101 FEDERALIST
DOMINANCE
(August
26, 2011)
The
purpose of this posting is to define a central concept in our basic
constitutional theory. It is an idea that has a long history, but
was given a rich array of attributes in its application to our
political experience. The concept is federalism. Federalism
essentially is a construct emphasizing the collective nature of
society. It does this while not sacrificing the integrity of the
individual. It defines society and its government as a social entity
that comes about as a result of a process in which individuals and/or
groups consciously form a union based on agreement over fundamental
principles and beliefs. For those of you conversant with political
theory, this is view of societal and governmental establishment is
opposed to government being established through force or accident.
The members of the group formulate this agreement as a mutual promise
among the individuals or groups making up the union. The agreement
has the following qualities: it is made in perpetuity; it states the
purpose(s) of the union; it determines any structural arrangements;
it identifies any rights the individuals or groups have under the
arrangement; and it establishes sanctions its governing apparatus can
administer for infractions of its provisions.
102
COVENANT
OR COMPACT
(August
29, 2011)
Since the beginning of this blog, I have promoted the
idea that civics education needed a better serving construct to guide
curricular workers and teachers, especially in terms of the scope of
their subject matter. I dedicated many postings to explaining what I
see as the main construct of civics and government education today.
That construct I titled the natural rights construct and I pointed
out why that view did not sufficiently serve the teaching needs of
civics. I also reviewed the main challenging construct. By
challenging, I mean the proposed view of some academics within the
field of civics education and social studies, in general, to replace
the natural rights construct. That construct is the critical theory
or critical pedagogy construct. I found that construct also wanting.
I have attempted to present these constructs fairly and have
provided my critique of each. I am now beginning to present my
choice of a preferred construct.
103
A
COMMUNAL LIBERTY
(September
2, 2011)
I have, in the last couple of postings, introduced and
tried to tie into our historical tradition a very central idea in our
constitutional make-up. The idea or concept is federalism. I have
couched an understanding of this idea in a past which was noted for
the high degree of political engagement Americans practiced. I have
designated this type of federalism which functioned as a formulating
theory of governance in our early history as traditional federalism.
I will explain this distinguishing designation in a future posting,
but let me just point out that the federalism I am describing in this
posting, while having many positive aspects, in total, would not be
workable today – we as a nation have gone through too many changes.
But that does not mean that the concept has nothing to offer us.
104 FOR
THE FOUNDERS, HOW INDIVIDUAL ARE RIGHTS?
(September
5, 2011)
I
have stated in this blog that possibly more than any other
constitutional ideal, federalism was probably the most unifying one
among the founding generation. This type of federalism, the eminent
scholar Daniel Elazar calls integral federalism. It is a type that
promotes communal values. And yet confusion arises with some of the
language of that time. After all, for example, one of the prominent
political groups of the time was known as the Anti-Federalists. I
indicated in the last posting how this moniker was the product of
historical happenstance, an unfortunate development that had more to
do with political ambitions than an accurate use of the term.
Actually, in the traditional meaning of the term federalist, the
Anti-federalist were more “federalist” than the Federalists. One
of the areas where this confusion manifests itself is with the issue
over the need for a bill of rights in the US Constitution
and how the issued manifested itself in the early days of the
republic.
105 REPUBLICAN
DEMANDS
(September
9, 2011)
I
have, in the last year or so, noticed that there are certain
political factions that base their beliefs on the intentions of the
founding generation - on those esteemed historical figures with the
wigs and frivolous looking customs who laid down our basic
constitutional documents. The references actually take on two
distinct themes. One is a train of argument that ascribes to these
forefathers an unflinching commitment to unalienable rights. This
theme sets a foundation for what I, in this blog, have called the
natural rights construct. It promotes the idea that the signers of
the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution
wanted to establish a political system dedicated to a liberty defined
by libertarian beliefs; that is, individual prerogatives to determine
individual goals and actions to a level that all but excludes any
collective concerns. The second train of argument is the notion that
the forefathers established a Christian nation, created for
Christians and to promote Christian values and beliefs; that our
founding documents were based almost exclusively on those values and
beliefs. Somewhat ironic is the fact that there are significant
numbers of people who hold to both arguments despite the fact that
they are seriously inconsistent. Also of note are the serious
historical expert opinions that contradict both historical
interpretations.
106 LOCAL
GOVERNANCE: A REASON TO CARE
(September
12, 2011)
In
the last few postings, I have analyzed federalist ideas concerning
liberty and in doing so, have distinguished the prevailing notions of
the founding generation from those of today. In those earlier days,
there was a more republican sense of liberty, ensconced in a sense of
civic virtue, of duty and responsibility for the commonweal, as
opposed to a libertarian sense of liberty that prevails today. In
short, the founding generation had a deep abiding respect for the
common good and the function that collective action, as well as
individual effort, had in securing it. As I first pointed out in my
review of the development of our political culture, this more
collective view has been increasingly challenged since the early
days. I already pointed out that the more collectivist orientation
of the Whigs was under attack as early as 1787 while our national
constitution was being written and ratified. That constitution, over
Whig objections, expanded the Articles of Confederation by narrowing
the purview of the smaller state governments and enhancing the powers
of a central government.
Despite this shift, the newer constitution is a federalist document
and maintains much of the Whig spirit.
107 THE
MORAL ELEMENT
(September
16, 2011)
Do
the early experiences of our national forebears give us any insights
about how we should view morality? We see from our forebears that a
liberty of conscience, one anchored in duties and obligations,
established the habits of heart and mind to deal with the
uncertainties associated with starting a national government. You
might agree that we, as a nation, have seriously strayed from that
view. With that in mind, let us now look at that time's view of
morality because morality and governance (with its accompanying
politics) were intrinsically interwoven.
108 THE
FOUNDING ROLE OF RELIGION
(September
19, 2011)
The
last posting described a moral demeanor among the populous,
especially the founders, during the origins of the American republic.
My description of an early moral demeanor might give you the
impression that I believe Americans were exceptionally moral during
those years. That is not my intention. All the vices we know humans
to participate in I'm sure were present throughout the nation's
history, before and after attaining independence. But what I do
believe is that there were more social restrictions in place to
either control or limit the occurrence of what were deemed as immoral
behaviors. These “controls” were seen as legitimate by most.
Even governmental action to impose restrictions was readily accepted.
It was accepted because people lived in small social communities
and/or under the duress of harsh environmental conditions. Unless
they lived isolated in frontier settings or in farms situated far
away from the nearest town, most Americans at the time of the
Revolution lived in small towns or cities that did not approach our
modern conceptions of urban areas (the largest city of that time was
Philadelphia – 40,000 – that had a larger population than the
next two largest cities – 24,000 combined). Any social “sinning,”
that is behaviors that inflicted harm on others, was usually targeted
on people the sinners had lived with most of their lives and
obviously knew well. These more intimate social settings probably
worked best to keep people morally grounded. But one cannot
underestimate the influence of organized religion to further insist
that people behaved.
109 CLASS
WARFARE – WHAT ELSE IS NEW?
(September
23, 2011)
Warning:
I will, in this posting, share some of my political sentiments. I do
so not so much to try to convince you of a policy position, but, as
it happens, the situation I will describe fits to a tee the point
being made; that is, the parallel conditions between our current
political debate over taxes and national deficit/debt and the
insights of the Patriots at the time of the origins of our national
government.
Civics
instruction in our schools needs to cover the origins of our
republic. It needs to do so because one, it helps students know and
understand the foundation of our political ideals and ideas. Two, it
helps students understand some important parameters in which we carry
on our politics and governance. AND, three, it helps our students to
be armed when politicians or other pundits refer to our founding
ideas to justify whatever they are trying to convince others to
support. Libertarians, of late, have done just that. They have
books and supposedly informed experts who spout how we have drifted
from our constitutional ideas and have chosen to, in effect, embark
on a different course. According to them, we have ceased to be true
to the intentions of those founding fathers.
110 IS
IT UTOPIAN?
(September
26, 2011)
Here's
an idea. Let's teach kids in our schools a system of government in
which citizens are expected to sacrifice their private interest for
the common good. Utopian? Well, that was the belief shared by those
who started our country. They believed in a republican form of
government and that belief in self sacrifice for all was central to
what republics demanded. That is why they also believed republics
had to be small – small states allowed the familiarity and sense of
cohesion, unity if you will, necessary to promote the value that one
should transcend one's self-interest for the betterment of all.
Smallness, in addition, simplified the ability to communicate what
was perceived as the common good. In turn, this simplification
allowed the “prevailing” view to spread. On the other hand,
largeness introduced anti-republican forces brought about by a
multitude of interests, in terms of how many there would be and in
terms of the substantive nature of their demands. These forces let
themselves be manifested, Whigs believed, by sprouting divisions
splintering the moral wholeness of the people. The society, viewed
as an organic whole, would be threatened by these divisions.
