CRITIQUE OF PAROCHIAL FEDERALISM, I
This blog has been in the first phase of an extended argument by using the dialectic model offered by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and made commonly known by Karl Marx. That is, at any given time, a major or array of clashes is taking place, and, in Hegel’s case, those reflect opposing ideas. These are summarily known as dialectic struggles.
At a given time, there is the dominant view, the thesis, the counter position, the anti-thesis, and the eventual resolution, the synthesis. This blog, for some time now, has been reviewing the thesis that existed going into the period of World War II. That thesis was a more liberal version of parochial/traditional federalism which by that time had become somewhat softened by the late 1940s but was being challenged by a more moderate form of natural rights.
This blog has taken up this ongoing struggle as the natural rights advocates were mounting, in a mostly un-reflected fashion, a winning challenge to the dominant view. The result was a shift toward a softened version of natural rights thinking. Simplified, the version states that people have the right to form their own values and goals and the right to pursue them as long as they do not hinder others having the same rights.
This blog takes up this dialectic progression as the last gasps – as a dominate ideal – of the parochial federalist position – one that argues for
· a view of governance and politics as best conceptualized as the product of a compact among the citizenry, and
· in which each citizen is a partner and has the responsibilities and duties to promote and defend the welfare of the national partnership.
That compact is the US Constitution.
With a review of that thesis completed – written from the perspective of current day conditions – this blog will now present a critique of that thesis and provide its – the blog’s – position as to whether parochial federalism should be reestablished as the nation’s dominant social/political purview of governance and politics.
This blogger is an advocate of federalist principles. As such, most of the sentiment expressed by parochial federalism’s ideals and goals are judged to be legitimate and correct for the reasons stated in its defense, which was the topic of the last twenty-five postings. There are, though, some major reservations held by this blogger. He feels that in both substantive areas and in areas having to do with pedagogic applications, the traditional federalist approach has serious limitations.
The upcoming postings will be dedicated to those concerns. By way of previewing this postings’ content, the following reservations will be explained:
· The definition of rights and the definition of individual integrity are vague and as such, subject to extensive abuse.
· The designation of person is not addressed.
· Structural guarantees for the protection of a non-centralized system are wanting.
· There is a hereditary assumption – favoring the descendants of Western European nations – to the dynamic elements of the federalist model which discourages current definitional development.
· There is a lack in the global view within the traditional federalist perspective.
· There is no accounting for meaningful ethnic/racial/nationalistic diversity.
· There is a lack of flexibility for diverse classroom approaches.
· Communal dimensions are limited only to geographic types.
Historically, there has been a social/political context one needs to understand to appreciate this critique. From the earliest colonial period, ideal government on the North American continent has been associated with majority rule. With a strong religious foundation, separate communities formed. That American experience has had a strong congregationalist character.[1] A lot of that social bonding was organized around religious practices, but that trend of late – resulting from growing social developments over the years – has been diminished in that less than half of the population is so engaged today.[2]
In short, while the federalist spirit contained elements of individual integrity,[3] these ideals were ill defined and in practice were subject to extensive abuse by today’s standards. While one can cite through the years those leaders or thinkers who harbored more liberal sentiments and well-thought-out arguments promoting more inclusive beliefs, values, and aims, overall, the American public was extensively parochial along various lines. These lines included race, nationality, ethnicity, and regionalism.
By way of completing this concern, while the shift to natural rights overall has advanced more inclusive beliefs and practices – documented by the enactment of such laws as the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 – today’s political environment is rife with exclusionary elements as demonstrated by the level of polarized politics (highly characterized as identity politics) with which the nation is currently dealing.
But to pick up the historical development, the early trend of exclusion became institutionalized. Local communities could be and often were highly oppressive to any signs of unusual behavior or actions which went counter to overly sensitive moral standards. Actually, local restraints are not unique to the American experience.
Perhaps America, with its isolated communities of the eighteenth and nineteenth century frontier experience, had a more intense version of a very human condition in which local values and procedures are highly intolerant of non-conforming beliefs and ways of being. Writes Robert Nisbet:
Much of the argument of the individualist with respect to the nature of freedom derived from the apparent fact that the most intellectually creative ages in history have been ages of the widespread release of individuals from ties of traditional values and relationships … the individual escaping his social group, his class, family, and community. Such relationships may give security but do not excite the imagination.[4]
The implication is clear. Such eras of tolerance and liberal acceptance in history are the exception, not the rule. In America, the rural communities that dotted the landscape as settlements stretched westward institutionalized strong moral codes of behavior – codes that could be oppressive, priggish, and insulting to individual integrity.
This posting ends with a fairly telling citation from 1960 when there still existed residues of parochial/traditional sentiments among American households,
The social life of these Park Foresters [typical 1950s suburbanites] embodies the same principle. Their parties must be modest but show some signs of originality in the kind of food served and entertainment provided. There are periodic waves of food fashions so that the household is never completely at a loss for acceptable new dishes. [David] Riesman’s concept of “marginal differentiation” expresses well the kind of “individuality” that Park Forest encourages. Wandering too far from the margin brings penalties, as the housewife who was discovered reading Plato and listening to The Magic Flute learned. In this community, even the ways of “being different” are standardized.[5]
This simple description of suburban life in the 1950s captures the extent in which social norms were able to control individual life and its choices. This element of this critique will continue in the next posting.
[1] Seymour Martin Lipset, American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword (New York, NY: W. W. Norton and Company, 1996).
[2] Scott Neuman, “Fewer than Half of U.S. Adults Belong to a Religious Congregation, New Poll Shows,” NPR (March 30, 2021), accessed July 6, 2022, https://www.npr.org/2021/03/30/982671783/fewer-than-half-of-u-s-adults-belong-to-a-religious-congregation-new-poll-shows.
[3] Daniel J. Elazar, “Federal Models of (Civil) Authority,” Journal of Church and State, 33 (Spring, 1991), 231-254.
[4] Robert Nisbet, The Quest for Community: A Study in the Ethics of Order and Freedom (San Francisco, CA: Institute of Contemporary Studies, 1990), 208.
[5] Maurice R. Stein, Eclipse of Community: An Interpretation of American Studies (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1960), 206.
