observation that people use these concepts in order to give the non-tangible idea of morality some substance. Central to this metaphor is the notion of credits and debits to account for the natural mental tendency in which we think of morality as a means of tracking how we and others interact with each other. So, for example, if person A does person B a good turn, A acquires a credit toward B and B a debit toward A. The disposition of either A or B is to act in the future in such a way so as to balance the account between them. What Lakoff does not discuss is how universal this tendency is. As for American society, I can vouch from personal experience that this cognitive psychologist's account rings true. I hate to think of all the debits I have accumulated in my years of social interactions.

Let me extend this metaphor a bit further. What are the calculations people make in their fundamental commitment to their national community? How strong is that commitment? Do we make a string of calculations as we make decisions to participate in the social activities of community life or do we have a general commitment of such a fundamental nature that our decision to participate barely becomes conscious to us? That is, do we hold a commitment to our social world that elicits our loyalty or, at least, our compliance to the prevailing social norms and laws? Think of the challenge: life presents many obstacles to us in our ability to achieve our aims and goals. Do we have the sort of commitment that overcomes those short term inconveniences and lack of resources that stand in the way of getting the things that we want? For some, the inconveniences and/or lack of resources are more than mere obstacles, and can be of such magnitude that their lives become a constant state of serious frustration. In such cases, what can serve as a source that spurs sufficient loyalty or, at least, compliance with what is? William A. Galston² gives us an analytical account of this calculation.

Why does anyone bargain? The parties so engaged are motivated by the desire to acquire something that otherwise he or she cannot acquire, at least not legally. If we apply this metaphor to a community, either local or national, we extend our willingness to “play ball” within the confines of the prevailing social expectations which can be expressed by that society's norms and laws. By viewing this decision as our part of a deal with all other citizens, what is our payoff? The payoff, according to Galston's analysis, is our enjoyment of the common good. Here is how Galston describes the deal:

The common good requires a balance between the benefits and burdens of social cooperation such that all (or nearly all) citizens believe that the contribution they are called on to make leaves them with a net surplus. If they cease to believe that, they will try to lighten these burdens, either by evading some taxation or, in extreme cases, by leaving the community through exit (for individuals) or secession (for groups).³

This extension of the wealth metaphor, I believe, provides a useful language for civics teachers to deal with the federalist value, equality.

To further illustrate where this idea originates, let me pass on an experiment that Galston describes. I will alter his description a bit to make a point. Let us say that you and I are in a room and a third person comes in and pulls out a dollar – no, let's make it one hundred dollars. And I, who happen to need the money, am awfully interested in what the person has to say – so are you. He says to me, here; you and your friend can keep the money if you both agree to the amounts you (that's I) feel each of you will keep. There is one proviso. You both have to agree to the divided amounts that you (I) propose. I divide the money $90 for me – as I said, I really need the money – and $10 for you. You balk and disagree. You say that's not fair. I say, well $10 is better than nothing; you'd better take it. You say, you (I) can stuff it. No deal is made and we both leave empty-handed. The actual experiment had only a dollar at stake, but the general result was usually the same when the “divider” offered the other too little. There were in these cases behaviors that reflected a concern for equality. The lesson being that if one is treated in such an unequal way – as being offered too little of a resource – a person will refuse to participate. Apparently, a person will cease participating in social interactions if his or her dignity or integrity is given too little concern.

In real life, it is amazing how much people will put up with in order to go along with expectations, but there are limits, and rebellions or withdrawals do take place. What the actual conditions that spur these attempts at changing the norms and laws or of just deciding to “play” elsewhere are is worth studying. But what is also worth studying, as many have, are those social forces that help and, in most cases guarantee, ongoing allegiance to keep the system in place.

Writers have pointed out certain institutions that assist in maintaining these bonds between us. Religion, language, common ancestors, cultural beliefs, and the like are all binding social elements. Abraham Lincoln mentioned the “mystic chords of memory” in attempting to stave off an impending civil war. What seems central to the bargain is a common enough sense of what the common good is. Constitutionally, Galston points out the function of the Preamble to provide, albeit general and vague, a list of elements that constitutes what we as a nation believe to be the common good. Good enough, but do we need more meat on that bone in order to sustain what we are willing to sacrifice in order to maintain our individual willingness to go along, if not participate in an active way to sustain the union? We seem to be constantly confronted with such divisive positions in our political discourse that, I believe, raises the question: are we tempting some to exit or some groups to secede?

The most recent bit of political discourse that at least on the surface concerns me is the discourse over gun rights or gun safety – even the language is in contention. Associated with this debate have been stated concerns over whether our government is preparing to rip up the Constitution and institute an authoritarian or totalitarian regime. If so, we obviously all need to be armed. This is extreme language and it is not dissuaded by high ranking officials who count on these extremists' votes to get elected. Probably nothing will come of this type of language and we can chalk it up to high-strung partisanship. Surely, such extremity in our political debates has been flung around before; look at the animosity President Franklin Roosevelt engendered when in 1940, word got out that he was running for a third term.⁴

What needs to be reflected upon is our own individual standards by which we measure our tolerance for policy we don't like. The language of the grand bargain, represented by our constitution, is a good way to engage in that reflection and to formulate our evaluations of our own standards and those of others. Civics classrooms are a good and safe place to begin those reflections and evaluations.

1Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral politics: How liberals and conservatives think. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

2Galston, W. A. (2013). The common good: Theoretical content, practical utility. Daedalus: Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 142 (2), Spring, pp. 9-14.

3Ibid., p. 11.

4See Leuchtenburg, W. E. (1963). Franklin D. Roosevelt and the new deal: 1932-1940. New York, NY: Harper Torchbooks.

TALKING MORALITY

Topics that don't get much attention in our civics or government classes are, one, how citizens interact with each other and, two, how citizens should interact with each other. Part of the reason for this is that the language used in these courses has to do mainly with the structural makeup of our governmental institutions and of those institutions that interact with government. So these courses have units of study on such topics as the presidency and political parties and lobbying organizations. But on how citizen A treats citizen B or how citizen A should treat citizen B, there is little said. George Lakoff,¹ I believe, gives us one way to look at and talk about these very basic civic concerns.

Before describing Lakoff's proposed language, let me point out another obstacle in treating one of these topics. By addressing how citizens should treat one another, civics broaches the subject of morality. As I have pointed out before, this gets touchy – should our public instruction be about promoting moral messages? I have made it clear and have presented a justification for my position that yes, we do need to deal with moral questions in the classroom and that that treatment should be guided by a federalist moral code. Summarily, that code holds that, as a trump value, goodness lies in behavior and policy that advance societal welfare. This blog has dedicated significant space to describing and explaining this code and the reasons I have for promoting its use.

So, therefore, the language one adopts to deal with these two topics – how citizens interact and how they should interact – has a descriptive challenge and a normative challenge. Lakoff begins his treatment by pointing out that much of our moral thinking and visualizing is dependent on metaphors. Why? Because morality is not a tangible entity. It is ephemeral, but has definite and practical implications in our lives. It is a qualitative aspect of life and it is essentially difficult to mentally conceive of it directly. Metaphors allow us to give this quality a more definite sense and with it a language by which to communicate its elements and its effects on us. A metaphor Lakoff identifies in order to visualize and talk about morality is wealth.

By using wealth, we can first give morality a quantitative dimension. And we can also use the extended metaphor of bookkeeping to relate that aspect of morality which has to do with either doing someone a good or a harm – central attributes of morality. So, for example, we can say that if I do you a good, you might perceive the result of such a good as placing the burden of a debt on you. Now think about the last time someone did something good for you. Chances are you felt a sense of obligation to that person and were disposed to return that favor with a favor so as to balance the books. Of course, this is all a metaphor, but it does reflect actual emotions. It also brings into play, through the language the metaphor activates, moral considerations. Lakoff, in his analysis, focuses on two moral principles this language permits: the positive-action principle and the debt-payment principle.

The positive-action principle is the general notion that morality is adhered to by people doing good things for each other. We should do favors, look after each other, help those in need, be charitable in both our treatment of others and how we refer to one another, and be disposed to be generally helpful and supportive of others. You can probably think of other ways a person can live up to the positive-action principle. The debt-payment principle, on the other hand, refers to the moral disposition to pay back. This might be to return a favor for a favor or to pay back a harm with a harm. This is carrying the bookkeeping metaphor to its logical extension. If someone does you a good, imposing a debit on you, you are called upon to return an equally valued good; but if someone does you a harm, imposing a credit on you, you are in position to say, “I'll make him/her pay” for the harm done to you. Now this type of language opens discussion to such modes of interaction between people that can be described as reciprocation (a good for a good), retribution (an authoritative harm for a harm – as when a person is punished by a governmental entity for committing a crime or a parent punishes a child for misbehavior), revenge (a non-authoritative harm for a harm – as when a person spreads a damaging rumor about someone who hurt his/her reputation). The language can also be used to talk about altruism, turning the other cheek, Karma sense of universal justice (“what goes around, comes around”), and the like.

In terms of federalist concerns, this language opens a way of talking about those interactions that promote societal welfare and those interactions that hurt or diminish societal welfare. It also points to the development of augmenting conflicts in society – language that can describe the development of cycles of revenge (for example, the Hatfields and the McCoys). The language itself is fairly neutral as to which course of action should be followed, but does highlight certain implications and realities that one sees as resulting from certain social policies of groups, organizations, and government. For example, if large corporations use their financial resources to funnel income to advantaged groups, how are such policies viewed? Are they seen as an unjustified, inflicted harm on those not advantaged? And if so, will those latter groups seek retribution or revenge? What factors influence the reaction of these latter groups? These are moral questions due to the fact that they relate to societal welfare. But these are not just moral questions; they are also practical ones. The answers to them relate to the interests of those involved.

1Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral politics: How liberals and conservatives think. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

SOME IDEAL REALITIES

How does a teacher during a time when excessive individualism and self-centered views prevail¹ get students to consider a more idealistic view of politics and governance? By adopting federation theory, as this blog proposes, to guide content choices in our civics and government curriculum, a teacher is being asked to introduce an overall idealistic vision. That is, a teacher would plan lessons that have students consider idealistic options in regards to both personal political behavior and governmental policy. One way to get such an educational aim off the ground is to present lessons that hit upon the more practical aspects of such a view. William A. Galston² provides help in devising such instruction.

Initially, it is useful to consider a main concern of federation theory. That is, this more communal view of politics and governance is centered on the idea that good governance is about trying to attain and maintain the common good. Of course, seeking the common good oftentimes flies in the face of trying to advance self-interest. It also questions a governmental/political construct that promotes individual aims and self defined values, such as the case with the prevailing construct – the natural rights perspective. Galston points out three types of factual conditions that highlight our need to consider this central concern of federation theory. He begins by pointing out that the very commonness of these facts almost make them invisible to us. We assume them in calculating our plans to advance our interests. Yet, as we consider them – as we should from time to time – we can more realistically understand and appreciate their importance in our ability to successfully fulfill our aims.

The first of these factual conditions is the existence of inherently social goods. Certain highly prized aspects of life demand social venues and modes of being in which those aspects take place. The venues or modes of behavior are social goods. For example, there is humor that demands a social arrangement (trying telling a joke to yourself). The same can be said for most games. But, life itself demands the existence of social goods (we are all vulnerable in some way or other all the time, but especially during certain segments of our lives such as in infancy or advanced age). Of course, we are social beings where even the most introverted person needs social outlets at times.

The second factual condition is our dependence on social linkages. We formulate, quite naturally, an array of social linkages. As just mentioned, we are social animals by nature and our interconnectedness sets our reality in such a way that the well-being of some will affect the well-being of others precisely because we are linked. Along with Galston, many writers have pointed out the ironic truth that oppression, for example, does not only claim a toll only the oppressed, but on the oppressor as well. Oppression eats away at our very humanness. Our enlightened self-interest is served when we meet our obligations within these social linkages. This is observed when we submit, for example, to socially responsible behavior such as when we voluntarily follow health mandates like vaccinating our children from infectious diseases. Yes, the rich oftentimes try to use their wealth to de-link themselves; they might pay for private security, for example. But sooner or later such strategies fall short when underfunded social services such as police cannot keep up with rising social problems like crime rates. We see this in some poorer countries where kidnappings are a chronic problem. The establishment and maintenance of a healthy economy, from which we all benefit, counts on law-abiding communities either locally or nationally.

The third factual condition is what Galston calls “the good of the common.” The common life takes place in either physical or technologically created places. Our behaviors within these places, either if one behaves by oneself or in social groupings, will very likely affect the quality of a particular place to serve its designated function. Places usually need to be clean enough, safe enough, accessible enough, and resourced enough to meet the needs of those who want to use them. This calls for socially responsible behavior by those who use these places.

Social goods, social linkages, and common places are not an exhaustive list of factual conditions that are practical aspects of the common good. Ironically, Galston points out, our very conflicts trying to determine what exactly constitutes the common good is very much an aspect of the common good – the very debates that oftentimes challenge the prevailing vision of the common good are part and parcel of that good. Educators can use these realities to create case study accounts that students might analyze to identify, appreciate, and even debate either how the conditions support or challenge our social and individual interests. Take the condition, social goods, as when a teenager abuses a social media by posting inappropriate material – should there be mechanisms that restrain that practice? Should terrorist groups be able to publish directions on how to build a bomb? How does bullying affect a school's ability to fulfill its purposes? Should children be seen as the sole responsibility of parents or do communities have a responsibility or even a sense of “ownership” over all of their children? Each of these questions can serve as a topic for a lesson – a lesson that has the student delve into our social realities and our concerns for the common good from a practical perspective.

1Twenge, J. M. & Campbell, W. K. (2009). The narcissism epidemic: Living in the age of entitlement. New York, NY: Free Press.

2Galston, W. A. (2013). The common good: Theoretical content, practical utility. Daedalus: Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 142 (2), Spring, pp. 9-14.

INSTITUTIONAL EQUALITY

What leads to what: liberty to equality or equality to liberty? Perhaps, despite the claims of some, there is no developmental relationship between the two. We do believe in both and at times these societal qualities work at cross purposes. They are not mutually exclusive; you can design a society with both – we claim to have done so. But a lot of our political discourse can be boiled down to whether or not we will advance the one for the other. Should we have better schools, for example, to advance equality? If we go about trying to improve our schools, we soon find ourselves spending more money on them and that generally means soliciting more taxes from our citizens. Collecting those taxes can be seen as limiting taxpayer liberty – they have less money to do what they want to do. Right wing thought argues that liberty leads to equality. By allowing people to make their own decisions about the economic opportunities they find in front of them, enough will decide to invest money and time to start businesses and make innovations that will expand economic activity and provide others with jobs. Expanding economies enhance equality because they create meaningful opportunities. These, in turn, allow many to seek the American dream.

On the surface, all this true. But in a more basic way, I believe the more meaningful relation between the two is one in which equality leads to liberty. But before we can really determine what's primary, of course, each of these terms need to be defined within the context in which they are being considered. Liberty seems to be the more easily defined: the state in which a person can basically do what he/she wants to do. Historically, there have been many different views of liberty and freedom, but for the purposes here I am using this more popular sense of liberty. Equality has a more illusive meaning. Does it mean a state in which everyone has the same goods and access to the same services? Does it mean equal condition; that is, equal standing before the law? Does it mean equal opportunity? Or does it mean we all enjoy equal standing in terms of fame, reputation, privileges, or some other desired quality? Most Americans, I think, believe that equality refers to equal condition, at minimum, and, for many, it also includes equal opportunity. Let's go with those two attributes.

Now, if we begin with a condition in which neither liberty nor equality exists, what needs to be established first in order to end up with both? This condition is not that hard to imagine since most of human history has resembled this state of affairs: no or very limited liberty and no or limited equality. Most societies have been situational arrangements in which either a strong military type runs the government for his own interests (I don't know of any such system with a woman in charge) or one in which an aristocratic or plutocratic class runs things for its own interests. There have been some cases where a bureaucracy was in charge. In any of these cases, though, liberty cannot just break out and become the mode of political interaction. Liberty needs the appropriate institutions to be set up so as to establish the necessary laws and constitutional structures that create the appropriate social and legal and cultural expectations which allow for people to act as they wish. And how does that happen? On some level, enough people or at least leaders need to have a view of their fellows as being entitled to rights on an equal basis – they believe that these non elites should be able to define and act in ways that advance their lives as they see fit. And that is equality at a foundational level.

Of course, as the necessary processes proceed and those institutions are established over time things get more complicated and formal. I was watching this past Thursday on TV the dedication of the George W. Bush presidential library and museum. There, for the occasion, were all the living past and present presidents. They all had nice things to say about President Bush. Was this important? To a degree, it was. Why? Because it displayed how a support institution – like the ones I alluded to above – gets established. The event helped further entrench our system of government and governance. And at its heart, it is a ceremony that treats all past presidents equally, whether he served one or two terms or whether he is held in high or not so high esteem. A sense of equality prevailed among these past and present leaders and the ceremony further legitimizes the presidency – an essential center of power within our system. Was the event enough by itself to overcome those forces that undermine the levels of legitimacy from which our system suffers – those forces of extreme partisanship that have stymied our government from meeting many of our nation's needs? Of course not, but the development of these institutions is slow going and it takes many such events to be developed and updated. It is an ongoing process.

NOT KNOWING MAKES A DIFFERENCE

Early on in the history of this blog, I made the point that our efforts in civics education have been less than optimal; that while I was not placing the blame on any one set of professionals, parents, or community members, our secondary students were not learning enough civic content, civic content acquisition skills, citizen participatory skills, or acquiring healthy participatory dispositions. These have been the areas that civics education leaders have identified as appropriate pedagogic aims for a civics curriculum. In a series of postings, I introduced research that supports these conclusions although some of the cited works found that American students might compare somewhat favorably in regard to some of these concerns. Yet, my overall conclusion was that American efforts could and should be much better than what they are. Kathleen Hall Jamieson reflects this general finding:

In the past decade, low levels of youth voting and non-proficient student performance on a widely respected civics assessment test have elicited efforts to increase the amount and quality of time spent teaching civic education and have ignited a movement to create common standards in the social studies.¹

This current evaluation of our civics instruction further validates concerns over our lack of success in this subject area.

And what are the consequences of such shortcomings; are they important? A look at a current policy area gives us a hint. Recent polling regarding gun safety gives us pause about how informed citizens are about gun safety. While Americans consistently claim that we need better enforcement of our gun laws, they have little knowledge of what those laws are. And this lack of knowledge has political ramifications.

Joel Benenson and Katie Connolly² report survey research results on the lack of knowledge most Americans have over an issue that has dominated a lot of air time on TV and space on other media. Given the recent shooting incidents, I believe it is safe to say that the overwhelming number of Americans have given thought to the controversy over whether our government should enact stricter laws concerning the availability of certain types of weapons, specifically assault rifles and their accompanying magazines, particularly of higher-capacity. I would like to summarize some of their findings:

• A large percentage of American respondents expressed the belief that there are laws requiring background checks on all gun purchases and that they also ban high-capacity magazines. Neither claim is true.
• A majority of respondents believe that it is illegal to sell a gun to a person on the terrorist watch list. Not true; it's legal to do so.
• Significant numbers of Americans believe that federal law requires reporting large quantities of purchased amounts of ammunition. It doesn't.
• Significant numbers of Americans don't know whether it is legal or illegal to purchase ammunition over the Internet. It's legal.

This level of misinformation or lack of knowledge among Americans makes it easier for those organized to stop any effort to change our gun laws. Americans want many of the changes that are being proposed by gun safety advocates.³ But if many to most Americans incorrectly believe that the laws already provide for those sanctions and limitations, their voice is to varying degrees either muted or confused. Hence, the ability to succeed in making the needed changes in law become much more difficult. Ignorance is consequential. The rate at which Americans are being killed by guns and rifles is alarming. Something needs to be done and a misinformed citizenry doesn't help. 

 

1Jamieson, K. H. (2013). The challenges facing civic education. Daedalus: Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, Spring, 142 (2), p. 65.

2Benenson, J. and Connolly, K. (2013). Don't know much about gun laws. New York Times, April 7, Sunday Review Section, p. 6.

3Ibid.

STROKING THE BOSS?

Much of this blog has been dedicated to promoting and explaining ideals. The message has been, in a few words, that we need to encourage our students in civics and government classes to consider an ideal polity – one based on federalist principles of communal governance. But how about the real; shouldn't our students be exposed to the realities of politics? This concern was brought to the fore for me with the recent action in the Senate where background checks for gun sales at gun shows was voted down. This action took place despite the fact that polling indicates over eighty percent of the electorate support this change in our nation's law. Therefore, there seems to be a political reality that simply does not become evident when one focuses on ideals, even if those ideals are of the democratic-republican variety.

I have pointed out and extensively described and explained what I see as the prominent view of governance among our people today. To that view I have given the name, the natural rights construct. In philosophical writings, it is known as classical liberalism – a name that might confuse someone who is not familiar with that literature.¹ Its central principles are that the individual should be allowed to determine the values, aims, and goals for him or herself, should be reasonably allowed to pursue those values, aims, and goals, and that that person should not stand in the way of anyone else doing likewise. The prominence of this view has resulted in a general reality of how we go about our governance and politics. It is a general mode of behavior noted for its individualism. I have, in the past, cited ample expert reporting and opining that supports this conclusion.²

With this posting, I want to introduce a series of postings that will appear from time to time in the future; the series will report on relatively specific beliefs of how to best manage one's interests given the prevalence of the natural rights perspective. That is, if one were to seek out advice on how to succeed in our real, natural rights, world, what would that advice be? I don't present this advice as wisdom or as anything I believe a good citizen should heed. Instead, I present these bits of advice as legitimate topics for classroom discussion in a civics or government class. One advantage of introducing these messages in class is to point out that politics and governance do not refer only to formal government activities and structures. There are politics and governance in any organized effort and much of what will be presented as wisdom is intended, by those who offer it, to “teach” people who work in the private sector how to advance within a business hierarchy.

As of now, I will be relying on the writings of Robert Greene and his book, The 48 Laws of Power. I must commend Mr. Greene on his honesty. Most writers who write in this vein are usually somewhat circumspect. Mr. Greene is unabashedly promoting a very self-centered view of how one should proceed within the real arenas of competition among workers of an organization. I believe this first posting will give you a good sense of Greene's view of reality.

Law number one is: don't go too far in demonstrating your talents to your superior less you instill in him or her a sense of inferiority, insecurity, and/or fear. It is better to make your superior seem to be more talented and brilliant than he or she is. In class, a teacher can present this law as a “springboard” (jargon for a discussion starter) and then have a series of questions that are generated by federalist thinking.

I'm sure a teacher can think of a variety of questions by which to analyze the implications of this “law.” I will present two types of questions.

The first set of questions would be about the evidence that exists to either support or negate this law – in other words, the “law” should be presented as a hypothesis. Greene, in his book, of course, cites several historical cases that support the “law.” Let me share the first one. He tells the story of Nicolas Fouquet of France, King Louis XIV's initial finance minister. In order to solidify his position in the King's government, he threw an extravagant party – and by extravagant you will have to take my word for it since there is not enough space here to describe how otherworldly this affair was – to honor the young king. The party had the opposite effect and before long the now insecure king had Fouquet imprisoned to spend the rest of his days (twenty years worth) behind bars. This is only the first case Greene offers and he goes on to provide several others.

In addition to these cases, students can do an Internet search on how successful business leaders treat talented employees. My limited review of that literature seems to indicate that instead of punishing talent, business leaders seem to be in competition to find and retain talent. But this is a good area of reality that students would benefit from researching.

My second concern or set of questions regarding this “law” has to do with what would happen if one were to follow it; how would an organization be affected if this view were widely held by the employees of a particular business? Would this strategy help or hurt a business if its employees are as focused on their own individual fates as this law assumes employees to be? Should employees be about presenting false messages to stroke egos and to calm insecurities? If not, what would be a better frame of mind and mode of behavior for a business leader to promote and reward? If yes, is the real world so cynical? So two-faced? In other words, if reality within a particular business is counterproductive to accomplishing organizational goals, what can businesses do to offset these real challenges?

In general, organizational theory has shifted from a purely systemic approach to a more communal one. That is not to say that there has been a complete abandonment of a concern for the real needs and ambitions of individuals within organizations. As for students, civics instruction can serve as a platform by which to introduce and analyze the conditions that characterize organizational realities. Are federalist ideas and ideals, as explained in this blog, useful in such a study? Are they useful in promoting the disposition among the younger generation that would be helpful to organizations of the future in setting their cultures toward productive ends? The use of federalism theory in guiding the content of such a lesson strategy is based on the belief that the answer to this last question is yes.

1One might see it as a form of what we currently call liberalism or left of center politics. 

 

2See for example Lipset, S. M. (1996). American exceptionalism: A double-edged sword. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.