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.
