Twentieth 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.

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)

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.

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.

Nineteenth 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.

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.

Eighteenth 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.

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.

Seventeenth 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.

161 CONSIDERED IDEALS

(March 23, 2012)

In trying to present my preferred construct, the mental overarching theory I believe should guide our study of civics, I have in the last few postings shared my assumptions regarding decision-making. Why decision-making? I have done this because I am committed to the idea that good citizenship is an active citizenship. This is in line with my preferred construct – federation theory. One needs to decide to act before one does act and this simple observation predicates the conclusion that decision-making is a central process in this whole topic of citizenship and a topic that federation theory should address. While my aim is not to provide a comprehensive theory of decision-making, I do feel the necessity to share with you what I believe are the governing ideas or variables of the process – ideas or variables which are necessary to understand in order to make sense of this crucial aspect.

162 REPORTED IDEALS AMONG AMERICANS

(March 26, 2012)

What happens when a nation adopts a natural rights sense of what should be the ideal? For those who do not know the term, natural rights refers to a mental construct in which individuals are valued as sovereign agents with the rights to determine life defining values and goals and consequent actions. Look around, for this nation adopted natural rights as the prevalent construct regarding governance and politics about sixty years ago. This transition to natural rights did not happen overnight. The transition began as soon as the ink on the Declaration of Independence was drying. In the period between the Declaration and the writing of the Constitution, a radical version of federalism was prevalent as the political orientation or construct which was employed to formulate public policy. It led to abuses of individual rights – particularly the rights of individuals of the property class in the several states. Our constitution, written in 1787, was a significant step away from radical federalism. But despite that move, I would argue that the main view of politics remained the federalist construct. But the march toward individualism and a natural rights view had a healthy beginning in the late eighteenth century which culminated at the end of World War II. The 1950s marks the first decade in which this nation adopted natural rights as its prominent view.

163 TRANSITION TOWARD VIEWING POLITICAL CONTENT

(March 30, 2012)

I have introduced the construct, federation theory, as my favored approach and guide to the study of civics. So far, I have reviewed this view's position on morality. You are encouraged to click on the appropriate past postings which began appearing in this blog on October 11, 2011. This series of postings followed another series of postings that reviewed the history of federalism, especially its early history stretching all the way back to our colonial past – federalism has a long respectful history in American society.

164 COVENANTS OR COMPACTS

(April 2, 2012)

With this posting, I will begin answering the question: according to federation theory, what is the nature of governance and politics? To answer this question, I will begin by reviewing the meaning of essential concepts which provide a foundation for the construct. The first concepts are covenant and compact. I should write covenant or compact since both terms mean the same thing except for a very important distinction. This element of the construct retains its meaning which I described in an earlier posting when I was explaining traditional federalism. So, as a reminder:

Covenantal foundings emphasize the deliberate coming together of humans as equals to establish politics in such a way that all reaffirm their fundamental equality and retain their basic rights … Polities whose origins are covenantal reflect the exercise of constitutional choice and broad-based participation in constitutional design. Polities founded by covenant are essentially federal in character, in the original meaning of the term (from foedus, Latin for covenant). [Elazar, D. J. (1991). Federal models of (civil) authority. Journal of Church and State, 33 (Spring), pp. 231-254. Citation pp. 233-234.]

As I will use these ideas and, due to the current social and political environment which is encouraged by the prevalent natural rights perspective, certain attributes need to be emphasized. Unfortunately, the term covenant, as it is currently used, has become synonymous with the word, contract. But within federation theory, there is a significant difference between the idea of contract and that of covenant or compact. Contracts are agreements between persons over limited issues or binding clauses. Covenants or compacts refer to obligations that

… ought to be seen as more comprehensive and more binding. … [It] suggests an indefeasible commitment and a continuing relationship. The bond is relatively unconditional, relatively indissoluble …

Covenant is more ambiguous [than contract]. … The ensuing obligations are not fully specified in advance; instead, they derive from the nature and history of the relationship. Respect for parents, nurture of children, civic virtue: these duties and ideals are neither founded in consent nor created through negotiation [as in the case of a contract]. [Selznick, P. (1992). The moral commonwealth: Social theory and the promise of community. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Citation pp. 479-480.]

165 FEDERALIST EQUALITY

(April 6, 2012)

What is the nature of governance and politics? In the last posting, I began to provide an answer to this question from the perspective of federation theory. In that posting, I reviewed the first elements of federalism, those of covenants or compacts. Covenants or compacts are central to the idea of federalism. In whatever form that idea is held or presented, there is this foundational, structural element of people coming together, formulating a union under a “sacred” agreement – either in the form of a covenant or compact. By so couching governance and politics, one ascribes to these categories of human activity a communal perspective.

166 BASELINE EQUALITY

(April 9, 2012)

One of the objectives of this blog is to present, explain, and promote a mental construct of governance and politics. That construct I have entitled federation theory. In order to explain this construct, I am presenting its different elements. To date, I have reviewed the elements of covenant or compact and have started, in the last posting, to explain the element of equality. Equality fulfills a central function within the overall conceptional structure of federation theory. “Moral equality is the postulate that all persons have the same intrinsic worth.” [Selznick, P. (1992). The moral commonwealth: Social theory and the promise of community. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Citation found on p. 483.] Phillip Selznick describes this element from two levels: baseline equality and equal treatment. In the last posting, I indicated that within this construct, equality is seen as a means by which a community can be formulated using a federal organizational form. This posting will make the case that equality provides a “path to community” in which the members of a formulated union are held to be equal in certain important aspects: moral decision-making, dignity, participation, and consent.

167 EQUAL TREATMENT

(April 13, 2012)

This blog is in the midst of describing and explaining the elements of a mental construct suitable for guiding civics instruction in American secondary schools. I have given the name, federation theory, to this construct. The elements so far reviewed are covenant or compact and baseline equality. You are invited to click on the last two postings to view those descriptions. The next element I want to describe is equal treatment.

168 AN EQUALITY AIM

(April 16, 2012)

I have in the last two postings reviewed how federation theory conceptually treats equality. I broke it down into two types: baseline equality and equal treatment. While I described these elements as ideals, perhaps one might attach a legalistic attribute to these ideas that was not intended. In this posting, I want to clarify any misconception on that score.

169 IDEAL BALANCE BETWEEN MAJORITY AND MINORITY

(April 20, 2012)

In my attempt to describe and explain the federation theory, I have to date reviewed the elements of the construct I have identified: covenant or compact and equality. The next element I want to review is communal democracy. This element includes the idea of the “consent of the governed” and how it is associated with the rule of the governed. What federation theory stresses is that the rule and consent must be viewed as that emanating from a functioning community instead of from an aggregate of individuals – the individualistic perspective is more akin to the natural rights perspective prevalent today. This shift to a communal democracy entails four principles: “the protection and integration of minorities; the moral primacy of the community over the state; the responsibility of government for communal well-being; and the social basis of political participation.” [Selznick, P. (1992). The moral commonwealth: Social theory and the promise of community. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Citation found on p. 503.] This posting will focus on the first of these principles, the protection and integration of minorities.

170 FIRST THE COMMUNITY

(April 23, 2012)

Being in the midst of describing and explaining an element of the federation theory construct, communal democracy, I have reviewed the first principle of this element, the protection and integration of minorities. This posting will focus on the second principle, the moral primacy of the community over the state. Here there is a bit of mis-instruction in our schools. Despite the fact that many descriptions of the social contract concept are often erroneously presented in secondary textbooks – as being solely the product of Thomas Hobbes' view [See for example McClenaghan, W. A. (1999). Magruder’s American government. Needham, MA: Prentice Hall.  These texts present Hobbes' view as that of Locke.] which states that individuals enter the contract by giving up only those rights necessary for mutual defense – according to John Locke's theory, the state (the government) originates from a preexisting community, not from autonomous and endangered individuals. [McClelland, J. S. (1996). A history of western political thought. New York: Routledge.] “What ever may be said of other aspects of his thought, this Lockean premise [the protection of fundamental rights of life, liberty, and property] does not entail a radical individualism.” [Selznick, P. (1992). The moral commonwealth: Social theory and the promise of community. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Citation on p. 507.] In writing about this issue, Phillip Selznick insists, Lockean view is based on a perception of a person entangled in a social context with relations of family, friends, and commitments. The creation of a law generating a regime or government helps to perfect the community; it does not create it. The community already has the foundation to be moral through its kinship and resulting traditions that bolster its cohesion. Morality is allowed to transcend the public and the private spheres of the community. It also provides the way for the community to be “civilized.”

Sixteenth 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.

151 THE PROBLEM OF “PERSON HOOD”

(February 17, 2012)

In my last posting, I reviewed how the traditional federalism construct fell short in defining individual rights. Another issue associated with that construction has been the definition of “person.” This shortcoming strikes at a very central constitutional foundational concern. Our constitution refers to individual rights as pertaining to persons and most of the time the actual definition of the word is more or less taken for granted. The lack of a definite definition has led to such diverse policy biases as granting rights for corporations to, in more recent years, fetuses. This vagueness was true during the era when traditional federalism was our dominant construct until our current time when the natural rights construct has been dominant. The inability of the political-social culture to arrive at an acceptable definition of a person made it impossible to settle the slavery issue in the 1800s short of civil war. Today, along with the abortion issue, there exists a whole new set of issues revolving around this fundamental definitional question. Cloning and other newly developed genetically technical developments will plague us because there does not exist a consensus as to who or what constitutes a constitutional person. This is a question demanding a cultural answer because, unfortunately, science cannot give us a definitive answer. At stake is the determination of who or what will be given individual status with all the integrity and rights attached to that status.

152 REPEATING A CENTRAL CONCERN

(February 20, 2012)

Almost immediately, a problem with the way our founding fathers used federalism, became apparent. The bias of federalism is for power to be reserved to local politics. Politics sustained at local levels has, at least, two obvious advantages. One, local people know better how any policy will affect them. The local policy-makers not only know better the effects of policy, but also have to live with those effects. Two, if power is retained at the local level, the average person has more opportunity to make his or her feelings felt – it's more democratic. While this latter quality was questioned by James Madison in Federalist Paper Number 10 – claiming that local politics tends to be less democratic as it is subject to being hijacked by local, single interest, power holders – I still believe that an average citizen has more opportunity to voice his or her concerns if the policy decider(s) are at the local level. But in any event, traditional federalism was very poor at establishing the boundaries between the powers of the central government and local entities. This lack of clarity was very instrumental in leading the nation into a civil war.

153 A WORD ON SANTO SANTORUM

(February 24, 2012)

Years ago a young Roman Catholic ran for president. If elected, he would be the first Catholic to hold that position. Previous to that campaign, there had been one other Catholic who, as a candidate for one of the major parties, ran in 1928. He was Al Smith of New York and he really didn't have a chance to win due to many factors, one being the concerns of the Protestant majority that Governor Smith would be a papist, one who would take his orders from the Pope, the head of the Roman Church. In 1960, when this second Catholic made his run for the office, the concerns were still there. So much so that the candidate, John Kennedy, had to make a speech to assure the nation that he was not a papist. Should we demand the same from “Santo” Santorum?

154 AN APPROACH TO LIBERATED FEDERALISM

(February 27, 2012)

To date, in this Blog, I have written about a moral standing which, I have argued, should motivate civics curriculum workers. These workers include district curriculum officials, school curriculum workers, textbook producers, and teachers. In short, this morality revolves around a commitment for societal welfare. I am expressing societal welfare along two dimensions: a moral concern for the survival of our society and societal advancement in accordance with our defined goals. From this value orientation, a set of supportive values can be derived. These instrumental values are liberty, equality, diversity, compacted agreements, transparency, collective decision-making, trust, loyalty, expertise, and patriotism. While such values can direct us in several ways when seeking an overall view of governance and politics, I believe that chiefly among those ways is federalism. Federalism is a political theory or model. I have argued that federalism, as a construct, guided our colonial ancestors in their work to form a nation. This process began with our earliest days as colonies of Great Britain. While the construct began to lose favor as early as when we won our independence, it remained our prominent view of politics until the 1950s. Since then, the view has been replaced by a more liberated construct which I have called the natural rights construct. I have critiqued this development and have claimed that the newer view has at least enabled many detrimental developments to occur. Among them have been increases in crime, breakdowns of community, narcissism, excessive divorces, lack of political engagement, and generally high levels of incivility. I have cited both sociological and political data to support these claims as well as expert opinion. This perspective has also given us a taste of personal freedom which I generally support, but even if I didn't, I realize that that genie is out of the bottle and we are not going back to a more paternalistic age.

155 AIMS OF FEDERALIST THEORY IN CIVICS

(March 2, 2012)

In my last posting, I indicated that with this present posting I would begin to answer the question of how liberated federalism (or federation theory) views the nature of governance and politics. I am addressing this question because I believe federation theory should be the foundational construct of civics and government courses in American schools. I believe this construct should replace the prevailing construct, natural rights.

So, the first area to address in answering this question is to look at the subject area of political science. In presenting the natural rights construct, I pointed out that that construct relied on systems theory to define its approach to political science. Critical theory relies on a mixture of traditions, but overall, the basic view of politics is mostly Marxian. For federation theory, federalism is the theory. My upcoming postings will outline the elements of that theory. I have already shared many of those elements while describing traditional federalism, but there will be a variation in the tone and emphasis from those descriptions of the older version of this theory.

156 INTRODUCING THE DOMAINS INVOLVED IN DECISION-MAKING

(March 5, 2012)

As you can see, my introduction feature (appearing above this posting) has changed. I have included a listing of curricular aims. They reflect the potential goals of a civics curriculum. I view these aims as a product of a foundational construct I call either liberated federalism or federation theory. If you read through those aims, you will note a strong commitment in the direction of a certain value orientation. I would liken this commitment with JFK's famous phrase – “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” The aims speak to striving for an ideal. One can ask: how does this ideal fit into the whole conceptual field of civics education?

157 THE DOMAIN OF THE REAL

(March 9, 2012)

I have started, in the last few postings, to describe and explain federalist theory as a modern construct useful in guiding our efforts in civics and government instruction in our nation's classrooms. In my last posting, I pointed out that in order to aim our civics curriculum, as federalist theory would have us do, toward a more moral and duty bound content, we need to address the area of decision-making. This need is due to the simple observation that in order to act in moral and duty bound ways, we first need to decide to do so. And so, as a first step in viewing this process, at least for the purposes of this Blog, I see decision-making as a product of three domains within our minds – the real, the ideal, and the physiological. This reflects the fact that many factors come into play in our decision-making processes.

158 THE DOMAIN OF THE IDEAL

(March 12, 2012)

As the aims listed in the introductory insert to this Blog indicate, I am trying to convince people that a viable civics education curriculum needs to promote active citizenship – a citizenship that puts a premium on a commitment toward community and a mutual responsibility for the fate of the commonwealth. This is a citizenship that characterizes a people who, for the most part, define their role in society as participating in the policy making processes within and outside of government.

159 THE DOMAIN OF THE PHYSIOLOGICAL

(March 16, 2012)

I have, in the last few postings, reviewed my assumptions concerning decision-making by describing the mental aspects I believe goes into the process of deciding. To date, I have identified three sets or types of mental influences or, as I call them, domains of decision-making: the real, the ideal, and the physiological. I have defined the real – our beliefs about the physical and social existence that surround us – and the ideal – the sum total of our normative positions and emotions. This posting will look at the physiological.

160 THE POSSIBILITY OF INCONGRUENCE

(March 19, 2012)

Have you ever been in the following situation? You are in a meeting at work and the purpose is to map out some future course of action. You or someone in the meeting has a clear idea of what that strategy should be. Good reasons are given and all seemingly agree with not only the plan, but also the reasoning behind the plan. Then everyone goes out and begins to behave in ways contrary to the plan. With the strategy forgotten, those who organized what were to be the activities look at the subsequent developments in frustration and confusion. “Am I working with dishonest people or incompetent people or just mischievous people?” That is a reasonable question to ask in such a situation. But actually, what is really going on is our oversight of a very human trait. We operate in what often times is a dual track of thinking when it comes to decision-making. We honestly espouse certain values and goals, but when it comes to action, a different set of values and goals manifests itself and disrupts what was otherwise an honest commitment toward a particular course of action.