VIABILITY OF THE LIBERATED FEDERALISM, I
As the last posting stated, this posting will begin a viability statement of the construct, liberated federalism model. In doing so, this blog will utilize the ideas of Eugene Meehan and his criteria to review the perceived merits of any model or theory. Meehan’s criteria are comprehension, power, precision, consistency or reliability, isomorphism, compatibility, predictability, and control.[1] In addition, this blogger will apply two extra criteria: abstraction level and motivation. Each of these will be defined as the blog addresses its concerns.
Meehan’s criteria begin by asking whether the construct explains as many phenomena as possible, which are classified under its concepts and generalizations – i.e., its comprehension. Comprehension asks: does a construct explain as many phenomena related to the area of concern as possible? Or does the construct have scope?
Since the liberated federalism model does not limit itself to one kind of arrangement between politically active parties or any political specific condition, only that it be challenging, the construct is judged to be applicable to any political situation that a secondary school course would care to address in governmental studies.
Usually, political situations involve groups with collective desires or demands. Viewing politics as a group phenomenon is one way to address the scope of this model. Another term that can be used to describe a group, arrangement, or association is an interest group. Group theory has been basically used to study interest group behavior.[2] This theory has been utilized in a good deal of political research through the years, leaving one with a broad literature.
Such a theory or model uses the following variables: leadership, cohesion, structure, group size, type of interest group, access, lobbying, and influence. But the model presented here transcends group theory in that it does not limit its view to interest groups found outside of government. It also includes groups within government as well.
In addition, this model is not solely concerned with trying to explain group behavior, but with trying to place moral or critical review as to the actions and decisions that these groups or arrangements make. As such, the scope of this model takes in more relevant concerns than does the behaviorally leaning models that were reviewed as this blog addressed political systems approaches.
From the past, Roy Macridis offers the following insight:
… [G]roup theorists anchor man’s life into perennial group conflict which by their very nature groups can never transcend. Not only our lives remain intolerably and unredeemably [sic] “nasty and brutish,” but our theoretical universe in terms of which we can explain behavior becomes unduly restricted. Interest is the propelling force and man is forever destined to live in an environment that mirrors interest. It may be argued that group is “realistic” and, furthermore, that the group is a far more useful concept analytically than [Karl Marx’s] “class.” I doubt it very much – first, because group analysis as I have noted has normative implications and second and more important, because the concepts of “interests” and “group” are fuzzy analytically, perhaps just as much as that of the “class.”[3]
While making the concept, group, more generic – than using terms arrangement and association – perhaps it is “fuzzy” for behavioral study. The liberated federalist model extends its instructional usefulness by including more types of conditions where people arrange themselves for political purposes. In addition, the model incorporates the normative element that Macridis calls for above.
As compared with the political systems approach, this federalist model offers flexibility, making it more applicable to all political behavior and any political environment within the American polity. That is not to say it could not be applicable to other governmental setups, but the modest aim here is to address the American system.
With its concerns for moral decision-making and action, it more suitably allows appropriate political analysis at the secondary level. The model is an ideal against which students can measure what political actions have taken place in each case study and make judgments as to what should have taken place given the moral positions of the actors and the moral precepts of a federalist value position.
So much for this blogger’s concerns about scope. The next posting will address the model’s treatment of power a la Meehan.
[1] Eugene J. Meehan, Contemporary Political Thought: A Critical Study (Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press, 1967).
[2] Robert A. Heineman, Steven A. Peterson, Thomas H. Rasmussen, American Government (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Incorporated, 1995) AND Douglas J. Ahler, “The Group Theory of Parties: Identity Politics, Party Stereotypes, and Polarization in the 21st Century,” De Gruyter (June 9, 2018), accessed August 5, 2023, https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/for-2018-0002/html?lang=en.
[3] Roy C. Macridis, “Groups and Group Theory,” in Comparative Politics: Readings and Notes, edited by Roy C. Macridis and Bernard E. Brown (Chicago, IL: The Dorsey Press, 1986), 281-282.
