TURNING POINT?

Despite of what one hears, especially from the right, of the dire consequences government interference in the economy can cause, one can easily judge that during this nation’s history, the American economy has been allowed to do its own thing.  The overall direction of the production, distribution, and consumption of the goods and services this nation enjoys is the product of American businesses making their decisions over such matters.  The general trends might have been influenced by governmental policy, but for most part, only on the periphery.

          But one can ask, in relation to this relationship between the private sector and government, what has been the projection over the years?  And what does that projection have to do with civics education?  This posting poses these questions and cites the work of Linda Yueh to help gain insight over these concerns.[1] She asks the hypothetical question:  what would the leading historical economists say about what is going on with the economies of world – especially those of the leading economic nations? 

Such a review obviously starts with Adam Smith and that review can possibly be the subject of a future posting, but here the focus is on the overall concerns of the current situation.  Smith is mentioned to bolster the claim this posting initially makes.  That is, that the state and direction of the economy is established – or should be established – by the private sector.  That would be in accordance with Smith’s economic theory.  He made popular the notion of laissez-faire economics – a “hands off” policy.

This belief in minimal government direction has led to an evolving progression which the path the economy has pursued.  That progression has been from agriculture to manufacturing/industrialization to deindustrialization/service-based economies.  That progression has met with various problems but currently what causes worry is stagnant wages in post-industrial nations.

Leading these nations are the two most minimal government-intrusion economies, that is the economies of Great Britain and the United States.  Yueh, in terms of how these two nations are dealing with this overall problem, writes,

Yet, that’s what post-industrial nations like Britain and the United States are attempting to do – roll back the deindustrialization process by encouraging manufacturing and reducing the share of national output accounted for by services.  This urge to rebalance the economy arose after the 2008 financial crisis which revealed the fragility of a large banking sector.[2]

This general concern and trend need some context.  To what extent are the economies of these nations in a post-industrial mode?  As currently structured, the economies of these nations are over three-quarters serviced-based (as determined by national output) and much of their economies rely on financial services to generate their output and income.

          Can one attribute this turn of becoming service-oriented based economies to policies that, in effect, limited the role of government?  Well, one can trace the turn to the 1980s when the two prominent champions of free markets were in power.  That would be Margaret Thatcher in the UK and Ronald Reagan in the US.  And the changes Thatcher and Reagan ushered in were a reaction to what existed at the beginning of their respective terms of office.

          And, in turn, that set of conditions was the product of a historical development.  The relevant history in the US, for example, began at the end of World War II.  Initially, in this period, the US enjoyed inordinate advantages given the destruction of that war on the industrial nations of Europe and other areas of the world.  Unscathed was the US which gave the American economy an unparalleled advantage.  The world found itself highly dependent on the manufactured goods coming from American factories.  But starting in the 1960s, US advantages were becoming a thing of the past.

          What happened?  Well, the heavily damaged countries got back on their feet and were then beginning to compete in industrial markets.  But there is more to the story and an important aspect of the developments happening during that time has to do with how the economy began to be viewed.

William K. Tabb provides and explains one element of what else was afoot.[3]  He points out that economic growth depends to a great degree on businesses having the ability to reasonably predict what is going to happen.  To do that, the economic sectors at a given time share what he calls a social structure of accumulation (SSA) perspective.  That view gives a nation’s policy makers a general model of how the economy is working.

Tabb claims the US economy, through its history, has experienced a series of SSAs.  During the time under consideration (1945-1968), the nation was under the influence of the Keynesian SSA.  That view was a product of the Great Depression and it basically legitimized a relatively strong government role within the economy – a far cry from Smith’s advice.  That mental construct provided rationales for institutionalized government programs – Social Security, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and an array of regulatory agencies to oversee the economy. 

The prudence of this general approach began being questioned during the late 1960s and through the 1970s.  That decade was hit by rampant inflation and a lack of faith in the abilities of the Jimmy Carter Administration to meet the demands of that time.  To the perceived rescue, the nation turned to Reagan and he returned to a strategy more in line with Smith’s views.  So extensive was this shift that Tabb considers the change as one to a newer SSA, the neoliberal SSA.

The term neoliberal should not be confused with left of center liberals.  Instead, it is linked more with a libertarian view – which is highly anti-government in general.  As it would be applied to the economy, Reagan was successful in limiting government’s role in the economy.  Through the Reagan’s administration, the nation’s economy shifted to this neoliberal view and that bias held until the financial debacle known as the Great Recession of 2008. 

During its reign, that newer bias in policy led to a high degree of deregulation.  Many blame the 2008 debacle on a lack of regulation over the financial sector.  Of particular concern was the mortgage and banking industry.  The current question is:  did the Great Recession and its aftermath sufficiently discredit the neoliberal view?  That question is still an open one.  What is not in doubt is that there remains a problem. 

The acceptance of neoliberal view did not only predate the financial crisis, it also led to manufacturing businesses going abroad to cheaper-labor countries.  China stands out as one such country.  In turn, that led to a multitude of former factory workers in the US losing their jobs.  This and automation have created a disenfranchised segment of the American workforce. 

That is, to many the reason there has been sluggish growth and underemployment, especially those who can still remember better days, has been the deindustrialization of the economy.  Hands off led to this global economy with its newer supply sources of manufactured goods.

Now, this, in turn, has led to many benefits, but it imposed significant costs on these identified displaced workers.  In addition, those costs have been coupled – one might see a cause and effect – to more extreme politics.  There is now a president who identifies himself as a nationalist – a more extreme position of conservative politics.  There is also, as of this writing, the leading vote getter of the opposing party, a socialist. 

In the minds of many, something needs to change if there is any chance of regaining a more moderately based politics that existed before these imbalances took hold.  Here are Yueh’s comments on these factors,

The 2008 crisis revealed the downside to having an economy with a large financial services sector.  Banks had become complex and interconnected, and their business became harder to understand and to regulate.  Their responsibility for causing the worst recession in a century prompted calls from the public to regulate the banks more tightly in the US and UK.  The crash also led the American and British governments to want more manufacturing, thus they have sought to ‘rebalance’ the economy towards making things once again.[4]

So, are these the first signs of a new SSA development?  And, if that’s what is going on, is it congruent with efforts to find the way toward a period of reindustrialization?  Yueh, perhaps with that in mind, takes it upon herself to review what contributions prior giants in the field of economic study – like Smith and John Maynard Keynes – offer the current situation. 

This blog will share some of those ideas and add what it sees civics education can add to any resulting efforts, at least from the perspective of the classroom.  After all, as the current political drama the nation is experiencing indicates, these economic factors play a very energetic role in defining what the nation will be contesting in the political thicket at any given time.

---

[1] Linda Yueh, What Would the Great Economists Do?:  How Twelve Brilliant Minds Would Solve Today’s Biggest Problems (London, UK:  Penguin, 2019 (Kindle edition)).

[2] Ibid., 11-12 (Kindle edition).

[3] William K. Tabb, The Restructuring of Capitalism in Our Time (New York, NY:  Columbia University Press, 2012).

[4] Linda Yueh, What Would the Great Economists Do?, 13 (Kindle edition).

ALL THAT’S CONFLICTED NEEDS TO GO

The nation’s polity has recently experienced sets of activities that one can see as basic stabs at the legitimacy of the system.  Probably the most noted is the impeachment and subsequent trial of the President.  The other is the interference of the Attorney General into Justice Department investigations of the President’s allies in the political thicket.  One of the related issues into these events is the issue of partiality vs. impartiality.

          This blog does not cite these developments to pass judgement on them, but to take the opportunity of their notoriety to point out a concern about which Lawrence Lessig writes.[1]  That is the issue of partiality in the political landscape even when the involved institution is structured to minimize partiality. 

For example, that would include the courts and regulatory agencies that keep tabs of business activities in which their acts affect those businesses’ bottom lines.  It also, in some cases, affects the political maneuvering of the political players at a given time.

          The term that identifies the issue is “conflict of interest.”  People in general and the law have favored provisions that attempt to eliminate or, at least, minimize conflicts of interest.  This is particularly the case when it comes to the behaviors of businesses, political entities, and others who have, to some meaningful level, an effect on the welfare of people. 

Lessig describes how a mere owning of a share of stock issued by a corporation can undermine any decision by a judge in court if that judgement favors that corporation.  Surely, such a minimal stake would not have an effect, but the mere appearance of any sort of influence emanating from a possible financial stake taints that judgement.  Therefore, such a judge is expected to recuse him/herself from any such case.

What is important, then, among the other related issues is the appearance or suspicion of any such tie-in that might be viewed as a potential conflict of interest.  Why?  Because in such matters one is worried over an institution that, in turn, depends on people accepting established processes on how political or legal matters are handled and settled. 

They need to maintain their pristine reputation – their “optics” – as much as possible to retain their legitimacy.  And in this train of “why’s” the next one asks:  why are institutions important?  Because, and this is being highlighted in the current political scene, one cannot have a law for every development that causes damage to those processes a polity needs. 

Needs for what?  For actual governmental actions to occur that support or to avoid those actions that undermine the appearance of prudence and/or justice.  To what extent is this the case?  Lessig writes,

The answer to these questions is that uncertainty has its own effect.  The law might say someone is innocent until proven guilty.  But law be damned, if you learn that a school bus driver has been charged with drunk driving, you’re going to think twice before you put your child on his bus.  Indeed, even if you think the charge is likely false, the mere chance that it is true may well be enough (and rationally so) for you to decide to drive your kid rather than risk his life on the bus.  The charge doesn’t make the driver “guilty” in your head; but it certainly will affect whether you think it makes sense to let him drive your kid.[2]

So, if one imposes such a standard on a bus driver, what should it be on elected politicians, appointed or elected judges, or those who occupy bureaucratic positions – some having judicial powers over what millions of citizens or hundreds of businesses can do legally? 

Yes, the bus driver example is easier to visualize and when one is considering the fate of one’s child, that elicits a more visceral reaction.  But when one considers the numbers governmental agents affect, then reputation – what looks “kosher” – is very important.

          And to that degree, one can reasonably question the propriety of a judgement that is based on the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.  Reasonableness, when so many are potentially harmed, points to a less demanding standard to impart a guilty verdict.  That is, that standard can justly depend on appearances.  As such, it falls on public servants to secure that people do not have any reason – reasonably established or not – to suspect wrongdoing on their parts. 

That is why it is reasonable to question an Attorney General taking personal control over investigations that might unearth evidence of illegal or imprudent decisions or actions on the part of a President’s administration.  The AG is part of that administration and, therefore, such direct interventions points to a conflict of interest.  Hence, the institution – the established way – has been for the AG to keep an arm’s length from such investigations; at least, until now.

---

[1] Lawrence Lessig, Republic Lost:  How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It (New York, NY:  Twelve, 2011).

[2] Ibid., 30.

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).