US Federalism is the Breath of our Democracy.
In Ken Burn’s seminal documentary, “The Civil War”, historian Shelby Foote opines1,
Before the war, it was said “the United States are”—grammatically it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war it was always “the United States is,” as we say today without being self-conscious at all. And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an “is.”
What if now it’s time to be an “are” again?
And…what if that is ok? In any event, we may have little choice.
I am reminded, perhaps inappropriately, of political scientist Samuel Huntington’s “clash of civilizations”2 thesis. Instead of applying it to groupings of nation-states into cultures or “civilizations”, could “culture clash” be a lens to parse the political and cultural divides that are occurring now in the United States?
I do not know. I say the analysis may be inappropriate, because Huntington was working in the international realm. Here we have States in the United States that are not foreign and that are bound together in a mutual framework, called The Constitution. Like mini nation-states but ones that share a common language, currency, and national meta-culture, States are nevertheless different from each other, and in some cases very similar or very different. But the framework is inter-, not intra-, national.
Assuming Huntington is at least correct that culture and religious identity are paramount in the formation of human groupings, a better tool to examine our condition intra-nationally, stripped of politics, is moral psychology, best outlined by social scientist Jonathan Haidt in his book, “The Righteous Mind” 3.
Haidt presents 3 premises in moral psychology:
Intuition comes first, Strategic Reasoning Second
There’s more to Morality than Harm and Fairness
Morality Binds and Blinds
I discussed the first point in my essay, “Monsters from the Id”; we are not rational or critical thinkers first, sometimes not even second. Haidt expounds on this.
It is not immediately apparent to us in The West that there is more to morality than the Golden Rule or Reciprocal Altruism, apropos of Haidt’s second premise. Haidt’s own travels as a student to India catalyzed his appreciation of differing moral norms. Human cultures have 6 (so far) moral poles, or receptors, or area of focus, or senses. These are a sense of
Care/Harm,
Liberty/Oppression,
Fairness,
Group Loyalty,
Deference to Authority, and
Purity/ Sanctity.
The first 3 of these are individualizing moral senses, the last 3 are group-binding senses, and emphasize relationships.
Internationally, we can see how a country’s emphasis on a set or subset of these moral senses shapes them. Per my statement regarding “The West”, “WEIRD” nation-states (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) tend toward a focus on those moral senses that emphasize the individual; other nation-states show greater appreciation for the group-binding moral senses which focus on relationships to others. How these different foci result in international conflict we leave to the likes of Huntington for a response.
Returning to Haidt, intra-nationally here in the United States we see that Liberals or Progressives focus first on Care/Harm, then the senses of Liberty/Oppression and Fairness. Libertarians emphasize Liberty/Oppression above all else, and Conservatives give approximately equal weight to all 6 senses. There IS appreciation on the part of Liberals for the other senses (for example, opposition to fossil fuels and a desire for organically grown foods are within the realm of Purity/Sanctity for Liberals). Fairness is likewise valued by all groups.
However, the fact (as established by extensive survey results) that Liberals focus on 3 of 6 moral senses and Conservatives on all 6 means that there in a greater appreciation of the range of moral detail among Conservatives. To paraphrase, in reaction to one another, Liberals can think Conservatives amoral and Conservatives can think Liberals delusional. Some things are off the Liberal radar screen.
Suffice it to say, Liberals and Conservatives (and Libertarians) are different. All of this is confounding before we even consider Haidt’s third point, that morality binds and blinds. Within their disparate realms, each group is bound together by a shared, mutual morality, and blind not only to the unconscious acceptance of one’s own moral precepts but also blind to the perspective, or morality, of the “outgroup”.
Today we see the US succumbing to the impact of social media on personal behavior, with implications for political behavior. Like are seeking Like, and Conservatives and Liberals/Progressives are clustering; within online communities, within disparate regions within a State, and with one group or another seemingly choosing entire States as “their own”, as exemplified by California for Liberals and Texas for Conservatives. Throw in a planet-wide plague, and current trends are accelerated markedly.
It can seem, at times, as if there are 2 United States, a Liberal and Conservative one. However, both sides have a point. The great Liberal Truth is that sometimes change is needed. The great Conservative Truth is that change can be dangerous, and if the system is working, it’s working for a reason. Whether enough people feel it is working dictates whether change occurs or not.
The US Federal System is set up to make it very difficult to concentrate power and change things. It seems strange that Haidt’s hero, the French social scientist and father of Sociology, Émile Durkheim4, was born after The Enlightenment and the founding of the United States, and not before. After all, Durkheim’s focus was on “…how societies can maintain their integrity and coherence in modernity, an era in which traditional social and religious ties are much less universal, and in which new social institutions have come into being.” The Federal System of the United States seems as if it was designed for durability. Powers are divided at the Federal level; the bar for changing foundational principles is so high that essentially societal consensus is needed; and those powers not given to the Federal Government are reserved for the States5.
This design comes from an inherent distrust of human nature, with a nod towards Thomas Hobbes6, not John Lennon7, for whom imagining “…there's no countries, it isn't hard to do..” would be the prescribed course of action. Evidence supports Hobbes over Lennon (or Lenin, but that is another essay). Humans needs rules, laws, and institutions to cooperate and accomplish things. When humans do accomplish things they do these things in groups, and shared morality motivates these groups.
So….what is a citizen to do, with his or her nation rending itself in two?
Assuming the base design of the United States is ground in a reasonable understanding of human behavior and represents a sound way of managing group dynamics, perhaps the best thing we can do is simply try to talk to each other.
This seems like not much of an effort at all, until one considers that really talking to each other also involves listening, lest the conservation be very short indeed. I have focused in this essay on moral psychology as a means for understanding each other and having a conversation based on that understanding. That is actually a monumental request to make; to consider another’s perspective. This is usually the most difficult of actions for a person to take.
However, this is not original, as Haidt has made better and more detailed points on this matter than I ever could. What I want to offer is an optimistic interpretation of our circumstances. I believe we in the United States are positioned to weather this time in our history.
When there is lack of consensus at the Federal level, the real action is at the State level. Perhaps we need to sort ourselves, and sort ourselves out. Perhaps, during this period of profound personal change in interpersonal and institutional dynamics as wrought by social media, we are seeing something as transformational as The Civil War or the New Deal.
I started this essay citing Shelby Foote, and the societal reaction to The Civil War. The United States “are” became “is”. The New Deal, 3 score and 8 years later, further chiseled “is” into our national consciousness. But social media has been traumatic, and we are sorting ourselves at a furious pace. “Are” is relevant again.
Until we learn to talk to each other, and know that, like John Bradford, there but for the grace of God go I, we will evidently need our own cultures, our own groups, our own States, and forgo a general consensus.
After The Civil War and The New Deal, it was as if the United States inhaled, and puffed itself up, becoming greater than the count of its States. Perhaps we are witnessing an exhalation, as the system digests what has already transpired and prepares for the next transformation.
May US Federalism be the breath of our democracy.
Happy Fourth of July, Everyone.
https://www.civilwarmonitor.com/blogs/it-made-us-an-is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_Civilizations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Righteous_Mind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Émile_Durkheim
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagine_(John_Lennon_song)