211 FEDERALIST LEADERSHIP
(September 10, 2012)
Well, here we go again. It's time to select our leader for the next
four years. What should we consider in
this political race? We should consider
a lot of things and not just our personal situations. We should also be concerned with the health
of the commonwealth. But pollsters tell us
that few of us are so disposed to think – or feel – anything beyond those
conditions that advance or hinder what we want or need. For the sake of the ideal, though, let us for
a few moments consider the very notion of leadership and how it affects the common
good.
213 IDEAS
ASSOCIATED WITH CONSENT
(September 14, 2012)
A concept I have associated with liberated
federalism has been consent. I have
stated that our equal ability to involve ourselves with others or, to a higher
degree, become federated with others, is the basis upon which equality can be
defined. We might not all be as
important to a group; we might not all be equally powerful or rich or talented,
but we all decide to become part of a federated union equally. But what I have not done, to date, is give a
working understanding for what exactly this consent is. Is it merely the simple act of saying, to
yourself or others, that, yes I am a part of this group, arrangement, or
association? Or is there more to the
concept of consent, more to the act of joining or allowing someone else to
join?
214 HOW
DARE HE
(September 17, 2012)
How do I go about this without sounding
partisan? The “this” is this posting
which is directed at Mitt Romney's infamous response to a question at a
fundraiser he had in Boca Raton, Florida.
I'm sure you've seen and heard it by now – the one in which he dismisses
the need to appeal to 47 % of the population in his run for president. Why does he dismiss them? Because he calls them dependents on
government for “health care, food, housing, to you name it.”
216
FEDERATION CAN'T ANSWER THEM ALL
(September 24, 2012)
There are a variety of issue clusters that
determine how we as individuals align ourselves in our political
preferences. Whether we are a Democrat
or a Republican or perhaps an independent can be determined by well thought out
and rational decision-making or, and much more likely, by some accidental
conditions under which we happen to live including family conditions,
geographic conditions, religious beliefs, and the like. Historically, I believe that more than any
other condition there is the socio-economic class into which we happened to be
born that will determine how we think and act politically. When I write historically, I mean in terms of
global history because in the US I think this question is answered quite
differently. Here, we see politics with
a general disinterest and that lack of concern causes us to not give the
question much thought or feeling. What
seems to be most influential are the general political viewpoints that prevail
in a given area or region of the country where we reside. Of course, this is truer in some areas than
others. They don't call the South the
Solid South for nothing. If you grow up
in Indiana, chances are you are going to grow up Republican, whereas if you
grow up in California, you have a much higher probability of being a Democrat. Within geographic areas or regions, there are
not so much issue clusters as there are bias clusters.
217 A
CAUTIONARY NOTE
(September 28, 2012)
There has been a very long-standing debate
between political thinkers over the question, a very fundamental question: what
is the best form of government? We can
read the disagreement between two of the most famous philosophers from ancient
Greece on this very question. Plato
argued for aristocracy and Aristotle argued for republican ideals. Plato argued that the rich, the few, were the
most talented, the most educated, the most qualified to rule. Aristotle didn't necessarily argue for a
republic directly, but his thoughts are used to foster the values associated
with republican government, namely those values summarized by the term, civic
virtue – those values that bolster communal governance. While our rhetoric in this country, dating
back to its origins, has been to promote a more Aristotelian view, we have
drifted into a reality that is, for the most part, trending toward an
aristocratic or, more accurately described, plutocratic polity. Our rhetoric is following suit. That means the rich are taking over or, at
least, beginning to do so. Is this a bad
thing?
218 THE
PURPOSE OF FEDERATION THEORY
(October 1, 2012)
For those new to this blog, I have been
presenting the elements of a mental construct that is meant to guide the
selection of substantive content in a civics curriculum. I have given the name federation theory or liberated
federalism to that construct. A great
deal of previous postings has been dedicated to describing and explaining the
elements of this construct. I have also
gone about evaluating it. With this
posting, I will conclude my evaluative comments on federation theory that are
based on Eugene J. Meehan's criteria for social science models and
theories. I will in future postings add
two more entries based on two criteria I have added to my overall critical
review – the construct's abstract level and its motivational quality. In this posting, I want to address to what
level, if any, federation theory controls the phenomenon it describes or
explains. That is, does it have
purpose?
219
FITTING THE TIMES
(October 5, 2012)
I have just, with the last posting of this blog,
finished a series of statements that attempted to evaluate federation theory as
a guide in determining what content should be included in a civics
curriculum. If you review those
statements, you might be prone to ask whether I addressed another very
important aspect of the utility of such a construct or theory – i. e., does the
construct fit its time? In those
reviews, I used the criteria offered by Eugene J. Meehan (Meehan, E. J.
(1969). Explanations in social science: A system paradigm. Homewood, IL:
The Dorsey Press). I think he does provide
the questions one might ask of a construct or theory that addresses this
concern of being timely. Through the
criterion of compatibility, for example, current views or explanations of
social life and reality are given sufficient respect and, as such, one can
apply the criterion to determine if the construct or theory matches the
contemporary concerns of social scientists of our time. But I would like to use this posting to
address this concern for the contemporary more directly. In particular, I want to ask the question: does federation theory address “modernity?”
220
LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE?
(October 8, 2012)
When I let it be known that I support federalist
beliefs, many of my liberal acquaintances assume that I am a conservative. On the other hand, my conservative acquaintances
doubt such a connection when I actually voice specific policy preferences, such
as my support for a national health care plan.
So, is federalism a necessarily conservative or liberal ideology? If liberated federalism is to serve as the
primary guide in determining civics curriculum content, any bias can be suspect
and subject to the charge that it is only a vehicle by which to indoctrinate
students to a particular political viewpoint.
I think it, liberated federalism, is neither liberal nor conservative.
No comments:
Post a Comment