FURTHER THINGS TO KNOW ABOUT THE OPIOID CRISIS

Interested in the opioid crisis?  This blog has addressed this tragic calamity facing the nation in past postings.  This posting can list the titles (and dates) of previous postings that have highlighted this topic, but can more efficiently draw the reader’s attention to an online site in which this blogger has listed, in the form of factoids and insights, useful information concerning this epidemic.  That site’s URL is https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=CED163627385DD3C!11635&ithint=file%2cdocx&app=Word&authkey=!AFhwqIF3ZhONVK8 .

          That site not only has information regarding the various types of opioids but also information regarding different related aspects of its sell and distribution including governmental reactions to the problem.  The individual bits of information are sourced so the reader can further investigate the information.

          This posting aims to add to those listings and it uses a recurring source the above site uses.  That source is Beth Macy’s book, Dopesick:  Dealers, Doctors, and the Drug Company that Addicted America.[1]  This more recent book serves as a good follow up to Sam Quinones’ book, Dreamland:  The True Tale of America’s Opiate Epidemic.[2]  Both are “good reads” and they do an effective job at humanizing this plague on the nation.  They also portray how this drug abuse exposes the lack of a federalist mindset among Americans – a mindset that prevailed before World War II.

But before sharing the factoids and insights, a word on why this format is used is helpful.  Earlier in this blog, several postings make the case that a main instructional strategy this blog supports is an approach it calls historical dialogue-to-action (HD-to-A).[3]  As its title indicates, discourse plays a central role.  Beyond that, the approach commits a teacher to spend time developing students’ abilities to utilize logical arguments in that discourse. 

In turn, the approach relies on Stephen Toulmin’s logical model of argumentation.[4]  In that model, the function of factoids (called datum statements) and insights (called warrant statements) play crucial functions in the formulation of a logical argument.  Interested readers are directed to yet another former posting, “Toulmin’s Elements of a Logical Argument.”[5] 

With that context here is this posting’s list of factoids and insights – they are identified as examples of each type of statement.

Factoid:  A more recent type of opioid has been found among the public.  That is carfentanil.  Macy reports that it was originally developed as a sedative for elephants.  It is one hundred times stronger than the strong opioid, fentanyl, which, in turn, is 25 to 50 times stronger than heroin.

Factoid:  The state of West Virginia – through its burial-assistance program – was at the time of a cited report running out of funds dedicated to burying opioid victims.  West Virginia is not alone in this problem; similar reports come from a variety of states from Florida to California.  Generally, the epidemic moved from rural areas to urban areas.  Of special interest is the urban corridor between Baltimore and New York City.

Factoid:  Macy judges the nation’s response to the epidemic to be very slow and very impotent once it began.

Insight:  Unlike the spread of other drug consumption patterns, the opioid problem started in isolated areas such the Appalachian area or the Midwestern rust belt region.  This is attributed, at least in part, to the downward trends the local economies of those areas experienced especially after the introduction of competition from low income countries from around the world.  Not only were the economies of these areas under stress, but they were already known to be politically powerless areas that lacked appropriate medical facilities to meet the crisis.

Insight:  Also adding a causal effect to an overall lack of a reaction to the epidemic was the “stigma and shame” one attaches to the resulting addiction.  People and families affected were highly reluctant to come forward and let their problem be known.

Insight:  “Because the most important thing for the morphine-hijacked brain is, always, not to experience the crushing physical and psychological pain of withdrawal:  to avoid dopesickness at any cost.  [This leads to] … many users recruit[ing] new customers. … [creating a cycle, which] too often ends in jail or prison or worse …”[6]

          These factoids and insights will be added to the online site.

---

[1] Beth Macy, Dopesick:  Dealers, Doctors, and the Drug Company that Addicted America (New York, NY:  Riverhead Books, 2018).  In terms of Macy’s book, this posting is not the first time this blog has cast an eye on it.  For example, the posting, “More Information on Opioid Crisis,” was posted on July 23, 2019.  See Robert Gutierrez, “More Information on Opioid Crisis,” Gravitas:  A Voice for Civics, July 23, 2013, accessed February 13, 2020, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2019/07/more-information-on-opioid-crisis.html .

[2] Sam Quinones, Dreamland:  The True Tale of America’s Opiate Epidemic (New York, NY:  Bloomsbury Publishing, 2015).

[3] Robert Gutierrez, “Turning to Action – A Model,” Gravitas:  A Voice for Civics, March 5, 2019, accessed February 13, 2020, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2019/03/turning-to-action-model.html .

[4] Stephen Toulmin, The Uses of Argument (London:  Cambridge University Press, 1969).

[5] Robert Gutierrez, “Toulmin’s Elements of a Logical Argument,” Gravitas:  A Voice for Civics, August 22, 2017, accessed February 13, 2020, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2017/08/toulmins-elements-of-logical-argument.html .

[6] Beth Macy, Dopesick, 9.

WELFARE, FREEDOM, AND VIRTUE

One recurring argument this blog has proffered is that civics education should recommit to moral or values related objectives.  That is, it should ask students to deal with moral dilemmas one finds in the political landscape.  Not only should such analysis target governmental policy – at whatever level – but address the moral actions of citizens and interest groups.  After all, these entities are partnered within the compact-al arrangement that the nation’s constitution sets up.

          Probably, no other concept lies at the bottom of this concern than does justice.  Fortunately, the thoughts of Michael Sandel are out there to assist any discussion over which moral issues should be addressed.  This posting reports on the related priorities he poses that serve to organize his contribution.[1]  Specifically, he highlights the function justice plays in determining what values to which one should ascribe.

          To begin, he points out that justice has to do with distribution, especially the distribution of assets, but also with punishments that often restrict or confiscate assets.  In short, questions of justice and their resolution affect how much or how many assets a person or group receives or should be able to protect.  These assets take various forms that include goods, welfare, freedom or liberty, and those associated with virtue. 

Along with visualizing them as cherished objects, they can be ideals and, in turn, they are placed in priority.  These determinations can reflect various ways of considering moral issues and/or of developing moral principles.  As a matter of fact, people tend to use the last three listed asset categories – welfare, freedom or liberty, and virtue – as central concerns in their moral thinking.  This is no more the case than in how they pertain to political realities and their related issues.

          Sandel uses these to organize his thoughts and starts with the ideal, welfare.  With that concern one is guided to consider economic factors, not only on how the economy might affect individuals, but also how the factors affect the whole society or polity.  One can readily agree that no single ideal captures more attention in the political realm of discussion and debate than the concerns over welfare. 

Maybe the famous quip, “it’s the economy, stupid,” oversimplifies things, but there is a reason it became famous.  Generally, the give and take over the economy refers to or asks about various questions.  They include,

·       What should a society’s economic goals be?

·       If, and one cannot see it being otherwise, that includes avenues toward prosperity, who should share in any achieved success and to what degree?

·       And, what policies – both in the public and private sectors – lead to the highest level of economic growth possible? 

It turns out these are not isolated concerns; how one answers one, economic theory states, affects how the others are also answered.

And prosperity is not just a nice thing to happen; it adds to or makes possible the realization of acceptable levels of overall welfare.  That is, as utilitarianists point out, welfare is defined as the greatest good for the greatest number.  While one does not need to buy into the utilitarianist argument, it is hard to disagree with the notion that the greatest good for the greatest number is not something to avoid, all other things being equal.

The second ideal is freedom and here one’s attention is drawn to how freedom is defined.  For most, it relates and emphasizes how and why individuals are respected, i.e., to what degree does the individual enjoy rights.  Now, not all who study such things agree either as to what are rights, or, once defined, which rights are important.  But one can note, most theories about rights place them in some hierarchy of importance.

For most who ascribe to the notion that history bends toward justice (which does not necessarily pertain to this blogger), they buy into some general listing of importance as indicated in the US Bill of Rights or the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights.  These listings include the right of free speech, freedom of association, freedom of religiosity, etc.  These listings generally serve to place limits on the power of majorities to curb individual prerogatives which often lead to highly contentious politics.

This concern over rights demonstrates how concerns over welfare and freedom affect one another.  The question, for example, arises:  Do certain freedom policies enhance or restrict welfare by either inducing or restricting the performances of businesses?  And here is where one finds a recurring area of concern within this nation’s – or just about any nation’s – political discourse.  What should be the relationship between the business sector and government?

This question solicits two basic answers.  One, is the laissez-faire argument.  That argument holds that welfare – economic performance – reaches its highest levels when economic actors are free to do their thing.  Any interference – mostly emanating from government – only hinders the economy from preforming at its full capacity. 

On the other hand, government interventionists question the laissez faire conclusion – where’s the evidence for such a sweeping bias?[2] – and point out economies that run without strong oversight and regulations lead to economic disasters – such as the Great Depression.  Such hands-off policies also leads to unjust distribution of economic goods – such as income and consequently wealth. 

This latter concern seems to be of prime importance to those who favor intervention while laissez-faire advocates minimize its importance as long as the ground rules for any results are judged to be fair – let the chips fall where they may.

And with that, Sandel turns to the concern about virtue.  He also uses the term, good life, to describe this ideal.  Here, probably, of the three listed ideals, one finds the highest levels disagreement among those who consider these three ideals.  It also engenders the most motivation to “get involved” in the political goings on of one’s locality.  Often this concern relates to religious beliefs or beliefs over human worth.

Sandel cites those who have notoriety for involving themselves over issues of virtue ranging from Martin Luther King, Jr. to the Taliban.  This variance indicates that there is a wide array of beliefs associated with virtue including:  what constitutes virtue, what is/are its origins, and who has it?  It most directly is concerned with what constitutes a just society (a bit circular?).  And such concerns range from disagreements at the societal level, with its political realm, to debates individuals have within themselves – the questions can be that unsettling to those involved in any of a multitude of related issues.

Surely, any thinking human being will confront dilemmas in life whose origins deal with a concern over what is virtuous and what is not.  They can include:  how one provides for elderly parents, where one sends his/her children to school, how to react to incidences of injustice one might observe in public spaces such as on a public bus, etc.?  Professional moral-thinkers, such as Sandel, analyze moral situations and gleam from them generalizable questions and proffer thought-out responses to those questions.  This blog will look at this topic again.

---

[1] Michael J. Sandel, Justice:  What’s the right thing to do?  (New York, NY:  Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2009).

[2] See Abhijit V. Banerjee and Esther Duflo, Good Economics for Hard Times (New York, NY:  Public Affairs, 2019).

BACK TO BASICS, I

Every so often, this blogger is reminded that anyone of his postings might be a reader’s first exposure to this blog.  So, it seems prudent to review some of the blog’s main organizing ideas from time to time.  Those revisits also give this blogger the opportunity to add some additional ideas or concerns.  Here is one of those times, and there is no more basic idea associated with this blog than federalism.

Hopefully, even regular readers might benefit from some rehashing of basic concepts that hold this blog together.  Along with the idea of federalism, this blog has relied on the theorizing provided by the late eminent political scientist, Daniel J. Elazar.  He refers to this construct as federal theory – this blog favors the term, federation theory. 

Elazar supports this theory, generally, because the theory helps political scientists accomplish three goals that he claims political scientists should attempt to satisfy.  The goals are:

·       the pursuit of political justice in government’s role in establishing and maintaining order;

·       discovering the generalizable factors that correlate with the various political actions that characterize a polity; and

·       discover, communicate, and promote those policies that create a functional civic environment – through a civil society and a civil community. 

Meeting the first two goals helps meet the third. 

What’s of particular interest in listing these goals is that since the behavioral revolt within the discipline – since 1930s but becoming prominent after World War II – political science has set aside normative questions.  Yet federal theory places normative questions central to the study of politics and that concern serves as an overall, directed rationale for the discipline’s existence.

Elazar writes,

… federal theory, to be good theory, must prove itself empirically, and the practical application of federal arrangements must always rest on some set of theoretical principles.  Thus the study of federalism is central to political science because of its linking of theoretical and practical wisdom, which is what all political science should do.[1]

But before one deduces that federal theory can study all forms of political arrangements equally, one needs to take into account that federalism refers to a particular arrangement that a polity can have.  And in this, Elazar reminds his readers that polities come about and become structured through various paths.

          Citing the The Federalist Papers, No. 1,[2] Elazar reminds his readers that polities come about through one of three ways.  The three ways are choice, accident, or force.  Beginning with the last of these, force is where a strong figure, usually a military leader, establishes the polity.  More often than not, this leads to Aristotle’s rule of the one.  Whether the one is a dictator, emperor, or strong king, that leader equates the state with his (usually a man) or her personage.

          In the case of accident, a polity evolves from a people in which its leadership revolves around the elites of that people and their family ties.  Usually, such an arrangement manifests itself in a noble class, a nobility.  Here, what results, is Aristotle’s rule of the few.  Traditions in such arrangements become important, especially if the traditions support the legitimacy of those families’ control.  In Europe, for example, the role of the Christian Church assisted the nobility by adding a religious rationale for the power arrangements that existed.

          But there is a third way and that occurs when a people, directly or through representation, establishes a polity; that is, it forms it through choice.  The choice option generally leads to the rule of the many, a la Aristotle.  A simplified view of that process can be expressed by pointing out that the people in question creates the polity through an agreement over the provisions of the resulting government. 

And Elazar adds, “understanding of federalism [that results from such an agreement] as a system of government based on choice and design rather than accident or force, which gives federal arrangements their special character.”[3]  This character leads, and this is the opinion of this blogger, to the necessity for normative questions being asked of the polity not just to understand its origins, but to understand what promotes and secures its continuation. 

And the central or near central question becomes what links and strengthens the association between the political behavior of the leadership and citizenry and the demands of justice.  If the polity rests on the conscious decisions of the people being governed, then that people need a reason to sustain it because that polity does not ultimately depend on force or traditions. 

It instead depends on an ongoing motivation on the part of the governed.  Therefore, the polity, on an ongoing basis, needs to satisfy the governmental needs and wants of those people to a higher degree than other polities based on other foundations – the foundations of force or accident.

One minor argument that Elazar offers with which this blogger disagrees is Elazar associates federalism with natural law and natural rights.  Perhaps if he were still with us, this blogger or someone could ask him what exactly he meant by linking the two, but his aim was to distinguish federalism from organic or positivist (behavioral) theories. 

Behavioral studies, as alluded to above, are based on quantitative analysis of political phenomena.  Organic refers to the “accident” view based on traditional, established relationships.  Natural rights can be more readily linked to behavioral studies in that by limiting analysis to behaviors, behaviors have the highest range of possible expression in polities that are established and maintained by “choice.”

The history of natural rights, while based on choice rationales, supports, through John Locke’s argument, the idea that individuals submit only to laws and norms that protect the rights of oneself and that of others.  Short of that, the individual pretty much has license to do what he/she wants to do.  Unfortunately, even though such an arrangement flows from an agreement (and this might be what Elazar is referring to), a partnership – which is what a federal arrangement sets up – demands more. 

Yes, perhaps the laws of a federalized government must be well-thought out not to undermine the integrity of each partner, but a federated union demands a more proactive support by its participants.  Laws might take on a natural rights patina – one can do what one wants to do short of hurting others or denying others’ their rights – but government policies in a federal union advance the interest of the commonwealth and, by doing so, will and can impose costs on the individual usually through taxation or other obligations and duties.

Having identified this possible disagreement, this blogger wants to highlight an advantage federalism provides especially in a more global political/economic world.  And here one can point out a weakness of an “organic” arrangement.  Again, organic theories are partial or akin to “accidental” polities.  In those polities, the power structure tends to support a notion that the body politics is an organic whole. 

In that sort of polity, as pointed out above, there is usually a rationale that claims the power structure is determined by some divine force, everyone has a predetermined place and role.  “Downton Abbey,” the British TV show, demonstrates a paternalistic version of that mentality.  But in a federalist arrangement, a different mentality takes hold and the opinion here is that it can accommodate a more global world.  On this front Elazar writes,

Federalism is resurfacing as a political force because it serves well the principle that there are no simple majorities or minorities but that all majorities are compounded of congeries of groups, and the corollary principle of minority rights, which not only protects the possibility for minorities to preserve themselves but forces majorities to be compound rather than artificially simple.  It serves those principles by emphasizing the consensual basis of the polity and the importance of liberty in the constitution and maintenance of the democratic republics.[4]

In other words, federalism encourages and augments the ideals associated with the rule of the many in its diverse makeup.

          As such, this construct advances democratic rule through a republican structure.  Richard Dagger describes a construct that one can almost consider to be synonymous with federalism, especially the version this blog promotes.  Dagger calls his view republican liberalism;[5] this blog calls its view liberated federalism.  From that writer’s account, one can readily denote the similarities between the two and they both mirror what is described above as federalist arrangements.

          An important derivative of these ideas is, in a world where living together cannot count on common ethnicities, common race, common religion, common national culture, etc., federalism becomes more instrumental in developing and maintaining functional political units, especially at the national level.  The relative advantage the US holds is that it began from a federalist foundation where many polities today are trying to arrive at more federalist understandings of governance.  With the rise of nationalism, though, this is proving to be very difficult. 

As for the American version, yes, originally, this nation’s view of federalism was too parochial – it even led to a civil war.  In addition, of late, in the years since World War II, the nation has drifted from its principles, but there is enough there to revive it in a more modern form.  In part, this blog is dedicated to the aim of advancing, to whatever degree possible, that endeavor.

---

[1] Daniel J. Elazar, Exploring Federalism (Tuscaloosa, AL:  The University of Alabama Press, 1987), no page designation, “Preface” in Kindle edition.

[2] Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, The Federalist Papers (New York, NY:  Signet, 2003).

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid., 1 (Kindle edition).

[5] Richard Dagger, Civic Virtue:  Rights, Citizenship, and Republican Liberalism (New York, NY:  Oxford, 1997).

A WILL-TO-“WIN”

A pair of former postings, “Nietzschean Power of the Will” (February 26, 2019) and “Implications Related to Self-Creation” (March 1, 2019), provides a description and explanation of how the ideas of nationalism – the ideology the current president claims to be his – is an outgrowth of individualism.  While the nationalist argument does not represent a straight version of Friedrich Nietzsche’s philosophy, his ideas are incorporated into what nationalists believe and overlap what they strive to accomplish.

          Here are a few lines from one of those postings,

… [T]hose who adhere to nationalism do not necessarily adopt all of Nietzsche’s view and his construct does not pretend to be an all-encompassing theory or philosophy.  What he was striving for is an unshackled sense of direction for individuals to follow.  Leadership, so directed, will not be constrained by religiosity, traditional values, or even reductionist bits of scientific knowledge.  And what are the implications of these ideas?  There are many …

          As one’s reason is diminished, emotions become even more central than is usually the case.  Intuitive thinking becomes central.  As such, one is much more apt to rely on prejudices.  Impulsiveness is more apt to be one’s mode of behavior.  Less reflection is probably more likely to occur.  “He [or she] acts from his [or her] gut” will become the mode of action for such motivated subjects. 

The reader is encouraged to click on those postings to more fully understand from where this posting is coming. 

Of central concern here is Nietzsche’s argument that, one, populations can be divided between the strong – those relatively few, talented individuals whose will to power leads the them to do what is necessary to secure that power – and, two, these same individuals are not hampered by traditional moral restraints – such as restraints imposed by religious beliefs.  And this latter claim can serve a civics teacher in that it provides an unabashed view of individualism that that teacher can use as a counter argument to a federalist view.

Jonathan Glover[1] provides an insightful review of Nietzschean ideas.  He points out various beliefs that constitute what most Western societies claim to support.  Generally, the values stem from the Judeo-Christian tradition that argues for altruism.  Westerners generally believe it is good to help others.  They espouse that value even if they don’t live by that value all the time.  Nietzsche saw that bias as debilitating.  He argued that such an argument was only a cover for mediocracy.

This “bad” conscience instilled on generations after generations of young people a hurtful message; that is, that in doing so the message relegates them to subordinate positions in the pecking order of society.  Instead, Nietzsche admires those who can see this foolishness for what it is, a slave mentality.  He admires those who can see beyond the hoax and unleash their will to dominate.

He did not soft sell the consequences of such politics.  This blog has often described what happens when one attempts to disregard the interests of others, especially to advance one’s own interests.  Some form of revenge is a definite possibility and if done often enough, it is an inevitability.  If one expands this reality over a polity and over time, the result is that the power structure will need to spend a lot on policing services to maintain order.

So, not only would rights be trampled but order would be a top level, expense item and one can note that authoritarian or totalitarian regimes spend a great deal on security forces and on other tools of oppression such as prisons, weaponry, and surveillance.

Nietzsche marveled at nature and its constant struggles for survival among animals.  This, he believed, was the fate of humans no matter how much “civilization” attempts to deceive itself into believing otherwise.  Glover writes,

Struggle was not merely to be accepted, but was also noble.  Zarathustra [Nietzsche’s fictional character] says ‘You should love peace as a means to new wars.  And the short peace more than the long … You say it is the good cause that hollows even war?  I tell you:  it is the good war that hallows every cause.’  Nietzsche admired the products of the struggle for survival.  Before the struggle was mitigated by modern society, it produced a noble version of man, a beast of prey who might inspire fear but who also deserved to inspire respect.  Modern European man, after centuries of Christianity, is a ‘measly, tame, domestic animal’.

          Christian morality’s rejection of the law of the jungle had almost ruined the human species:  for Nietzsche, it was more than time for that morality to be overturned.[2]

This blogger finds Nietzsche to be interesting in his honesty.  No, he, this blogger, does not buy into any of the philosopher’s argument, but he does not find himself wondering what Nietzsche was trying to say, although the work of Glover is appreciated.  And if this blogger were presently teaching high school students, any presentation of Nietzsche would be couched in a lot of language that would invite argumentation.  A concern of his would be whether or not a review of this material would be used to rationalize immature behavior.

There is more to Nietzsche’s views and they will be taken up at some future date.  What the reader can ask is which political leaders on the national stage exhibit Nietzsche’s ideals by being out-and-out exemplifications of his mentality.  This blogger can think of some and it would be interesting to see if students would agree and discuss what should be done about their influences.

---

[1] Jonathan Glover, Humanity:  A Moral History of the Twentieth Century (New Haven, CT:  Yale University Press, 1999).

[2] Ibid., 15-16 (emphasis added).

ONE’S RECIPES FOR SUCCESS

What is the role of principles?  Are principles just luxuries one can talk about but have little to no effect on how a person leads his/her life?  Yes, one can give them lip service, but life is just too complex, too demanding, and too unpredictable to languish by a set of principles that simply get in the way.  In the way of what?  Of danger, of opportunities, of a whole array of realities that don’t fit a presubscribed notion of how life or social settings should be or can be? 

The successful businessman, Ray Dalio,[1] recently issued a sort of biography that describes his success in the investment business and how having and living – for the most part – by principles was instrumental.  The effect was positive.  Mr. Dalio, through his book, videos, and interviews, is dedicated to sharing what he has learned from his experiences.  Should a civics teacher care?  Well, if part of the message a civics teacher promotes is for his/her students to behave in principled ways, then Dalio might have something to offer that teacher.

This blog, with this posting, will begin to entertain that possibility.  Having read Dalio’s account, this blogger thinks Dalio has something to offer.  This is not a hundred percent endorsement of what Dalio’s book prescribes, but the overall judgement is that that bio has insights that a civics teacher can use to formulate his/her curricular choices.  So, this blog chooses to report what this businessperson has to offer that civics teacher.

And where does one begin?  Well, one begins with a basic definition.  What are principles, according to Dalio, after all?  If one doesn’t accept that writer’s notion of principles, then his bio would be of little value.  Early on – in the introduction – the following definition is identified, “Principles are fundamental truths that serve as the foundations for behavior that get you what you want out of life.  They can be applied again and again in similar situations to help you achieve your goals.”[2] 

This language separates principles from being primarily concerned with esteemed qualities to the more manipulative elements of life.  It is more utilitarian than honorific unless some nuance is added to this definition.  For example, this definition does not, per se, call on people to divorce themselves from such values as honesty, loyalty, charity, or other similar values one tends to associate with morality.  After all, one can see a common notion of morality as the ultimate practical standard by which one should live. 

If one equates morality with such values as empathy and altruism, then acting in ways that advance those values tends to garner the respect, admiration, and fondness of others.  In turn, such a person is apt to form strong and lasting relationships.  One can more readily sell a product to those who admire the seller than to a person the buyer either feels indifferent to or dislikes.  Therefore, to the extent one’s success relies on a positive image, and that’s just about everyone, being moral seems to be practical.  This is such a simple notion, yet it seems to elude so many.

Of course, being moral doesn’t always lead to admiration.  If the moral choice happens to “step on a toe or two,” then those whose toes are hurting are likely to view the “stepper” with less than admiration or, if admired, less then fondness.  But then the practicality for the moral person is to be able to identify the less than moral persons with which he/she is dealing.  And that would identify that person who holds a grudge for an action that is on the right side of a moral challenge. 

A person might discover that key to all this is timing.  Morality usually calls for long-term thinking, while immorality tends to be short-term thinking.  People tend to deal with the immediate and usually from what Jonathan Haidt calls the “elephant” – the intuitive, emotional self.[3]  The reasoned self – the “rider” of the elephant – is usually sleeping on the job. 

This rider must be jolted by some situation that is deemed important enough to engage itself in what is going on – after all, the rider is lazy, and reflection takes effort.  The elephant tends to be short-sighted and deals with what is before it with little to no thought.  It knows what it wants and either the situation before it offers what it wants, or it does not.  “Yes” equals good; “no” equals bad; and the elephant tends to react negatively to the bad – either internally or by some demonstration of anger or disdain. 

Unfortunately, such proclivities lead to a lot of immorality.  But strongly held principles – something that needs to be learned – can be of help.  Principles, even as Dalio defines them, impose a longer time dimension to decision-making, especially when the fate and/or interests of others are involved.

Yes, ultimately one decides to advance oneself; that is baked into any situation.  The question becomes what constitutes advancing oneself.  Again, short term analysis of this question tends to render selfish answers.  Long term, realistic answers tend to render more altruistic answers.  In this, Dalio offers a useful analogy.  One can view principles as a collection of recipes. 

Now, he calls them recipes for success which can be self-centered concerns but – and Dalio seems to agree – they can be mostly centered on others or on we-centered concerns.  Immorality tends to side with self-centeredness, morality with otherness or us-ness.  He goes on to point out that people vary in defining success – that’s good.  But it leads to various sets of recipes and one should be careful in advancing any recipe for others to follow.  Having stated that, Dalio proceeds to do just that with the proviso that what is suggested in his book is his recipes.

In “selling” this view, that writer touts the functionality of principles.  If they are devised and followed, they assist in the challenge of being consistent especially if the “elephant” is riled.  He laments that most people fall short of being principled – for the above reasons – and therefore do not meet with the success for which they strive.  His initial advice for his readers is to devise their principles and be clear to themselves and to others what exactly they are.

---

[1] Ray Dalio, Principles (New York, NY:  Simon and Schuster, 2017).

[2] Ibid., (page designation not indicated in Kindle edition, but at 1% completion).

[3] Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind:  Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (New York, NY:  Pantheon Books, 2012).

TUMULTUOUS ARENA

This blog has as its main argument that civics education offerings in American secondary schools should utilize federation theory, a mental construct, to guide its efforts.  More specifically, the blog touts the use of the model it calls liberated federalism. 

The reader might question this whole idea of using a construct concocted by some blogger.  Past postings have attempted to ground the elements of that construct with the writings of reputable political scientists such as Daniel J. Elazar and Donald S. Lutz.  It has also cited philosophers such as Michael Sandel and John Rawls, although Rawls’ thoughts cannot be couched in a federalist-communitarian camp.  

There is also Alasdair MacIntyre and Charles Taylor (who has also been cited in this blog) and their writings.  And there are other advocates of ideas one can judge to be if not out and out supportive, conducive.  Heck, in terms of philosophers whose ideas are conducive, one can go all the way back to Aristotle – this blog has.

In the field of sociology there are various writers who can be viewed in this way.  Among them is the often cited, late sociologist, Philip Selznick.  The work of this blogger owes a lot to Selznick.  But one might add Robert Ballah, Amitai Etzioni, and Lawrence E. Harrison.  Harrison can be considered further apart from a purely federalist bent; his views fall more in line with supporting culture as a determining factor for national success.

In terms of sociologists, they would not think in terms of a political concept such as federalism.  But they do use a comparable or near comparable concept.  But before sharing what at least one of the above sociologists calls this idea, a review of that sociologist’s thinking concerning current, dominant view of liberalism – in the philosophic sense – adds context to what follows.  Selznick writes,

Liberal premises are thought to be overly individualistic and ahistorical; insufficiently sensitive to the social sources of selfhood and obligation; too much concerned with rights, too little concerned with duty and responsibility.  These criticisms have brought the idea of community – a core idea in sociology – to center stage.  … I have tried to show that a proper understanding of community, from a sociological point of view, presumes diversity and pluralism as well as social integration.[1]

This movement toward such a sensitivity might be considered a temporary point of interest.  During the nineties, when the above words were published, there was a popular array of books and articles that promoted communitarian ideas and arguments.  While that popularity has not vanished, it does not seem to be so vibrant these days.  This blogger does not welcome this turn.

But that disappointment can be shelved for another day.  Here the concern is how sociology views an idea such as federalism or federation theory.  What is telling in Selznick’s thinking is that he sees community and a people’s concern for it as a striving or a promise to seek and even attain meaningful levels of justice and democracy. 

Oh, that sounds political to this blogger’s ears.  Could it be Selznick is suggesting a line of thinking that aligns with federalist ideas, explanations, and normative biases?  This blogger believes it does.  In this line of thinking, then, one can see a political turn.

He, Selznick, suggests the title, “communitarian liberalism.”  One can judge that term offering a mirror image of a more political idea, liberated federalism.  Is it an exact reflection?  Perhaps not, but it is close.  The sociological take is more, as one might expect, social.  It relates to those social qualities one might see supporting a polity that holds as its basic mental view a viable polity where there is basically a partnership among its citizenry or a federalist arrangement.

So, what does communitarian liberalism mean?  First, Selznick says it means a people believing in and willing to support a robust community.  Now, one might ask:  to what extent?  After all, people do have other concerns in their lives and day-to-day affairs are not zeroed-in on political shenanigans.

Does it mean a disposition to engage in neighborhood activities, to engage in one’s municipal affairs, to attend to and engage in statewide politics, to stay attuned to national developments and a willingness to vote and advocate for various national policy positions, or to seek a role as a citizen of the world.  Yes, to all of this with the proviso that one accents the local over the global.  As for the time restraints, one does the best he/she can.

Starting with a linkage – i.e., linking communitarian values with morality – communitarian liberalism plays a balancing act.  The balance is between community or shared concerns and interests and individual concerns and interests.  This balance begins with the demands on a person’s time as just mentioned.

The thing is:  ultimately, the interests of the community calls for a respect for individual rights as expressed through the individual’s interests, goals and aims, substantive beliefs, and social relationships.  Running rough shod over those factors promises to lead to disruptions and other dysfunctional eventualities.

On the other hand, ultimately, the interests of the individual call for the individual to be cognizant, respectful, and, where possible, supportive of communal aspirations and determinations.  This is not blindly or automatically given, but it does call for a predisposition to support certain biases toward communal interests or what is usually called the common good. 

In either case, as an ultimate value, a commitment to promote and advance the common good must be (or at least should be) the central concern in seeking and achieving the sought-after balance.  And before one is apt to see this as “big brother” at work, one should reflect a bit.

It encourages a voluntary – uncoerced – exchange of ideas and values through the members’ communications among themselves.  Selznick adds, “Pragmatism [offered by another supportive philosopher, John Dewey] is not a tight system, in which ideas are driven by an iron logic to inexorable conclusions.  Such a claim would be foreign to its nature, which welcomes plurality and resists finality.” 

That is, one sees this dynamic as an ongoing developmental politics securely anchored in a social arrangement brewing solutions to the myriad of shared problems.  How can that work?  This blog offers a description of American politics during the 1830s as an example. 

That view from the nation’s early history was described by a foreigner who traveled the then existing nation.  That was Alexi de Tochqueville.  He reports that “… the political activity which pervades the United States must be seen …  No sooner do you set foot upon the American soil than you are stunned by a kind of tumult; a confused clamour is heard on every side; … voices demand[ing] the immediate satisfaction of their social wants.”[2] 

Yes, what is valued is a tumult and, unlike what constitutes a lot of today’s tumults, the players agree to and abide by communitarian guardrails.  Unfortunately, as is the case with current messaging on social media, where public figures are readily threatened with physical harm to themselves and their family members – all in the name of freedom of speech[3] – the tumult has become non-federal, antidemocratic, and unhealthy. 

Civics education today is facing daunting challenges.

---

[1] Philip Selznick, The Moral Commonwealth:  Social Theory and the Promise of Community (Berkeley, CA:  University of California Press, 1992), xi.

[2] Alexi de Tocqueville, “Political Structure of Democracy,”  in Alexis de Tocqueville:  On Democracy, Revolution, and Society, edited by John Stone and Stephen (Mennell, Chicago, IL:  Chicago University Press, 1980/1835), 78-79, 78.

[3] Andrew Marantz, Antisocial:  Online Extremists, Techno-Utopians, and the Hijacking of the American Conversation (New York, NY:  Viking, 2019).