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.
No comments:
Post a Comment