STANDARD BIASES

This blog has made the claim that in the years following World War II, the nation, in its perspective of governance and politics, shifted.  Until that time, ever since colonial days, the dominant perspective was the mental construct this writer entitles traditional federalism.  The blog defines, describes, and explains this view and the effect it had on the American political feelings and behaviors during all those many years.

          Since the mid-1940s, another mental construct became dominant:  the natural rights construct.  Of late, this blog has reviewed the effects of this construct on civics education, political science, and the social/political realities of the nation.  With this posting, a look at a more formal evaluation of civics education is presented with commentary on how the natural rights view affects that evaluation.

More specifically, this posting attempts to convey an understanding of how natural rights exerts its influence by reviewing existing standards that, in turn, have been used to develop test questions.  Specifically, the focus is on the National Assessment Educational Progress (NAEP) testing program known as the Nation's Report Card.[1] 

By selecting NAEP testing program, this writer chooses a program that has made efforts to address the more mechanical aspects of a natural rights-based curricular work (this mechanical quality was described in the last posting).  He sees NAEP testing program to be in an evolving process which is moving toward a more community-based view of the subject matter it is testing.  It is through such a change that a more amenable effort to supporting social capital is achieved.

But to date, this testing program, as represented by its standards, has not changed enough.  Overall, its standards do not yet promote social capital – the standard this blog has offered by which to judge whether any element of the nation’s civics curricular effort is worthwhile. 

Having stated that limitation of NAEP, the judgment here is that with the latest edition of the standards, issued in 2014, one can see progress over previous editions – they do demonstrate a recognition that an attention to communal factors is something for which the nation’s civics curriculum should strive.

For example, the 2014 set of standards highlights values that can be considered as addressing social capital concerns.  That list consists of civility, respect for the rights of others, respect for law, negotiation and compromise, civic mindedness, and compassion.[2]  To be clear, these values are a subset of the overall values the standards promote – thirteen of them.  Be that as it may, their addition demonstrates more concern for communal qualities.

To further heighten its concern for community, the newer document contains throughout its pages an array of quotes from historical characters who communicate civil and democratic values.  These quotes can be seen to further encourage educators to promote social capital.  That is great, but this is seen, by this writer, as only a step in the right direction.  More can be done.

How are the newer standards deficient?  The standards do refer to values ensconced in the nation’s and states’ constitutions.  But those values are more supportive of structural elements of government.  For example, one such value is the distributive value of power as demonstrated by a two-tiered government and the checks and balance system, but one does not see any direct effort to bolster communal ties which provide essential support to a federal system of government.

And while the 2014 version of the NAEP standards identifies values that not only support constitutional principles but also, to a limited extent, social capital, the problem is that this more general support of these qualities is not meaningfully worked into the wordage of the standards themselves.  They are offered as background “music” and are there to provide guidance about how one is to interpret the standards.

Nor are these values reflected in a well-thought out rationale for their use.  That is, these values are listed without any explanation of how they are useful in encouraging trust and cooperation, essential supportive motivations upon which social capital depends. 

And while the above “social capital” values are notable, they are not the only ones that could have been chosen.  There are more direct or important prerequisite values in establishing a level of civic responsibility innate in a polity that holds social capital essential to its health.  Such values as empathy, trust, friendship, loyalty, and a sense of partnership among citizens are but a few values aimed more directly toward bolstering social capital.

In short, despite its more communal turn, the 2014 version of the standards does not sufficiently express a “we're in this together” message.  Unfortunately, the current language of the NAEP is judged to be more perfunctory than reflecting a true adoption of a federated view of governance, politics, and citizenship.

But the NAEP standards is a national effort.  What about the state level?  At that more local level, where standards have real consequences for students – in some states they are used to see whether a student passes a grade or not – one finds a stronger natural rights bias.  Readers can “Google” the state standards for their state; the writer did so for the state of Florida.

Compared to the NAEP language, Florida’s language reflects a more uncompromised systems approach as it bolsters a structural and functional perspective.  It has more definite provisions that segregate the citizenry from its government, in that it describes government as a third-party service provider.  In addition, those standards emphasize the structural elements of government in stark language without communicating any communal concerns.[3]

Before leaving this topic, there is another important aspect to this description.  Textbooks are chosen at the state level.  Nothing shows off a curriculum more than a review of the textbooks used in the classroom.  That includes civics education.  If a parent or other taxpayer wants to know what the curriculum of a subject is, he or she need only look at the textbook used and it will uncover what the curricular content, the scope, of that subject, is.[4]

In doing so, a course’s textbook will reveal, with a review of the topics its pages choose to include and the questions the text asks of the material, which mental construct is guiding the choice of content for that subject.  That includes civics courses.  As for high school government classes, the textbook that is overwhelmingly used is Magruder’s American Government textbook.[5]  This blog’s review will next look at the effect Magruder’s has had in government classes.

---

[1] In full disclosure, this writer, about ten years ago, through the efforts of Dr. John Patrick, worked on a committee whose assignment was to evaluate proposed test questions for NAEP’s next administration of its test to measure civics knowledge among secondary students.  This test is given to a random sample of students around the country.  Through the results, educators can gain a sense of how well the nation’s civics instruction is doing.

[2] “National Standards for Civics and Government,” Center for Civic Education, accessed September 7, 2016, http://www.civiced.org/standards?page=912erica#15 .

[3] “Fundamentals of Government and Public Administration,” Florida State Department of Education, accessed September 7, 2016, http://fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/5574/urlt/8900500.pdf .

[4] The reason for this is that teachers see their responsibility as teaching the textbook they have been given to use in the course of study assigned to them.

[5] Willian A. McClenaghan, Magruder’s American Government (Florida Teacher’s Edition) (Boston, MA:  Prentice Hall/Pearson, 2013).

CLARIFYING THE MECHANICAL CHARGE

In the posting leading to this one, it was reported that a charge has been made against the use of political systems model as a theoretical guide for political science research.  The charge is that the use of the model tended to make its corresponding view of government and politics as having a mechanical quality.  This posting will further explain what is meant by that determination.

The main concern is that political science is not a natural science such as physics, chemistry, and biology, but a human science.  Despite this, the move toward the systems model made political studies a study that saw its subject as a machine with automated responses to different stimuli under specific conditions.  This is another way of saying that the model is deterministic in the way it describes and explains political behavior.

In the previous posting, David Easton is quoted on this issue, indicating his recognition of the charge and how his treatment of systems modeling introduced an organic element that, in turn, describes political systems as self-adjusting entities.  By such an alteration of pure behaviorist theorizing, the model overcomes the inclination of being mechanical, or so Easton indicates.

But the question remains: is systems theory, with the organism element in place, human enough?  That is a debate still waged in some circles.  But what is not debatable is that behavioral-leaning political scientists were (are) sensitive to the charge of being mechanical.  This has the implication that their work is not sufficiently sensitive to human qualities. 

The critics say such theoretical shifting does little to capture how rich a reaction to situational conditions can be.  While it recognizes such factors as emotions, it lacks insight into what and how emotions and other more qualitative variables affect the phenomenon under study.  Is the notion that by merely adding an “O” (for an organic element) to the S-R (stimulus-response behaviorist model), the model would be able to recognize and account for human concerns?  Would it be able to detect how the system can react to its environmental conditions?  The critics believe that it cannot.

This criticism runs along a fine line of distinction.  For example, one can measure how often reactive statements are made to a certain stimulus, but can it account fully for the tone in which the statements are made or the power enjoyed by the sender of such statements due to his/her reputation or some other quality?  Perhaps to a point, but not totally and, in the opinion of critics, not adequately.

Helpful to this concern might be a view of how systems analysis is applied to other areas of human endeavor.  One area would be business operations.  Much rethinking in business strategizing has directed attention to making business models more sensitive to “human” needs, but these newer focuses are haunted by established biases which tend to be more behaviorist in their orientation (see for example, Jim Collin’s work, Good to Great,[1] for a description of how these debates are carried out).

But there is a record on how the more mechanistic view of government has affected public policy.  Probably the most telling and visible example is how systems view led to policemen cruising their beats in squad cars.  This replaced officers walking the neighborhood and, consequently, not getting to know the citizens whom they are there to protect to be more “efficient.” 

When this policy bias is instituted among all the various governmental operations, the result is conflicting perceptions of “we” versus “them” and too little of “us” among the public servants who are there to serve the public.  A mechanistic view of governance is, of course, not limited to policing but describes too much of how government bureaucracies face their responsibilities in general. 

Of course, this view is not only found in government offices such as the DMV.  It can also be seen in the tone and descriptions of government and politics in the nation’s civics courses.  Unfortunately, it can even be reflected, for the most part, in the policies issued by school district offices, state education departments, and the federal government’s Department of Education.

This blog has argued that the systems approach, as it has been applied to secondary study, is relatively lacking in an organic sense, much less a humanistic sense in its treatment of governmental operations and the activities of those who try to influence public policy. 

Whether those who are concerned with this debate see developments in systems sufficient or not is of little interest here.  If behaviorism is purely, partly, or not at all deterministic, is a concern for political scientists and only indirectly of importance to civics educators.  Here, the more important concern is how mechanistic a view of government and politics has seeped into the nation’s civics curriculum and its corresponding instruction.

---

[1] Jim Collins, Good to Great:  Why Some Companies Make the Leap … and Others Don't, (New York, NY:  HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. 2001).

---

[1] Jim Collins, Good to Great:  Why Some Companies Make the Leap … and Others Don't, (New York, NY:  HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. 2001).

TOWARD OBJECTIFICATION

The last few postings attempted to convey the theoretical concerns of political science during the years after World War II (1950s and 1960s).  This period is important to appreciate when one is concerned with the current state of civics education.  Educators of that time adopted a more scientific orientation to their subject disciplines.  Included were the social studies, and the story that led to this development is worth considering.

The sum effect of this theoretical work – the political systems model and the structural-functional model – on civics education – particularly on the content of civics curriculum – is to emphasize teaching the structure and processes of input agents such as interest groups and the structure and processes of government. 

What is minimized is a more value-oriented content.  This is significantly different from what prevailed as late as the mid-1960s when at the high school level, courses entitled Problems of Democracy were common.  In short, civics became more mechanical and avoided dealing with social issues that could be controversial. 

Today, if teachers want to introduce controversial issues, they need to either develop such materials or obtain available materials that are designed to have students analyze such issues and develop defensible positions regarding such concerns.[1]  More on this below.

As for the story that led to the current prevailing view of civics, there are three relevant developments.  One, the one that this blog has already commented on extensively, is the growing cultural shift from a federalist view to a natural rights view in the prevailing beliefs and attitudes concerning government and politics.  But there are two other developments that have had meaningful effects.

The second development was the prominent position that behavioral psychology enjoyed in the study of politics during the mid-century years of the last century.  The work of various behaviorists, most prominent being B. F. Skinner, had an influence on the various social sciences.  The exact nature of this influence was a subject David Easton wrote about:

The original behavioristic paradigm, S-R (stimulus-response), has yielded to the more intelligible one of S-O-R (stimulus – organism – response) in which feelings, motivations, and all the other aspects of the subjective awareness and reaction of the organism are taken into account as potentially useful data.  This has, of course, spelled the doom of pristine behaviorism …[2]

This quote hints at the influence of behaviorism.  That is, it assumes people basically try to seek rewards and avoid punishments.  The variance lies in how a current situation is viewed and how rewards and punishments are defined at a given time.  By studying behaviors, how people react in what they do in varying situations, one can describe, with certain levels of certainty, how people will behave in similar situations in the future.  This view led to the input-output-feedback structure of the political systems model. 

          Critics of this view argued that the whole systems approach made the study of politics mechanical.  To counter, Easton argued that with the introduction of an “organism” element, the systems view was more akin to studying politics as the activity of an organism with self-adjusting abilities.  One issue debated was how deterministic this view attempted to cast political behavior.  Briefly stated, the question was:  how much was human political behavior no more than a calculation of rewards and punishments in a particular environment?

          And by observing and measuring behavior, political studies took on a more scientific posture.  The turn provided an anecdote to what was perceived as being more traditional approaches to that study that relied on historical methods of research. 

Many saw those earlier methods as elaborate self-indulgent exercises in which personal political biases were expressed.  Lacking any effort to objectify their analysis using qualitative methods, political scientists were not scientists; they were, at best, expert editorial writers.  On the other hand, a shift toward a behavioral approach promised to be scientific as it relied on quantitative research instead.

          There was created a nexus between those who favored quantified research, such as corporate approaches to studying business practices, and natural rights advocates who favored self-defining consumer demands.  There is an ironic association in which those who see value in a deterministic accounting for human behavior and, at the same time, hold a view of individuals being free agents to determine their life goals and how to pursue those goals.

These reflect assumptions about the nature of human beings that barely rise to conscious consideration.  Yet this inconsistency seems not to deter those who defend both behaviorism and believe that liberty should be a person’s political trump value.  

By doing so, those educators who agree with both positions develop and implement a natural rights-based civics curriculum which practices instruction that is devoid of normative concerns and highly reliant on imparting information concerning the structure and functions of government.

But there was a singular historical event that sealed the establishment of a natural rights approach.  This third development was the launching of Sputnik, the Soviet satellite.  Suddenly, in 1957, the US’s major adversary demonstrated that it had the scientific understanding, technical knowledge, and wherewithal to deliver a nuclear weapon via a rocket.  That posed a true threat to America.  The US could not match that ability and, therefore, had to immediately do something about it.

One of the things the government did was to invest a great deal of money in the nation’s schools to upgrade math and science instruction.  This would close the gap between the US and the Soviet Union regarding the science and math knowledge requirements to catch the Soviets.[3]

In the process, the government provided moneys to other disciplines and that included social studies.  Suddenly, there appeared new curricula with names such as new math, new biology, new physics, and the like.  Included was the new social studies.

The new social studies was to be more scientific in its instructional choices.  The general thought was to align school subjects with science and scientific thinking by imbuing the nation’s overall curriculum with scientifically inspired innovations.

Educators introduced students to methodologies – referred to as the scientific method.  This newer approach was applied to social studies and was called the inquiry approach.  And this took place at the same time the above-mentioned application of systems’ behavioral view was being applied to human study.  Even the study of history was affected.[4]

Citing progressive rationales, social studies teachers were to implement open-ended lessons, thereby generating student involvement into investigating inquiry questions and avoiding dull lecturing; an aim, by the way, that was not successfully accomplished.  Most social studies teachers kept on lecturing. 

While there were teachers who attempted the newer instructional methods, they were the exceptions.  One should never expect that teachers will readily accept what educational innovators concoct on their university campuses or in their publishing offices.  The new social studies movement lasted about ten to fifteen years and all that remains, in terms of civics education, are textbooks that do not apply inquiry methods, but do reflect the bias to present structural and functional information.

But what about values education?  One can readily see the relevance of values if the subject matter is citizenship.  The natural rights bias is to promote individuals determining what their own values will be – it treats this concern as an element of liberty.  On the other hand, the bias toward objectifying political studies encouraged that a distance should be established between the study of government and politics and the treatment of values.[5] 

The effect was to avoid or diminish any treatment of value issues in the classroom.[6]  There were exceptions to this general trend.  Sensing a demand for addressing values in relation to social studies, there were various projects that attempted to fill the gap that the natural rights turn created.  Two notable examples were the Jurisprudential approach[7] and the values clarification approach.[8] 

Both efforts had students review either a controversial issue or a personal character issue and pass judgement as to what should be done in a value challenged situation or how students should identify a personal preference.  Those choices were to reflect students’ values and, in turn, provide the opportunity and obligation to publicly – within the classroom – defend the values identified.  The instructor’s role was not to pass judgement as to the worthiness of students’ preferences, but to instruct them on how to logically defend their positions.

Stated another way, as part of the nation’s shift toward a natural rights perspective, one resulting change was relinquishing the traditional dependence on Protestant theology to define what moral lessons schools imparted to students.[9]  Collectively, these two efforts were to present either opportunities for students to make life-defining value statements or to solve controversial issues which presented value dilemmas in the classroom. 

These efforts are continued even today by others, mostly education professors as part of their training of aspiring teachers.  In most classrooms around the nation, the only values that are actively promoted are organizational values that are essential in running a school.  Such values are, for example, punctuality – get to class on time – and honesty – don’t cheat on tests.  But in terms of political values, students are mostly left to their own devices.

---

[1] For example, an organization that offers civics rationale and classroom materials concerning controversial issues is ProCon.com.  See http://www.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=005860 (accessed April 5, 2017).  Some of the argument promoting such value oriented material ties the concern to instruction that has students engage in critical thinking.  Critical thinking has gained prominence in the various state standards around the country.

[2] David Easton, “The Current Meanings of ‘Behavioralism,’” in Contemporary Political Analysis, ed. James C. Charlesworth (New York, NY:  The Free Press, 1967), 11-31, 12.

[3] Jeffrey Byford and William Russell, “The New Social Studies:  A Historical Examination of Curriculum Reform,” Social Studies Research and Practice, 2 (1), accessed April 7, 2017, http://www.socstrpr.org/files/Vol%202/Issue%201%20-%20Spring%202007/Research/2.1.3.pdf .

[4] Edwin Fenton, The New Social Studies, (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1967).

[5] Reference to values, according to this view, should be limited to treating them as variables in the study of human behavior, variables no more important than other variables such as income level or ethnic background.  For example, why do citizens vote the way they do?  A tested variable in a relevant inquiry could look at stated values as a predictor of voting behavior.

[6] James D. Hunter, The Death of Character:  Moral Education in an Age without Good and Evil (New York, NY:  Basic Books, 2000.

[7] Donald W. Oliver and James P. Shaver, Teaching Public Issues in the High School (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1966) AND Fred M. Newmann, and Donald W. Oliver, Clarifying Public Controversy:  An Approach to Teaching Social Studies (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company, 1970).

[8] Louis E. Raths, Merrill Harmin, and Sidney B. Simon, Values and Teaching (Columbus, OH:  Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co, 1966).

[9] Toni M. Massaro, Constitutional Literacy (Durham, NC:  Duke University Press 1993) AND James D. Hunter, The Death of Character:  Moral Education in an Age without Good and Evil.

REQUISITE FUNCTIONS OF SYSTEMS

In the last posting, the political systems model was introduced along with the work of David Easton.  It was pointed out that the Easton designed model was the center of political science research during the 1950s and 1960s.  But there was other theorizing at that time and the contribution of two collaborators served to augment Easton's work.  Gabriel Almond and G. Bingham Powell, Jr.,[1] offered another model that served to fill a lack that many saw in Easton’s systems model.

Almond and Powell’s structural-functional model further enriches the political systems model by providing a set of factors that affects governmental decision-makers.  These theorists added a requisite dimension to the systems model.  They argued that political systems, to survive, had to satisfy certain requisites or functions.  If a political system does not meet these requisites, they would be considered dysfunctional and creating damaging stress to a system.

A system that faces sufficient stress will be facing highly threatening conditions and might spell the end of the system.  For example, a system that is dealing with extreme partisanship or uncooperative relations between or among segments of the government – as was the case between Obama’s executive branch and the Republican Party’s controlled legislative branch during the last six years of President Obama’s presidency – demonstrates this dysfunctionality.  In that case, the two branches were unable to cooperate and enact needed legislation.  Consequently, the system was not meeting the rule-making function.

This contributed to the stress demonstrated during the 2016 election cycle.[2] [i]  If a system experiences enough stress, its future existence comes into question.  The functions these theorists offer are rule-application, rule-adjudication as well as rule-making (these just so happen to correspond with the national government’s three branches of government), interest articulation, and interest aggregation.

In addition to their casting light on what decision-makers within the system should consider, they also express concern over the environment of the system and its political culture.  This cultural element places meaningful limits on which political demands and behaviors are acceptable – seen as legitimate. 

Their list of functions is applicable to any political system, but by adding their account of political culture to the model, it permits scholars to design their research to the differing political conditions of the varying systems that exist on the planet. 

The structural-functional model by Almond and Powell does steer political studies in various ways.  For example, this approach was useful in promoting comparative political study.  In turn, comparative political study is a major branch of political science.  By utilizing functional analysis, the model provides for variables that are conducive to quantifiable analysis of any political system.

In addition, emphasizing requisite functions leads to an obvious result; that is, for a system to satisfy these functions, it must be structurally arranged to perform those acts that fulfill the functions.  By structurally arranged, it is meant that a system needs to establish and maintain appropriate departments, agencies, offices, and their institutionalized processes.  In turn, this is a further subject for scholarly study across different political systems.

---

[1] Gabriel Almond and G. Bingham Powell, Jr., Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach (Boston, MA:  Little, Brown, 1966).

[2] Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, “Finding the Common Good in an Era of Dysfunctional Governance,” Daedalus:  Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 142 (2), 2013, 15-24.

---

[i] By pointing out the Obama administration, this description is not casting blame on President Obama or any other politician of that time.  But here is an opinion published in the Washington Post, on September 4, 2016, by respected political scientist, Norman J, Ornstein:  “Now we have a pair of blue-ribbon establishment Republicans fundamentally suggesting the same approach [that of obstructionism] — one that has contributed to the decline of the Republican brand, the rise of Donald Trump, the weakening of GOP leadership and the growth of know-nothing radical anti-government sentiment — months before the election of a president.”  Where one might agree, or disagree with this editorial opinion, it threatened the continued existence of the Republican Party as a viable political party.

A VIEW OF POLITICS USED BY A NATURAL RIGHTS CURRICULUM

When a curriculum developer determines the content of a school offering, he/she needs to rely on the relevant area of study that produces reliable knowledge in that field.  For civics education, the primary area of study is political science.  In the age of natural rights dominance (which this blog has described), American educators have chosen a unified theoretical foundation, the political systems model.[1] 

This model has its origins in the work of David Easton.[2]  In the 1950s and 1960s, his theoretical work dominated the direction political research took.  In turn, because of this dominance, the nation’s growing allegiance to the natural rights view and other historical occurrences, educators saw political systems model as highly adaptable to their needs. 

Therefore, they more thoroughly saw governance and politics as a complex set of activities and structures aimed at providing public services.  The approach is designated as systemic in that the resulting entity of activities and structures is visualized as having intra-active components.  As will be further explained below, the entity is self-regulating, including its pursuit of its own survival. 

The general process that the model identifies is as follows:  the government or the political system takes in demands and supports from the population – inputs – and, reacting to those stimuli, issues outputs.  These issuances are usually in the form of policies.  If the policy is of any importance, they are authoritative; that is, they are backed by law. 

Obviously, before a government or the system acts, it must decide to act.  In terms of Easton’s model, this is done in what some have called a black box since the model provides little insight into what the decision-making process is.  The model instead shifts attention to those policies or “output,” such as laws and regulations.[3]

In terms of the model’s view of citizens, they are assumed to be generally self-sufficient and can for the most part solve their own needs and desires.  Typically, people are reluctant to seek government services beyond those generally provided, such as police and fire protection. 

But there are times when they encounter conditions that deprive them of satisfying important enough needs or desires.  At those times, individually or, more commonly, collectively, they make their dissatisfaction known to government officials to seek those things or services that they perceive will meet their demands.  This view of governance and citizenship has been described by Michael J. Sandel as a consumer perspective.[4] 

Consequently, government takes on a third-party role which in effect creates a psychological separation between government and its citizens.  This view is further enforced by certain assumptions:

·        One, government's main purpose is to be protective of individual rights.  In turn, those rights afford the individual the ability to pursue those ambitions they themselves determine.

·        Two, government acts as a neutral arbiter and is limited to overseeing a competitive process among the populous as they seek the governmental decisions that are favorable to their interests.

·        And three, individuals are motivated to engage in the competition to advance their self-interest. 

There are important implications derived from these assumptions. First, the process will result in winners and losers since resources are limited and certain outcomes, by their very nature, exclude other outcomes.  As a result, certain citizens will be disappointed to some degree.  This inevitability concerned Easton as he identified stress management as a main political concern.  If the process creates enough stress, this can lead to serious systemic problems. 

And the second implication is that this view of governance and politics places a high dependency on an individualistic view.  This has further implications on how moral concerns are to be considered.  In the last posting, the influence of Machiavelli’s writings was reviewed.  It was pointed out that that influence gave politics, both in its practice and study, an amoral bent.  The only moral concern seems to be the concern for liberty.

Many consider this approach to government as a mechanical view.  The analogy goes as follows:  inputs in terms of a machine consist of fuel and in terms of a political system there are demands and supports; conversion of a machine is an engine and in a political system the government; and outputs in a machine is the activity it performs, for example moving a car and its passengers, and in a political system the laws and regulation the government issues. 

Scholars who utilize a systems model to guide their research often dismiss this analogy.  They point out that a human, such as a political system, has a feedback capacity.  That is a self-reflected response to the way people react to outputs.  Machines cannot do that, although, with advancements in computers, they have been programmed in many ways to provide feedback. 

It is this writer’s contention that the distinguishing characteristics between machines and human systems is the ability of human systems to feel, either on an individual basis or on a collective basis.  This distinction suggests an important aspect of systems theories that one can find wanting. 

---

[1] This writer’s use of the terms theory and model need to be defined.  A theory is a proposed explanation of some reality, such as gravity or evolution, that has had strong empirical evidence to support it.  The theory of evolution is an example.  A model is an explanation or description that has some evidence to support it, but is much less able to predict and/or control the reality it addresses.  In the social sciences, generally, scholars are dependent on models since their research has not afforded scholars or policy makers with much predictive or controlling power.

[2] 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).

[3] This mirrors a behavioral approach to psychology, especially as that study was viewed back in the days when systems models were initially offered.  In that approach, in terms of attempting to be scientific, the claim was made that one cannot see what goes on in a subject’s mind, but one can see and measure a subject’s behavior.  Similarly, political scientists saw the study of politics as seeing and measuring what governments did in the form of outputs.

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

NATURAL RIGHTS LEADS TO SYSTEMS APPROACH

There is a general descriptive statement one can make concerning scholarly, scientific work that attempts to record, describe, and explain what is real.  Scholars seek unifying theories or constructs that provide them a holistic view of what they study.  This is more readily attainable in the natural sciences – there is a unifying theory in biology and chemistry, for example.  Physics is searching for such a theory that accommodates what is known about both relativity and quantum mechanics.

On the other hand, the social sciences have been unable to even approach developing unified theories.  Take political science; as with the other social sciences, it is easily affected by notions of right and wrong – normative considerations – which interfere with the ability of political scientists to objectify political behavior.  Therefore, various approaches to the subject, in the form of various models, are bound to be developed.

Consequently, among political scientists, choices are made as to what model will be utilized.  Naturally, this does affect civics education since this subject matter in the curriculum demands an overarching theoretical approach to the study of government and politics – if for no other reason, it helps in producing and selling textbooks for a national market.

For a variety of reasons, mostly historical, civics educators have chosen the political systems model as their theoretical foundation.  This perspective is logically derived from the natural rights construct.  But more fundamentally, one should not see such a choice as inevitable – as it tends to be – but rather a product of a choice over other options.

The average classroom teacher is not conscious of this choice; the option is simply in place.   It’s what the textbook reflects and is the theoretical foundation of a state defined curriculum and state standards.  Of course, this choice has consequences in that it determines, to a great degree, the resulting content that the teacher presents in his/her lessons.  That includes what is emphasized, what is asked about, and what desired outcomes are sought.

To provide an overview, a political systems model, as it reflects natural rights perspective, is to guide educators to see politics as a grand procedure in which a compromise is sought over competing ambitions.  Generally, the studied procedure is deemed to be a legitimate, competitive process. 

The model does this by defining citizenship, government, and politics in terms that are conducive to this competitive imagery.  It indicates or seeks explanations about how, in generic terms, these elements coordinate to arrive at distributive decisions – who gets what, when, and where – and how those decisions are implemented. 

One could ask:  what other options are there?  Well, the choice could be a construct in which more communal concerns are highlighted (as with efforts to promote social capital as described in this blog).  Instead, the choice of the natural rights/political systems option is one that promotes a more individualist and consumerist approach to the study of government and politics. 

This blog has identified the origins of the natural rights view in the writings of John Locke.  In terms of political systems, it philosophically can be traced to two sources:  the Enlightenment and the ideas of Niccolo Machiavelli. 

The effect of the Enlightenment is to promote three qualities:  a bias for rational thought, the use of logical analysis, and a genuine appreciation for what is natural.  These biases have been expressed through a call for and a reliance on science and scientific research methodologies. 

In terms of Machiavelli’s influence, the Italian theorist’s writings have the effect of encouraging political scholars to dismiss their concerns over whether governmental policies are moral and, instead, to view politics as amoral.  That is, they are to study the selfish ambitions of political actors and this, in turn, reflects an objectified search for how these actors attain and implement power.[1] 

Overall, such a search will uncover certain claimed truisms concerning politics.  That is, politics is merely part of our human nature, as it is and not in as it should be.  Ironically, though, normative elements cannot be totally ignored in that such a view of politics dictates how governmental officials – Machiavelli focuses on the prince – should conduct their responsibilities.  He summarizes this mode of governing as a leader being both a lion and fox.

How?  For example, concerns by a leader for the welfare of constituents are misplaced.  Consequently, he/she should not provide resources to the poor. To do so would make the ruler seem weak because he or she would apparently be motivated by sentimentality and inevitably hated when he or she cannot afford to provide the assistance.

The leader sees his/her interests in relation to citizens as being limited to policies that advance his/her power.  As such, this “allows” a political actor – who is not sentimental – to seek his/her political ambitions with few restraints other than those imposed by actors who have more power.  In its purest form, it is known as being “Machiavellian.”

This is not to say that either the ideas of the Enlightenment or of Machiavelli dictate what constitutes a study or a lesson plan that utilizes natural rights/political systems perspective; instead, these sources provide philosophical underpinnings to the perspective.  But, having pointed that out, one should see these sources as two guiding influences on how the perspective guides either political science research or lesson planning in civics.

In addition, it also reflects how most citizens view government and politics.  While most do not hold this bias in its purest form – see the previous posting – there is among the citizenry a leaning toward believing everyone is about taking care of his/her own interests with little concern for the common benefit. 

While most would not describe politics as amoral, they do tend to objectify its study – assuming the issue in question does not directly affect the person being asked.  It is quite amazing how many of the most ardent proponents of natural rights views seem to be more in favor of government action being “sympathetic” to their needs when their interests are threatened – often using communal language to further those interests.  But short of that, being sensitive to communal concerns is generally seen as being naively idealistic.[2]

---

[1] By stating that the concern is over a citizen’s interests, a citizen is free to define those interests in terms of promoting the welfare of others.  He/she is free to be as selfish or altruistic as he/she deems is best for him/herself.  That is, “selfish ambitions” could be defined as being concerned with others.  Yet, this is not seen as a very likely expression of an actor’s ambitions.

[2] Norman Ornstein, “American Democracy and the Common Good,” The Huffington Post, accessed September 22, 2016, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/norman-ornstein/american-democracy-and-th_b_3354628.html.

THE NATURAL RIGHTS VIEW APPLIED

There are various versions of the natural rights perspective, but this blog has focused on the original version attributed to the philosophy of John Locke, how that version was interpreted in America during the time of the writing of the US Constitution in 1787, and the contemporary version which is noted for its lack of substantive normative elements. 

Locke wrote of the moral superiority of hard work as he rallied readers to oppose the privileged position of the nobility in Britain of the late 1600s – a group called the “no ability” by Thomas Paine.  Today’s version simply holds that valuing hard work is up to the individual to accept or reject.

Of course, the later version is what has become dominant in how the nation defines its politics and many of its social views.  If one accepts this description, one can readily imagine how deduced and associated values affect relations between and among people from family situations to boardroom discussions.  This blog used a plot line from a show, Men of a Certain Age,[1] to illustrate how natural rights thinking prevails as a family deals with a common issue.

The plot begins when the main character, a divorced father who has custody of his teenaged daughter, comes home unexpectedly to find her in a compromising position with her boyfriend.  A vibrant “conversation” ensues between the father and the daughter and among the topics that pop up is individual rights.  By engaging in this discussion, father and daughter demonstrate how politically defined principles affect domestic, homebound concerns.

          If one shifts one’s attention from family situations to the economy, the influence is more direct.  Capitalist or free market approach to economics is morally based on natural rights arguments, demonstrating how the natural rights perspective is actualized in this very important institution. 

Perhaps these moral elements do not become more passionately expressed than when the economy is in duress as it was in 2008, highlighting many of the moral issues in which defenders and opponents of this view debated what should be done or not done.  The prospect of losing millions of jobs in a relatively short amount of time will make any person review and reevaluate what he/she believes is good and evil.

One cannot deny the enormous wealth that capitalist/free market economies have been able to create.  The attributes of free market allow people to overcome the obstacles that keep them economically constrained.  They embolden people to actively seek and discover what their interests are and find ways to advance them.

Despite exploitive conditions that early factory workers or miners sustained, over the longer term, more people benefited by instituting free markets in the industrial age.  Why?  Because in a capitalist economy each person looks after his or her own interests by the means he or she chooses to pursue.  When so engaged, in a system of competition, a person is motivated to act productively and efficiently to maximize his/her interests.  Accumulatively, the interests of the greater society are also advanced – at least most of the time.

Where a liberty-based morality holds, as is the case with a free market society, a people will tend to prohibit attempts to interfere with the workings of such a system – even when the economy is in danger of collapse as it was in ’08.  Defenders of free market system might be motivated to exert such a prohibition for financial reasons, but many do so for moral reasons as well. 

Among its defenders, there are those – the purists – who argue for unrestrained markets.  For example, there are libertarians who claim that an integral aspect of capitalist systems is the tenet that individuals who have the freedom to make their own choices should be held accountable for those choices.  When government bails out those who have freely chosen to pursue counterproductive options, it promotes the entailed “foolishness” and all the counterproductive consequences such behaviors produce.  This is immoral in their estimations.

But not all defenders of free markets agree.  There are those who might consider themselves as moderates.  Usually, moderates see a role for government in free market economies.  They might even see that role as moral as when the government bailed out certain segments of the economy in 2008 such as the banks and the auto industry.  Without government action, the economy would have probably collapsed into a world depression causing untold human misery.  For them, such a turn would have been immoral.

Therefore, such a governmental role was considered justified – if not the particulars of what was done in ’08 – by most of the populous.  The qualifier is, to see such interference as legitimate, a person needs to compromise pure natural rights values, at least as they are currently defined.  In a free market society, though, the burden to justify such government interference lies with those who propose it.

To summarize, purists, those who abide by uncompromised natural rights beliefs – i.e. in a belief in unfettered individualism and free markets – approach a near hands-off posture by government.  They oppose most governmental programs such as Social Security.  This bias is so ingrained that people such as libertarians see interference by government as immoral.

On the other hand, those who basically agree that people should be left to their own devices in identifying and seeking their interests and believe people should be able to own and control property such as businesses, also believe government is there to help with those cases in which either the individual or the economy fails.  They tolerate some restraints and, beyond that, government programs that help those who might find themselves at a level of destitution.  After all, given the vicissitudes of life, anyone can be so afflicted.   

It is over these diverse views that much of the nation’s political debates occur.  That is, most political disagreements revolve around how strongly citizens hold natural rights values.  Currently, the debate over healthcare reflects how purists and moderates are pitted against each other.  

Those who are purer in their natural rights beliefs are considered conservative voters[2] and those who see a place for economic restraints, socialist programs such as Social Security and welfare programs, are considered liberals (albeit, the term liberal is somewhat confusing in that natural rights beliefs are based on classical liberal philosophy) or progressives.  To see this division at play, one need only watch the evening news.

---

[1] Mike Royce and Ray Romano, Men of a Certain Age, Ray Romano (2009; Hollywood, CA:  TNT) television series.

[2] Conservatism is not limited to this standard.  Social conservatives – those who tend to be pro-religion – are also considered conservative voters and might even disagree with economic conservatives about how anti-government they are in relation to economic activity.