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.