Friday, June 06, 2008
The Future of Federalism?
So the question for my class this week is what do I think the future of Federalism looks like for America? I think that is an interesting question given that over the last decade the world has seen several federal republics fall apart. One reason for this is when you look at William Riker and his conditions for a federal republic to form. These are the military condition and the expansion condition and these must work together to shape the formation of the state. I would argue that the need for protection from a larger state has faded that colonialism is not an issue in the world so the military condition is not as important as it used to be. Which is a major reason why Yugoslavia has fallen apart. Now that the Soviet Union is no more Yugoslavia was able to revert back to its natural order and become smaller countries based on their separate religious and ethnic origins. I would love to hear anyone else's thoughts on the subject.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Lance, times short at the moment (that doesn't translate into brevity though, actually the opposite!), but here's my first take on your question. You said "Which is a major reason why Yugoslavia has fallen apart. Now that the Soviet Union is no more Yugoslavia was able to revert back to its natural order and become smaller countries based on their separate religious and ethnic origins. "
I'm not so sure that that train of thought is a good example, since they were never a proper federation, they were never 'A People" who came together over common interests and ideas, but were cobbled together from without, via WWI & II and then the USSR.
If I remember right (my exposure to him was scanty and long ago), Riker discounted 'idealistic' foundations for federalism, and thought they came about only to advance the interests of the players involved, and could be mathematically analyzed (?)... which I think puts way too much focus on effects such as "military condition and the expansion condition" , and ignores the actual causes.
America didn't come about in reaction to George III's menacing taxes. America existed in the mind, long before events brought it into clear recognition and practice. As John Adam's noted to Jefferson, the Revolution occurred after Otis's first speech against the writs of assistance "American independence was then and there born." and reached maturity with the Declaration - the rest, the Revolution, the Federal Convention... were but effects of the ideas already prevalent among the bulk of the people, long before Otis’s speech, being brought into focus and practice, after his speech.
It is in the understanding and belief of the People within the federation that its strength and duration is to be foretold from - military power itself can neither create, sustain nor destroy it.
Federalism succeeds when it develops from the inside out, from within the hearts and minds of the people, and is expressed through good and proper law - such as with the The Founders Constitution. Federalism is less effective when engaged in as a calculation of power and interests, read Thucydides "Peloponnesian War" for a gritty examination of federalism as political calculation - now that's game theory. Federalism is the least effective, when it is imposed from the top down, as the several geographical conglomerations which came out of WWI... and our current attempt with Iraq, and attempted to be sustained through military and political power.
Without the necessary glue existing where true power resides, within the people, then events and political machinations will dissolve such federations as soon as is practicable - and it is only then, when the federation no longer truly exists – if it ever did - that machinations play a key role, and can be mathematically predicted.
The greater danger to America and to Federalism in general, is not a lack of fear - nothing lasting really forms out of negatives alone, but a loss of the understanding of what made the federalism of "E Pluribus Unum" possible in the first place. Direct contact and recognition of reality, combined with a proper Liberal Education – more Montaigne, than dewey. The future of American Federalism, rests on the question of American Education – as Alexis de Tocqueville said, “America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” Not a particularly optimistic assessment at the moment, but still, I think, accurate.
Game theory and mathematical analysis just doesn't stack up to the loss of the Liberal (and you know I mean the Founders era understanding of the term) understanding of Individual Rights, objective law, and of a well defined role for Gov't to defend those concepts.
Without that understanding, then calculations such as game theory or heresthetics, will play significant roles, but only upon the already sinking ship of state, and you can probably make book on the results from there. When it ceases to be understood as philosophical and ethical knowledge, federalism will and does become a game.
Van, I would agree with you on the need for the process to be an organic one. By that I mean from the ground up as opposed to the top down like you said. But I wonder what you think the reasons for the forming of Mexico and the eventual movement of their government to one that was more centralized from the top down? I think what you are saying about the forming of America after a speech and a movement of the people is very interesting. I really wonder what my prof would say about it. I do know for a fact that he has never mentioned game theory in class. But maybe that should be brought up a little in Political Science classes.
I don’t have any detailed understanding of Mexico’s political history, but from what I do know, it seems obvious that it wasn’t formed out of a like minded (philosophically and politically) people consciously choosing to become a Nation in defense and preservation of Rights, but of people who happened to be there, by those who happened to have power or influence over them.
If some Mexican equivalent to Otis made a similar speech today, and it would certainly be relevant to their situation, it would have little or no effect. Otis’s speech had the effect it did, because the inhabitants of the colonies explicitly or implicitly understood the themes and particulars of what he was saying, he merely articulated what a large number of key people in the colonies understood and believed, and which resonated with the general understanding and beliefs of most of the rest of the population. I’d venture to say that they moved to a gov’t more centralized from top down, because the gov’t they had to begin with was but a conglomeration of smaller govt’s centralized from top down, as most govt’s have been throughout history.
Part of the problem I have with most contemporary political science, is that it uses reference terms as if they actually mean the same thing and in the same way. Federalism in relation to the US is related to federalism in Mexico or the Mideast or the Balkans, in name only. The beliefs, ideas and their understanding, and intellectual unity of the people involved define it, not maps or political map makers.
One of the points I intend to get into in my next post, is that the innovation of original Liberalism, was to take power from the service of tradition and strength alone, and put it into the service of Ideas. That distinction alone separates govt’s into different categories, comparable in little more than name (and power) only. Then there’s a further, and almost more significant distinction to be made, as to whether the Ideas are rooted in the realities of Humanity (and the proper application of them), or the pretences & urges of Humanity (Classical Liberalism vs Leftism).
As I said, my exposure to Riker was scanty and long ago, I could easily be way off the mark about him… I know I didn’t read one of his books, I think it was an essay or abstract… but game theory did stick in my head, and some odd word to (heresthetics) describe political machinations, and google confirmed at least that much for me (here’s a bio page dedicated to him).
(It would be interesting to hear what your prof thought of Otis's affect)
Interesting to know.
Post a Comment