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.

Fifteenth 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.

141 AT THE BEGINNING: MAYFLOWER COMPACT

(January 13, 2012)

In the last series of postings, I have, using Meehan's standards for evaluating social science theories and models, shared a set of conclusions that critically looks at the viability of the traditional federalist model. That model of governance and politics was dominant during the founding of the nation. I have, several times in this blog, made this claim for the federalist construct and, a while back, posted a short historical analysis that used expert opinion supporting this claim. Starting with this posting, I want to accomplish two goals: critique traditional federalism as to its isomorphism (its one to one account of what it is describing and explaining) and provide documented evidence to support the claim of its prominence during those early years. To do this, I am utilizing the work of one of our nation's top constitutional scholars, Donald S. Lutz of the University of Houston (A set of chapters in the book, Roots of the Republic: American Founding Documents Interpreted, written by Donald Lutz. The book is edited by Stephen L. Schechter.).

142 FIRST CONSTITUTION: FUNDAMENTAL ORDERS OF CONNECTICUT

(January 16, 2012)

In the last posting of this blog, I offered the Mayflower Compact as evidence supporting the claim that the founding of the nation was based on federalist principles. In reviewing that covenant, I pointed out some of the basic ideas that were instrumental in our original conceptions of how we should govern ourselves. Those principles included formation of a union based on consent of the governed a priori to actual governance, formulation of a formal agreement based on a covenant (a promise which called on God as witness to the agreement), and an integral commitment to equality – by the way, before any commitment to individuality or individual rights. I call this a federalist approach because the members of that colony off the Massachusetts Bay federated themselves to each other to, one, meet the challenges of a hostile environment and, two, to promote, as they saw it, the will of God.

143 JOHN ADAMS AS POLITICAL COUNSULTANT

(January 20, 2012)

I am in the midst of posting a series of document reviews from early American history that, one, supports the claim that federalist thought functioned as the prevailing construct of government and politics at the beginning of our nation and, two, provides evidence as to the isomorphic (one to one) quality of the federalism construct. I am using the work of Donald Lutz to assist in this analysis. A look at the expressed ideals around the time of the American Revolution, for example, will demonstrate how this foundational perspective survived and was instrumental in drawing up the constitutional framework of the nation. In his Thoughts on Government, 1776, John Adams picked up on the moral bent of federalism to justify his proposed political arrangements:

We ought to consider, what is the end of government, before we determine which is the best form. Upon this point all speculative politicians will agree, that the happiness of society is the end of government, as all Divines and moral Philosophers will agree that the happiness of the individual is the end of man. From this principle it will follow, that the form of government, which communicates ease, comfort, security, or in one word happiness to the greatest number of persons, and in the greatest degree, is the best.

… If there is a form of government then, whose principle and foundation is virtue, will not every sober man acknowledge it better calculated to promote the general happiness than any other form? [Adams, J. (1776). Thoughts on government. Retrieved from the Internet: http://presspubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/ v1ch4s5.html . Retrieval on 1/18/12. Let me note that the language that Adams uses reminds one of utilitarian views of morality; I do not believe he was formally making such an argument.]

144 FEDERALIST VALUES OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

(January 23, 2012)

Documents from the past are telling sources of evidence. They are often the product of reflected efforts; those who write them give them a great deal of thought. They are not always honest renditions of people's feelings or beliefs, but those who produce them are usually not haphazard in their labor. There is probably no better example of serious effort than what went into the writing of our Declaration of Independence. In the most recent postings of this blog, I have been reviewing a series of documents from our early national history in order to achieve two goals: to provide evidence that what I am calling traditional federalism was the prevailing mental construct of the founding of this nation and that, in so doing, provide a critique of that construct using the standards provided by Eugene Meehan (Meehan, E. J. (1969). Explanations in social science: A system paradigm. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.). The work of Donald Lutz (A set of chapters in the book, Roots of the Republic: American Founding Documents Interpreted, written by Donald Lutz. The book is edited by Stephen L. Schechter.) has been helpful in these reviews.

145 MORE VALUES CONTAINED IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

(January 27, 2012)

In my last posting, I began a presentation of the evidential role that the Declaration of Independence – its text – plays in making the case that federalism was the main theoretical construct of the founding fathers. It does this, foremost, by being a covenant in which the colonies joined to claim their collective independence from Britain. In this posting, I want to continue in this vein.

146 THE ARTICLES LED TO OUR US CONSTITUTION

(January 30, 2012)

If you have been following this blog of late, you know that I have been reviewing early American documents. To date, I have reviewed the Mayflower Compact, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, and the Declaration of Independence among others. I have done this for two reasons. One, I wanted to use the documents as evidence to support the claim that the federalist construct was the prevalent theoretical construct of the founding fathers and, two, to offer a critique of this construct as to its isomorphism. I am particularly interested in the traditional form of the construct, traditional federalism, as I will offer a more updated version of the construct – a version I will argue is more suitable for the study of civics in our contemporary classrooms.

147 A SHORT WORD ON CONDUCIVENESS

(February 3, 2012)

Let me continue my critical view of the traditional federalism construct. Ultimately, I am interested in the construct as a foundational theoretical approach for the study of civics. But to be a viable approach for classroom instruction, the construct must first be viable as a view of government and politics. Since the posting of December 30, I have been using Eugene Meehan's criteria for evaluating social science theories and models.¹ To date, I have found the traditional federalism construct to be comprehensive, valid and complete, corresponding to the realities it describes and explains, consistent, and isomorphic. Where the construct is a bit lacking is in its clarity. You are welcome to click on any of the postings covering those topics in the archives feature of this blog.

148 PREDICTABLILITY AND CONTROL PROVIDED BY TRADITIONAL FEDERALISM

(February 6, 2012)

With this posting, I will end a series of postings in which I have taken a critical view of the utility the prevalent construct of the founding generation had. Of course, by “founding” I mean the generation of the late eighteenth century that started our political system. To evaluate the founding construct, I have depended on Meehan's criteria for judging social science theories and models (Meehan, E. J. (1969). Explanations in social science: A system paradigm. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.). The utilized criteria to date consist of the following standards: comprehension, validity and completeness, correspondence to realities, consistency over time, clarity, and isomorphism. The construct has stood up well against such a review. Where the construct is a bit lacking is in its clarity. If you are of a mind, you can review these postings; they begin with my December 30 entry.

149 FURTHER CRITICISMS OF TRADITIONAL FEDERALISM

(February 9, 2012)

Since my posting of December 30, I have been applying the criteria developed by Eugene Meehan¹ to evaluate the traditional federalism perspective. That criteria was formulated to assist social scientists to critically judge theories and models of the social sciences. As a result of my review, I judged the perspective to be a fairly adequate construct by which to provide theoretical guidance for formulating an overall view of our governance and politics, particularly of the early period of our national history. I have also made the case that traditional federalism was the prevailing view of our founding fathers and that that tradition stretched back to our earliest colonial days. My only reservation in passing a favorable evaluation had to do with the perspective's clarity and I pointed out that during the time period between the writing of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, the political class was going through a transition in which basic views of federalist governance were being questioned. For example, to what degree should majority rule have unbridled authority to issue policy was a question with which they were struggling. In several states, those of the property class were disturbed as state legislatures were being too liberal with the interests of the debtor class. While states in their constitutions had bills of rights, they were not given the contractual language that would later be incorporated into the national Bill of Rights – where words such as should and ought replaced words such as shall and will. Consequently, the property class felt threatened as legislatures undermined contractual arrangements between landlords and lending agents and those indebted to them. But beyond this issue of clarity, the construct seemed fairly effective as a view of government and politics, particularly of the late eighteenth century.

150 A LACK OF INDIVIDUALITY

(February 13, 2012)

In this posting and those to follow, I will continue my critique of the traditional federalism construct. A lot of that critique will be directed at the construction's normative claims. Unlike systems based theories, those favored by advocates of the natural rights construct, the traditional federalism construct not only strives to guide research into what political realities are, but also what they should be. This latter perspective can be considered its normative side. This particular posting will comment on traditional federalism's view of rights and individual integrity.

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.

Fourteenth 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.

131 FACTORS AFFECTING ADOPTION OF A MORAL CODE

(December 9, 2011)

In trying to develop a moral code suitable for providing a theoretical basis for values curriculum in civics, one needs to keep several factors in mind. If you follow this blog, you know that I have been developing such a code. I would like, in this posting, to identify several of those factors.

132 THE “INS AND OUTS” OF THE FEDERALIST MORAL CODE

(December 12, 2011)

In my last posting, I listed several factors that would affect the adoption of a moral code, a code that would be useful in the formulation of a values curriculum in civics. They are abstraction level, secular approach, and religious diversity. You are invited to click on the archival entry to see my explanation of each of these factors. This posting will pursue the notion of what the proposed moral code does or does not address. I have written that my proposed code, the federalist moral code, is limited. It is not in any way presented as a code one needs to adopt for one's own sense or standard of what is moral. It is a code that can serve as a source for identifying moral concerns or questions for pedagogic purposes. Teachers and curriculum developers can summon from the code ideas or topics that can then be used in civics and other social studies classes. Its benefits are that it gives direction as to what is moral and what is immoral when it comes to public policy. In my mind, it is derived from moral theories espoused by central philosophers of the western tradition. To date, I have identified its trump value and a set of instrumental values. In this posting, I want to further describe its limitations as a moral code.

133 IMPLEMENTING FEDERALIST MORAL CODE IN THE CLASSROOM

(December 16, 2011)

Of late, I have been, through this blog, presenting a moral code. The purpose has been to present a code that will be suitable for guiding values education efforts in our public schools while promoting a federalist view of civics. In this posting, I will review many of the elements of the code as I present some instructional ideas that can be incorporated in implementing the code.

134 TWO POSSIBLE CONCERNS OVER THE FEDERALIST MORAL CODE

(December 19, 2011)

Since October 17^th I have, in this blog, been presenting a moral code that I am offering as a guide for a values education effort in our public schools. I have given it the name, federalist moral code. The code has a trump value of societal welfare, a hierarchical structure of values, and a list of “instrumental” values that logically fall from the trump value. These latter values include constitutional integrity (liberty), equality, communal democracy, democratic pluralism and diversity, compacted arrangements, critical and transparent deliberations, collective problem-solving, earned trust, loyalty, expertise and patriotism.

135 A DIRECTION

(December 23, 2011)

I have in past postings lamented the low levels of political participation among our youth. I have also reported research that not only backs up the above contention but also identifies uncomfortable levels of narcissism and nihilism among the young. I have attached these unwelcome conditions to the prevailing civic (or is it non civic) to a frame of mind, the natural rights construct. That is, I have argued that the natural rights construct has been an enabler of such conditions; I have argued that this construct promotes a moral position in which people are told they are free to determine what value orientation they wish to follow. While this, on paper, seems to patriotically bolster attitudes of freedom and liberty, when this ideal or moral orientation is taught in schools, youngsters have basically adopted very self-centered moral outlooks. Young people have further solidified this collective perspective with a youth culture that has evolved, particularly in our large urban comprehensive high schools. The whole “liberty” thing, I have argued, has manifested itself in a slew of antisocial behaviors from mere impoliteness to criminal activity. Over the course of this blog, all of these claims have been supported by research citations or expert opinion in previous postings.

136 A COMMUNAL WISH

(December 26, 2011)

I have presented, through a series of postings, a moral code offered as a foundation for a values education component of a civics/social studies curriculum. Its particulars have been developed since my October 17^th posting. Perhaps I will edit them into a single piece so that interested people can review this argumentation in a more convenient format. But for now, I want to conclude this presentation with this summary posting.

137 COMPREHENSIVENESS OF OLD TIME FEDERALISM

(December 30, 2011)

One of the writers that has an ongoing influence on my efforts in this blog is Eugene J. Meehan (Meehan, E. J. (1969). Explanations in social science: A system paradigm. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.). I have cited him before in relation to my critiques of both the natural rights construct and the critical theory construct. Back in 1969, he offered a set of standards by which to evaluate social science theories or models. I applied those standards in my critiques (I also added a couple of standards of my own). I point out his influence here to admit that he also affects me in explaining my own construct, the liberal federalist construct (aka federalist theory). In the next series of postings, Meehan's concerns have encouraged me to delve into another historical report on how a more traditional federalism influenced the development of our national political framework.

138 TRADITIONAL FEDERALISM'S COMPLETENESS AND VALIDITY

(January 2, 2012)

In the last posting, I viewed traditional federalism, the form of federalist theory that held significant influence during the foundation of the nation, in terms of its comprehensiveness. Borrowing Eugene J. Meehan's standards for social science theory and models, I was of the opinion that traditional federalism was substantially comprehensive because the construction's implementation of the principles of equity, which is only one aspect of the construct, casts a wide purview over our domestic politics. Add to this its other principles, liberty (as defined by this view) and public virtue, this view allows any researcher or educator who uses the theory to have a substantial base or approach to the study of politics and governance in the US.

139 TRADITIONAL FEDERALISM'S LACK OF CLARITY

(January 6, 2012)

I have in this blog reviewed the historical role that federalist thought had in the founding of the nation and its political/governmental institution. I have also presented a moral code based on a federalist perspective. I am presently, based on these two prior efforts, formulating in these postings a series of conclusions regarding the viability of what I am calling traditional federalism – the political construct of the early American founders. That is, using Eugene Meehan's standards for evaluating social science theories and models, I am passing judgment on the usefulness of traditional federalism as a model of governance and politics in the US. So far, I have concluded that the model has a meaningful level of comprehensiveness, but I could not form a conclusion regarding the model's completeness and validity. This is due to the model's assumption that our politics meaningfully includes the varied interests making up our political landscape. There are political commentators and scientists who question the degree to which lower and middle income groups are able to participate. Some argue that the system basically is of, by, and for corporate and higher income groups. You are welcome to click on the last two postings for explanations of these arguments.

140 CONSISTENCY OF TRADITIONAL FEDERALISM

(January 9, 2012)

In my attempt to pass judgment on the traditional federalism construct, I have posted critiques on that construction's comprehensiveness, completeness, validity, and clarity. I have done this using Meehan's criteria for evaluating social science theories and models. This short posting will pass judgment on the construction's consistency; i. e., traditional federalism's ability to provide a consistent explanation and/or description over time.