gravitasarchives

Saturday, January 3, 2015

Twenty-second Ten Postings of Gravitas

The following list of titles and accompanying dates refers to past postings on the blog, Gravitas: A Voice for Civics Education, that have been deleted. After each title and date, the entries below include the first paragraph of each respective posting. If you care to receive a copy of a particular posting, send your request via email to gravitascivics@gmail.com . One posting per request.

211 FEDERALIST LEADERSHIP

(September 10, 2012)

Well, here we go again. It's time to select our leader for the next four years. What should we consider in this political race? We should consider a lot of things and not just our personal situations. We should also be concerned with the health of the commonwealth. But pollsters tell us that few of us are so disposed to think – or feel – anything beyond those conditions that advance or hinder what we want or need. For the sake of the ideal, though, let us for a few moments consider the very notion of leadership and how it affects the common good.

213 IDEAS ASSOCIATED WITH CONSENT

(September 14, 2012)

A concept I have associated with liberated federalism has been consent. I have stated that our equal ability to involve ourselves with others or, to a higher degree, become federated with others, is the basis upon which equality can be defined. We might not all be as important to a group; we might not all be equally powerful or rich or talented, but we all decide to become part of a federated union equally. But what I have not done, to date, is give a working understanding for what exactly this consent is. Is it merely the simple act of saying, to yourself or others, that, yes I am a part of this group, arrangement, or association? Or is there more to the concept of consent, more to the act of joining or allowing someone else to join?

214 HOW DARE HE

(September 17, 2012)

How do I go about this without sounding partisan? The “this” is this posting which is directed at Mitt Romney's infamous response to a question at a fundraiser he had in Boca Raton, Florida. I'm sure you've seen and heard it by now – the one in which he dismisses the need to appeal to 47 % of the population in his run for president. Why does he dismiss them? Because he calls them dependents on government for “health care, food, housing, to you name it.”

216 FEDERATION CAN'T ANSWER THEM ALL

(September 24, 2012)

There are a variety of issue clusters that determine how we as individuals align ourselves in our political preferences. Whether we are a Democrat or a Republican or perhaps an independent can be determined by well thought out and rational decision-making or, and much more likely, by some accidental conditions under which we happen to live including family conditions, geographic conditions, religious beliefs, and the like. Historically, I believe that more than any other condition there is the socio-economic class into which we happened to be born that will determine how we think and act politically. When I write historically, I mean in terms of global history because in the US I think this question is answered quite differently. Here, we see politics with a general disinterest and that lack of concern causes us to not give the question much thought or feeling. What seems to be most influential are the general political viewpoints that prevail in a given area or region of the country where we reside. Of course, this is truer in some areas than others. They don't call the South the Solid South for nothing. If you grow up in Indiana, chances are you are going to grow up Republican, whereas if you grow up in California, you have a much higher probability of being a Democrat. Within geographic areas or regions, there are not so much issue clusters as there are bias clusters.

217 A CAUTIONARY NOTE

(September 28, 2012)

There has been a very long-standing debate between political thinkers over the question, a very fundamental question: what is the best form of government? We can read the disagreement between two of the most famous philosophers from ancient Greece on this very question. Plato argued for aristocracy and Aristotle argued for republican ideals. Plato argued that the rich, the few, were the most talented, the most educated, the most qualified to rule. Aristotle didn't necessarily argue for a republic directly, but his thoughts are used to foster the values associated with republican government, namely those values summarized by the term, civic virtue – those values that bolster communal governance. While our rhetoric in this country, dating back to its origins, has been to promote a more Aristotelian view, we have drifted into a reality that is, for the most part, trending toward an aristocratic or, more accurately described, plutocratic polity. Our rhetoric is following suit. That means the rich are taking over or, at least, beginning to do so. Is this a bad thing?

218 THE PURPOSE OF FEDERATION THEORY

(October 1, 2012)

For those new to this blog, I have been presenting the elements of a mental construct that is meant to guide the selection of substantive content in a civics curriculum. I have given the name federation theory or liberated federalism to that construct. A great deal of previous postings has been dedicated to describing and explaining the elements of this construct. I have also gone about evaluating it. With this posting, I will conclude my evaluative comments on federation theory that are based on Eugene J. Meehan's criteria for social science models and theories. I will in future postings add two more entries based on two criteria I have added to my overall critical review – the construct's abstract level and its motivational quality. In this posting, I want to address to what level, if any, federation theory controls the phenomenon it describes or explains. That is, does it have purpose?

219 FITTING THE TIMES

(October 5, 2012)

I have just, with the last posting of this blog, finished a series of statements that attempted to evaluate federation theory as a guide in determining what content should be included in a civics curriculum. If you review those statements, you might be prone to ask whether I addressed another very important aspect of the utility of such a construct or theory – i. e., does the construct fit its time? In those reviews, I used the criteria offered by Eugene J. Meehan (Meehan, E. J. (1969). Explanations in social science: A system paradigm. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press). I think he does provide the questions one might ask of a construct or theory that addresses this concern of being timely. Through the criterion of compatibility, for example, current views or explanations of social life and reality are given sufficient respect and, as such, one can apply the criterion to determine if the construct or theory matches the contemporary concerns of social scientists of our time. But I would like to use this posting to address this concern for the contemporary more directly. In particular, I want to ask the question: does federation theory address “modernity?”

220 LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE?

(October 8, 2012)

When I let it be known that I support federalist beliefs, many of my liberal acquaintances assume that I am a conservative. On the other hand, my conservative acquaintances doubt such a connection when I actually voice specific policy preferences, such as my support for a national health care plan. So, is federalism a necessarily conservative or liberal ideology? If liberated federalism is to serve as the primary guide in determining civics curriculum content, any bias can be suspect and subject to the charge that it is only a vehicle by which to indoctrinate students to a particular political viewpoint. I think it, liberated federalism, is neither liberal nor conservative.

Twenty-first Ten Postings of Gravitas

201 “BEES DO IT”

(August 6, 2012)

With this posting, I want to introduce a fairly important issue regarding federalist thinking. The most central notion we can derive from federalism, as I have pointed out before, is not the structural element of different levels of government – such as the state and central governments here in the US. The most central notion is the idea that individuals or groups come together and federate with each other under a solemn agreement of a covenant or a compact. This level of joining is more binding than a union or arrangement set up by a contract. In a contract, the agreement takes on the form of one party agreeing to do something in exchange for something else. When I travel, for example, and stop in a motel, the motel and I form an agreement that it will provide me with a room with certain amenities in exchange for payment of a rental fee. If my room is not provided or it lacks the amenities we agreed upon – like a working bathroom – I don't need to pay. But if the room is furnished with the amenities, then I must pay or suffer some penalty under law.

202 THE RELIABILITY OF FEDERATION THEORY

(August 10, 2012)

As I have indicated in past postings, Eugene J. Meehan provides us with criteria by which to evaluate social science theories and models. I have, to date, written three evaluative statements regarding federation theory, each focusing on one of Meehan's criterion. They have been scope, power, and precision. You are invited to look up previous postings, clearly titled, and read my evaluation of federation theory in relation to each of these criteria. With this posting, I want to address another of Meehan's criteria: reliability.

203 FORMING NEW PARTNERS

(August 13, 2012)

Federalism, more than anything, is about people coming together to form a political system. That is, federalism is about people federating with each other. A shorthand way to express this is to say a people develop a sense of partnership – what is good for one is good for all. While this might sound and be a bit idealistic and unattainable, the ideal expressed is something a people can strive toward. I have argued that in American political tradition, this perception has been present and significant; that it once was the underlying sense of what governing and politicking should be about. Given the strength of this ideal, I would further argue that its precepts have made their way into public policy, in varying levels of strength, throughout our history. It still does and we can hear its assumptions expressed in our national debates. Take the argument for a national health program. Those who argue that all should be entitled to quality health care are, I believe, arguing that by providing such a fundamental need, we as a nation fulfill a requirement of a meaningful partnership between the nation's citizenry. Of course, not all agree.

204 DELTA PARTNERS

(August 17, 2012)

What are the responsibilities of a partner? I ask because if one is to take this notion of being federated with one's fellow citizens seriously, then the obligations of such an arrangement, or should I write association, should be spelled out. I believe one way to do that is to look at the extreme cases – those in which parties are under the most extreme conditions of need – and try to determine what all our roles, if any, should be. And once that is addressed, for those among us who are educators, what should be taught to our students about these potential obligations?

205 THE ISOMORPHISM OF LIBERATED FEDERALISM

(August 20, 2012)

I would like, with this posting, to continue my evaluation of federation theory or liberated federalism construct. For those of you new to this blog, let me point out quickly that my efforts in this blog’s postings have been to promote a view of civics which I call federation theory. To date, the blog has described and explained the elements of this construct. And in terms of evaluating it, I have, using Eugene J. Meehan's criteria (Meehan, E. J. (1969). Explanations in social science: A system paradigm. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.), passed judgment on the theory's scope, power, precision, and reliability (See the postings of June 29, 2012, July 13, 2012, July 30, 2012, and August 10, 2012 respectively). This posting will address another of Meehan's concerns.

206 YOUR MAJESTY, USA STYLE

(August 24, 2012)

In a recent op ed piece in the New York Times (Debrabander, F. (2012). Deluded individualism. New York Times, August 18, retrieved from the Internet) philosopher, Firmin Debrabander, writes of an issue I have addressed in this blog. I have argued that the nation has adopted a radically individualistic construct to guide our thinking when it comes to governing and politicking. The natural rights construct promotes a view of the individual as an unobstructed free agent. Debrabander, relying on the writings of Sigmund Freud and Barusch Spinoza, argues that we only have the illusion of being free to choose our courses of action; that, really, we are far more governed by our emotions, our ids. The ego, to borrow a metaphor from the piece, is like a rider of a huge horse – the id – which gets the horse to go in a certain direction only by convincing the horse that a given direction is its own choice.

207 AND THE GOLD GOES TO ...

(August 27, 2012)

Some time back I had the pleasure of seeing Gore Vidal's play, The Best Man, on Broadway. I had seen the movie version years ago – as part of a political science course. The film starred Henry Fonda and Cliff Robertson in the leading roles. Good, but from a purely entertaining point of view, it was a bit drab. This live production, on the other hand, was more lively with a lot of humor. I found the evening well worthwhile and if it is still showing or you have a chance to see this version of the play, I recommend it.

208 WHO IS THE FATHER OF THE COUNTRY?

(August 31, 2012)

In this blog, especially early on, I made the extended argument that civics education has been failing at what it should be doing. I emphasized in that argument that I did not place the blame, at least not all of the blame, on civics educators. There are many contributing factors, but the fact remains we are not doing a very good job in that area of the curriculum. This message can be easily lost on us given the general reports coming from the media and the politicians about how we are falling short in our efforts across the different subject areas. Our students, we are told, are not learning math and science or other subjects such as geography. This might be correct, but we must be sure that within these waves of criticisms we do not lose sight of the importance of civics and its role in promoting the general health of our society.

209 THE COMPATIBLITY OF LIBERATED FEDERALISM

(September 3, 2012)

As I often do in these postings, I review the blog's general purposes. I do this because there might be some who are checking it out for the first time. As the general comment which appears just above this posting indicates, the foremost purpose is to encourage the readers to become interested and involved with civics education, particularly as it is taught in their local secondary schools. Second, the blog is to present and promote the adoption of a mental construct suitable to guide our efforts in civics. I call this construct the liberated federalism construct or federation theory. I have been arguing that this construct should replace the current prevailing one, the natural rights construct. I have, in past postings, described and explained the different elements of federation theory. I have also, through a series of postings, attempted to critically review the proposed construct – see the postings dated June 29, July 13, July 30, August 10, and August 20, 2012. Each of these postings utilizes a separate, specific concern from Eugene J. Meehan's criteria evaluating science theories and models (see Meehan, E. J. (1969). Explanations in social science: A system paradigm. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press).

210 LANGUAGE OF PARTNERS

(September 7, 2012)

The President, in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, harped on a concept that has been central to this blog – citizenship and the social interconnectedness that idea embodies. We, as citizens, are interconnected in so many ways that we often become unconscious of the total reality that interconnectedness encompasses. The President, in his speech, pointed out some of those ways. It makes for effective rhetoric because, at a profound level, I believe, we all know of this interconnectedness yet we live in a time when it has become somewhat cynical to acknowledge it, voice it, and/or verbally support it.

Sunday, November 16, 2014

Twentieth Ten Postings of Gravitas

191 A TAXING QUESTION

(July 6, 2012)

Is it a tax or isn't it? To tax or not to tax; is that the question? If you have been following the punditry on TV or in the newspaper at all, I'm sure you have seen and heard the incomparable concern over whether the national reform of healthcare and its financing is a tax or not. Really, is that what's important? So much has been written over so little. Don't get me wrong; whether the Supreme Court found the Affordable Healthcare Act constitutional or not is important. Healthcare accounts for 17% of our economy and the fate of millions, in some cases in terms of life and death, was in the balance. I dedicated my last posting to the idea that mandating a tax to pay for comprehensive healthcare seemed justified under federalist thinking. But to go on asking whether the act calls for a tax or not is the height of semantics and does not deserve all this “ink.”

192 A VISIT

(July 9, 2012)

My recent drive through the Midwest convinces me that it's just too hot to be serious. No one is in the mood to be over contemplative about some burning issue. So, let me share a more lighthearted experience I had a few weeks ago, but that I feel has a more serious side to it. It starts with announcing that a friend of mine just got married – a rare kind of thing for people of my age. Being north of sixty – both he and I – we don't expect to attend marriages of our cohorts. But it does happen and it happened to him, a lucky guy given that he got hitched up with a great gal.

193 THE POWER OF LIBERATED FEDERALISM

(July 13, 2012)

A few postings ago, I began evaluating the liberated federalism construct. From Eugene Meehan's¹ criteria, the first question is whether the construct has sufficient scope. I argued that the liberated federalism construct or federation theory does cover the field sufficiently for the purposes of guiding educators in developing a civics curriculum. That is, the construct contains a broad enough range of concepts and ideals so that curricular workers can design a course in American governance and politics to promote good citizenship among American students. In this posting, I want to answer Meehan's second question: does this construct control the explanation it is presenting by being valid and complete in its component parts and within the relation between those parts? That is, does it have power?

194 ABDICATION POLITICS

(July 16, 2012)

Few lines can get as much response in a political speech as when the speaker accuses his or her opponent as catering to vested or special interests. The thing is that both liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans use the line. So who's right? Both are and I would submit that accommodating special interests is an integral part of not only democratic politics, but politics period.

195 WHOSE MEANING?

(July 20, 2012)

High on the priority list of civics educators who adopt federation theory as a foundational construct, is to have students study the Constitution. After all, the Constitution is our binding compact that federates us as fellow citizens. It gives us the basic agreement of our grand partnership – at least, that's how federalists see it. Along with such a commitment would be to instruct students as to the meaning of that document's language. This latter responsibility is further given importance as the Supreme Court, especially influenced by one of its most prominent members, Antonin Scalia, holds that court decisions should, to the best means possible, be based on the original meanings of the basic law's provisions. He offers a compelling argument as justification for his judicial approach.

196 FROM UNDETTERED TO UNBROKEN

(July 23, 2012)

To offset the length of my last posting – it was a bit long – this one will be quite short. Sorrowfully, the topic of this posting is motivated by the tragic event that occurred in Colorado last week. The news networks have been constantly reporting on this event. The senseless shooting and needless death and injury leave us all quite dumbfounded. Our collective hearts go out to the victims and their families.

197 PENNed UP DENIAL

(July 27, 2012)

This posting deals with allegations. So let me be clear; I'm writing it to make certain points about the challenges federal collectives face in a nation that believes, promotes, and holds as prevalent the values associated with a natural rights perspective. To remind you a bit, by a natural rights perspective I mean the significantly individualistic view that each person has the right to determine which goals, aims, and behaviors one wants to pursue or engage in as long as he or she does not interfere with the rights of others to do the same. Let me emphasize, there is nothing wrong with having these rights, but when one believes in them as trump values or as exclusionary commitments, then one is turning away from more communal values or values that encourage one to place individual goals and aims within the context of social obligations and duties. In other words, the problem is in taking this view to the extreme. Philosophers might call this construct a classical liberal view. I shy away from this term because I don't want the reader to confuse the view with what we popularly call liberals today – those who hold a left of center set of political beliefs we generally associate with the Democratic Party. As a matter of fact, the classical liberal perspective or what I call the natural rights view is generally associated more strongly with the Republican Party. But to get back to the issue at hand, I want to comment on an educational program at one of our major universities which was devastated lately for infringements of ethical standards by an overseer.

198 THE PRECISION OF LIBERATED FEDERALISM

(July 30, 2012)

In previous postings, I have initiated an evaluation of the construct this blog is committed to present and promote. Keep in mind that I have an interest in finding this construct to be useful to civics educators. After all, a fundamental aim of this blog has been to describe and explain this view particularly as it relates to the role of teaching civics in our secondary classrooms. With that in mind, I will point out that I have approached the job of evaluation in what I would hope you find as reasonable. I have used questions derived from Eugene J. Meehan's criteria for evaluating social science theories and models¹ to guide my review of federation theory and, in addition to Meehan's criteria, I will add the criteria, abstraction level and motivation, in future postings. To date, I have looked at two of Meehan's criteria: Does the construct have a comprehensive review of the phenomena under study and does the construct have power? I invite you to look up the two postings that answer these questions: “The Scope of Librated Federalism” posted on June 29, 2012, and “The Power of Liberated Federalism” posted on July 13, 2012. Overall, my evaluation has been quite positive, surprise, but I did point out some shortcomings that call for further development of the construct.

199 A PRIORI: THE GOOD OR THE RIGHT?

(August 3, 2012)

What kind of society do we want to live in? The traditional answer is the one that allows or promotes its citizens to be happy. But, of course, what is happiness? Is it pleasure, emotional stability, long term contentment, a weekend when all of your sports teams win, or when your child accomplishes something he or she has been trying to accomplish for a long time? Happiness has many faces and lasts to varying degrees. If someone asks you if you are happy, chances are, I believe, you will interpret the question as relating to a general state of contentment in which you don't want for anything that's important – food, housing, health, being loved, and being in love with significant others – and a foreseeable future in which none of these essentials are threatened. We more or less, on a cultural level, associate certain societal conditions with such attainment. The economy has to be prosperous enough, the political environment has to be secure and stable enough, and our social interactions are conducted within functional enough institutional settings; for example, your family, educational facilities, and health care providers must be sufficiently operational and providing expected levels of utility.

200 “BEES DO IT”

(August 6, 2012)

1Meehan, E. J. (1969). Explanations in social science: A system paradigm. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.

1Meehan, E. J. (1969). Explanations in social science: A system paradigm. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.

Wednesday, November 5, 2014

Nineteenth Ten Postings of Gravitas

181 CHEESY

(June 1, 2012)

Have you been aware of what is happening in Wisconsin lately? Coming soon, they are going to have a recall election in which the governor and certain members of their legislature might lose their positions of authority. This is very unusual. The last recall election I remember was the one in California when the incumbent governor, Grey Davis, was replaced by Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2003. Rare? There have been only two governors removed from office in this way. All this Wisconsin hullabaloo seems to have been initially started over current governor Scott Walker's plan to strip public employee unions (PEUs) of their collective bargaining rights. This has situated Wisconsin politics in the metaphoric arena category which I wrote about in my last posting of this blog. That is, the politics over deciding the status and level of constitutional integrity PEUs will enjoy has pitted powerful interests in that state in a non-compromising mode.

182 “CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?”

(June 4, 2012)

Imagine walking down a busy sidewalk in Manhattan. If you have never experienced such a stroll first hand, you surely have seen it depicted in a movie or two – the popular movie Tootsie has such a scene. To a visitor, the mass of strangers one encounters can seem to be a formidable obstacle course. How should a good citizen view these people? Do they represent potential threats or opportunities? Or are they the source of indifference? While these might seem to be important questions – or should be – to a civics educator, there seems to be little if any attention paid to this aspect of citizenship. That is, to my knowledge, the concern over how Americans should view their fellow citizens has not gotten much academic or popular interest. I think the question – what would be the most beneficial or most moral view of other citizens? – should garner a very practical priority as we consider the content of a civics curriculum.

183 MINI STIMULI EFFORTS

(June 8, 2012)

Since I commented on the recall election in Wisconsin two postings ago and since the results are in, I thought I would share my thoughts on the strategy employed by Governor Walker's campaign.

184 AGREEING TO ASSOCIATE

(June 11, 2012)

For those of you who follow this blog, you may have detected a liberal bias. Or you may have determined that I am a Democrat who wants to push a Democratic agenda. That has not been my purpose. What I have been writing about are issues, such as the recent recall vote in Wisconsin, where I see certain political activities that challenge or otherwise threaten our federalist character. As I have tried to trace the political development of this nation, I have made the argument that we as a polity started and maintained a federal perspective in order to justify and make sense of our collective experience as a governed and governing people. That perspective dominated until the 1950s. Since then, a natural rights perspective has taken dominance, but that does not mean we have relinquished all allegiance to the prior guiding construct. I have argued that we should return, albeit under a revised form, to our earlier allegiance to federalism. Therefore, if that be the overall goal, a renewed introduction to federalism is in order.

185 E. U. ARE, NOT IS

(June 15, 2012)

For those of you who follow this blog, you know that I have been describing and explaining federation theory. I am doing this in order to make the claim that this theory should become the dominant mental construct guiding our efforts in the subject fields of civics and government. Within this effort, I have progressed to outlining a federalist model by which one can holistically look at the construct and to give it a sort of “picture” quality – a picture that is sufficiently concise and easy to remember. To date, I have presented several elements of the model: the environment, the entity, the relationship between entities, and the relationship between the entity and the association. Each of these terms has been defined. The last element is the association. I began to describe the association in the last posting. I shared a main aspect of the association – its sense of partnership or fraternal ethos.

186 CHALLENGES OF BEING ASSOCIATED

(June 18, 2012)

I have made the point in this blog that not all organized groups are associations. As I am using the term, a group needs to exhibit certain attributes in order to be considered an association. I have used the term, arrangements, to signify all groups. Only some are associations and while I am not aware of any study indicating what percentage of arrangements are associations (and adopting the word in an arrangement's name does not suffice in making it an association), my personal experience indicates that the percentage is not high.

187 THE FREE RIDER PROBLEM

(June 22, 2012)

In the last series of postings, I have described and explained an ideal model for federalist governance and politics. The main elements of the model are related to a federalist union which I call an association and the model consists of the environment, the entity, the relationships between entities, and the association itself. I chose an ideal perspective in order to establish a standard by which to judge real groups or arrangements of people. Surely, by focusing on associations or arrangements, I am emphasizing collectives as opposed to individuals. Why? Because governing and politicking are collective activities; they are the exercise of power relations between and among people. While the ideal should not relegate the profound importance of the individual to these mechanization of influence and distributions of values to insignificance, the process in question is one of collectives.

188 HATE SPEECH CHALLENGE TO FEDERALISTS

(June 25, 2012)

One of the concerns by people who advocate for a more communal approach to governance and politics or for a more moral perspective is that such a view will be deemed as naive or over idealistic. After all, it was Machiavelli, the father of modern political thought, who proclaimed politics as amoral. In my last posting, I wrote that most of the concerns and arguments that take such a “realistic” view seem to boil down to stating that there is a communitarian underestimation for the free rider problem – people with the freedom to act will rationally choose to take benefits out of a system for which they do not pay, wholly or in part. In reality, such “short changing” opportunities arise all the time and citizens, either knowingly or not, take advantage. Hence, critics argue, the best we can do is to set up a market system and allow that system to operate mostly unhindered. The market will objectively reward those who produce and punish those who don't. Okay, not always, but most of the time and more so than any other approach. The problem with relying solely on the market is that it depends on individual motivation and denies that there is a reliability with or even the existence of group motivations. And yet, “[h]appiness comes from between. It comes from getting the right relationships between yourself and others, yourself and your work, and yourself and something larger than yourself.” [Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York, NY: Pantheon Books. Citation on p. 244.] I have also argued that governance and politics are collective activities amenable to this “larger than yourself” orientation.

189 THE SCOPE OF LIBERATED FEDERALISM

(June 29, 2012)

As I have presented and evaluated the two competing constructs which are vying for the allegiance of civics educators, the natural rights construct and the critical theory construct, I have used the ideas of Eugene Meehan. He developed criteria by which to judge the worth of social science models and theories. [Meehan, E. J. (1969). Explanations in social science: A system paradigm. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.] Using this very criteria, how well does the liberated federalism construct fare? As a reminder, this blog has been dedicated, in part, to describing, explaining, and promoting the liberated federalism construct. In terms of describing and explaining, that effort has been basically done; I want to now begin evaluating it, particularly in terms of how useful it is as a guide for our civics curriculum in secondary classrooms.

190 A BURNING ISSUE

(July 2, 2012)

A blog dedicated to civics education needs to express a reaction to the Supreme Court decision regarding the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare). The instructional benefit of all this news reporting on a Supreme Court decision has, I believe, an enormous educational value. We see with ample coverage the role of the Supreme Court in our governmental system. But before commenting directly on the decision, I will couch my comments on the other big news of the week – the Colorado fires.

Friday, October 10, 2014

Eighteenth Ten Postings of Gravitas

171 COMMUNAL, NOT SOCIAL DEMOCRACY

(April 27, 2012)

I am, in this blog, describing and explaining the elements of federation theory. Currently, I am reviewing the element, communal democracy. Specifically, I am using the principles identified by Phillip Selznick and to date I have reviewed the principle, protection and integration of minorities and am now describing the principle, moral primacy of the community over the state.

172 COVENANT OF REASON

(April 30, 2012)

This posting marks the last theoretical posting I will submit for this blog. Oh, I will share more theory, but the main topic of subsequent postings will not be theory. The history of this blog has been to first present the problems I see with civics education; second, describe and explain the prevalent view of civics in our schools, the natural rights construct, which I argued has at a minimum enabled a lot of the problems this field of study faces and the consequences those problems have on society; third, describe and explain the main challenge to that prevalent view, critical theory, that many academics in the field offer but which I find wanting in very significant ways; and fourth, describe and explain my favored view of civics by reviewing this view's role in American history, its foundational moral perspective, and the main elements making up its theoretical base. This view I call federation theory. It is the last element that I will review in this posting. There is a lot more to say about federation theory, but I will incorporate these other messages as I comment on the topical issues of the day which are relevant to civics education.

173 AN APPLE IN OUR EYES?

(May 4, 2012)

Here's a business idea. Go to some off-shore island. Buy an apartment building. Then set up the apartments so that they can be rented for a week or so. You don't have to fix them up or anything. People will not be staying there. Oh, they might show up for a day or two out of the year, but the goal will be that a person rents it so he or she can claim it as his or her permanent address. They can then claim that since this is their domicile, they can avoid paying US taxes such as their income taxes. So for the modest price of a rental fee for a few days, a person can skip paying up to hundreds of thousands of dollars in income tax as would be the case for the super rich. Great! Oh, yes, that's illegal. How about that?

174 AN APPLE FROM THE TEACHER

(May 7, 2012)

In my last posting, I introduced a potential topic of study that could be utilized in a civics course – one guided by federation theory. I suggested that the fact some corporations exploit tax laws so they can set up “offices” across state lines or offshore to avoid paying their fair amount of taxes would be seen through federalist eyes as something lacking in good morals. My attention was drawn to this topic by a recent article in the New York Times [Duhigg, C. and Kocieniewski, D. (2012). How Apple sidesteps billions in taxes. The New York Times, vol. 161 (April, 29), pp. 1 & 20-21.]. In short, the article focused on the activities of Apple corporation in which, through placement of certain offices in diverse sites around the world, they in effect take advantage of lower or non existent tax rates to the degree that on a worldwide income in 2011 of $34.2 billion, they paid a worldwide tax rate of 9.8%. On the surface, I believe one can determine that such a corporation as Apple, by behaving in this way, is avoiding its proper role in meeting the financial needs of the states in which it actually conducts its business. One can say it is not meeting its responsibilities as a member of a commonwealth. After all, such a corporation depends on extraordinary levels of government services, not the least of which is education, to prepare its workforce.

175 AN ARTFUL CANARD?

(May 11, 2012)

Even devotees to the natural rights construct must justify their mostly self serving ideas in the context of national well being. My latest encounter with such an argument was an article that reported on a series of interviews. The interviews were conducted with of one of Mitt Romney's former business associates at Bain Capital, a member not only of the 1%, but of the .1% [Davidson, A. (2012). Are the rich worth a damn? The New York Times Magazine, May 6, pp. 34-40. In this posting the points of Conard's argument were taken from this article.]. He's coming out with a book, Unintended Consequences: Why Everything You've Been Told About the Economy Is Wrong. The article reminds me of the kings of old arguing that their power was the will of God, the divine rights of kings theory and, by following God's will, we will all be better off.

176 LACKING “A PEOPLE AS A WHOLE” QUALITY

(May 14, 2012)

The last posting of this blog brought up a very contemporary area of concern, at least for those who think in federalist terms. By federalist terms, I do not mean the more simplistic notion of downgrading the power of the central government of Washington, but the more core notion that federalism is about getting all stakeholders affected by some concern to have an active role in its resolution; that is, have a say in any decision-making process that addresses the concern. It is a notion that as citizens we are true confederates. Therefore, true federalists want all legitimate interests to have a viable voice in decision-making processes that affect our commonweal. How common is this more inclusive approach? Read what a recent Atlantic Monthly article had to say about our contemporary times:

In fact, [Citigroup analysts] said, America was composed of two distinct groups: the rich and the rest. And for the purposes of investment decisions, the second group didn't matter; tracking its spending habits or worrying over its savings rate was a waste of time. All the action in the American economy was at the top: the richest 1 percent of households earned as much each year as the bottom 60 percent; and with each passing year, a greater share of the nation's treasure was flowing through their hands and into their pockets. It was this segment of the population, almost exclusively, that held the key to future growth and future returns. The analysts … had coined a term for this state of affairs: plutonomy. [Peck, D. (2011). Can the middle class be saved? In the Atlantic Monthly, September. Retrieved from the Internet: www.theatlanticmonthly/magazine/archive/2011/09/can-the-middle-class-be-saved/8600/4 . Emphasis in the original.]

177 A FEDERALIST SOLUTION FOR THE UNEMPLOYED

(May 18, 2012)

An overall social order that supports federalist values in our current day, as I pointed out in the last posting, includes the ideal of “a people as a whole.” I illustrated this condition by relating it to the challenge of dealing with minority status. I specifically wrote about a moneyed minority, but the same points can be made for demographic minorities such as ethnicity, race, gender, age, sexual preference, and the like. Namely, that while an ideal federalist union strives for a congruence of values and goals, particularly regarding those very federalist values themselves, such a union specifically values and supports mutual respect among its members regardless of whether or not any particular member is part of a majority or a minority. Federalists insist that all stakeholders have a seat at the table of decision-making on all important matters affecting the society. In short, federation theory calls for a functioning community.

178 IS EXXONMOBIL A FOREIGN AGENT?

(May 21, 2012)

I would like to begin this posting with a helpful reminder. This blog is dedicated to the study of civics. I have, through all of the previous postings, built an argument for the implementation of a construct to guide our efforts in the secondary civics classrooms of this nation. I have asserted that the current construct in place is the natural rights construct. I have described and explained this construct as well as critiqued it. In short, while I see this construct as a responsible approach to civics, I do feel, given its emphasis on the individual, it enabled many of the shortcomings we are experiencing in regards to the collective quality of our citizenship. This also has been explained. I have also explained the prominent other construct which the academic field has proposed. This construct, the critical theory construct, aims its criticisms at the capitalist foundation of the natural rights construct by highlighting many of the social ailments that beset our social relations including our politics. These include class exploitation, racism, anti-feminism, and intolerance of other than heterosexual preferences. I, against the dominant established construct and its chief challenging view, offer a third construct, federation theory. I have over the months described and explained what I mean by federation theory from a moralistic, historic, and theoretical perspective. I am currently reviewing the elements or conditions of a liberated federalist model and have, to date, conveyed two of the conditions of this model by relating them to current issues. The two are “a people as a whole” and a cultural commitment to federalist values.

179 PROMOTING A MORAL ENVIRONMENT

(May 25, 2012)

I believe that one of the roles of civics education has is to encourage a certain type of political environment. Hopefully, part of that environment would be an electorate that is knowledgeable about the political structure and process of the nation. This includes citizens knowing about the vying political ideologies of their time. Federation theory, the mental construct I am promoting in this blog, also contains within its view a particular ideal environment. A civics curriculum, based on its view of politics and governance, would promote that ideal. So far, I have shared three conditions or elements of an ideal federation environment: “a people as a whole,” cultural commitment to federalist values, and a set of functioning and interacting institutions. You are invited to look up the last three postings to see my description and explanation of each of these conditions.

180 WHEN WE HAVE AN ARENA INSTEAD OF A SQUARE

(May 28, 2012)

The last four postings of this blog have been dedicated to describing and explaining four elements or conditions of an ideal federalist environment. That is, in terms of what liberated federalism is trying to create, there is an interest in developing a backdrop in which politics and governance should take place. The four elements are “the people as a whole,” cultural commitment to federalist values, a set of functioning and interacting institutions, and community with a moral primacy. I suppose this is a good time to remind you what the purpose of all this idealistic thinking is. It is to present an ideal so as to be able to guide civics instruction not in the sense that such an ideal exists or that it is reasonable to expect its eventuality. Just as with the natural rights construct and the critical theory construct, an ideal is presented to give civics a sense of direction, a sense of what a polity should seek. It also provides a basis by which to identify those conditions that are worth the attention of students in the classroom. If an ideal is presented and reality does not meet that ideal, then you have an issue to address. The overall question becomes what do we need to do in order to approach or accomplish the ideal.