Modern Federalism: A Great Compromise - Part I: Rights

A Preface

Under our current political landscape, one of increasing divisiveness and abrasion, it is key, for political sanity, sanctity, and efficacy, to seek a common ground. Unfortunately, one main realization becomes clearer as each day passes: the larger the political divide grows, the more difficult it becomes to reach that mutual, common-ground goal.

Before we appreciate why Modern Federalism is truly a prodigious compromise, and before we discuss the various mechanisms by which it is, it is important to preface a discussion about this endeavor with a mastery, both in understanding and execution, of the very set of ideas around which most of our political and ideological disagreements revolve: rights.

Of all things manifest, rights are perhaps the most sacred, protected, and revered. As Americans, we cherish our American rights, and from the time of our country's founding until eternity's end, we will fight for our American rights until we're at death's door. These rights, while safeguarded and treasured, are often misunderstood. Regardless of an individual's religious beliefs or lack thereof, rights are often thought of as a divinely-granted proposition. This, however, couldn't be further from the truth.

While the very notion of what I'm about to say might cause some to gasp, it's a reality few comprehend. Rights, regardless of their perceived heavenly origins, are simple permissions granted and protected by a society. In other words, rights are nothing more than a set of laws by which a group of people decided to adhere. The cultures, views, religious beliefs, etc. of a group of people that decide the rights they will protect in one country or region are inherently different from those of a group of people that decide upon the rights they will protect in theirs. Rights are absolutely shaped by many factors including culture, geography, climate, religion, and other endogenous characteristics. Conversely, rights are not granted by God, Buddha, Muhammad, or any other spiritual being or concept, and in spite of what Hobbes and Locke might say, they're not an automatic condition inherently preserved by and executed in nature. They are not limitless, as one cannot engage in libel though free speech and freedom of the press are protected by the Constitution, and they are forever changing. As I alluded, many people might take this as an abhorrent attack on freedom and religion all in one. It's understandable, and one of the reasons for this expected sentiment is because we are accustomed to our Constitutionally-granted American rights. It's not an attack, and I beg for patience, a clear head, and an open mind as we progress.

One of the best ways to look at rights is though the examination of anecdotal examples. Before we do this, I ask that you do your best to step away from the pre-existing notion of American rights. I say this because, as mentioned previously, we are predisposed to view rights through the lens of our Constitution. While yes, I cherish and am forever thankful for our Constitution, it embodies, to a "T," the very notion of society-granted, man-protected rights. It was crafted, by men, via a semi-democratic process, to protect the basic concepts and desires a young nation sought.

Moving forward, suppose the Founding Fathers wanted the Colonies, and further down the road, our new nation, to be strictly vegetarian. If they banned the consumption of meat, citizens would not have the right to eat meat. They could chant and protest in the town square about their right to eat meat until they turn blue, but, if meat eating was not a law adhered to and protected by society, to do so is not the citizen's right at all. If this was agreed upon in our supreme law of the land, the Constitution, then our regional socio-economic group known as America would not have the protected right of eating meat. As odd as it sounds, and while it might take a slight pause to realize the gravity of this, this is how rights work. If this was a sincere issue at the beginning of our country's founding, an Amendment in the Constitution might say, "the people's right to eat meat shall not be infringed" (simply put), and voila, you'd have a "right." You can expand this issue to any number of subjects that can be discussed as a "right." In fact, let's look at a relevant one: religion. Our Constitution permits religion to be practiced freely (for the most part though there are still limits on this), and it grants the citizens of our country protection from government interference with respect to how, when, where, and why they practice their religion. But what if this wasn't a right that was protected by our society? What if the First Amendment did not offer the religious protection it did? Quite simply, people would not have the right to practice religion without the possibility of punishment. Of course, many would still say, "but it's my right!" No, unless accepted and protected by the members of society you live in and near, it would not be. If your society does not agree on what your rights are, you do not have those rights. We are pre-programmed to believe that rights are something that we're entitled to without proposition or cause, but again, this is not true. We are only "entitled" to rights if society sees fit to adhere to and protect them.

It's because of our unique, constitutionally-supported history we feel, as Americans, that we're the benchmark of rights. We are the benchmark, yes, of American rights, but not of human rights in general. Human rights, just like American rights, are also permissions granted and protected by a society. Try, for example, to drive as a woman in Saudi Arabia. Many in our society would think that restricting someone from driving based on gender is disgraceful. I am one of these people. But I have no platform or right to enforce my belief on someone else's culture, societal, and religious beliefs. While I might think their views are "crazy" and "immoral," they are certain to think mine are as well. We can push and fight for our view of rights to be the example and standard of rights around the world, but frankly, it's a lost cause. No matter how disgusting we view the "suppression" and lack of rights in other cultures, that is how that society chose to govern itself. This view will be expounded upon in further discussions when examining ways for America to move forward as a nation of various cultures and societal wishes.

The relevance of understanding the nature of rights is imperative, and before launching into a touchy subject which is certain to bring about upheaval, we must have a clear head and a realistic grasp of rights. Because of the rapid increase in technology, people now learn more quickly, mobilize more effectively, and change views and personal opinions often. Rights, the society-granted permissions of people who wish to live under the rules they set, should never be taken for granted, and they should never be misunderstood. While technology does link unique cultures across vast geographic separations, it's truly important that these cultures and separations are recognized, respected, and accepted. People should, through the most efficient process in existence, namely democracy, be able to decide the rights by which they live. People should also know that rights can change, and there is no right that exists outside of the realm of the society that grants it. Modern Federalism can provide a balance between those who wish to live by certain rules and those who do not. It allows for people to be accepting of others within a defined national existence while not compromising on their personal, religious, and cultural views. As this discussion moves forward, we will see how Modern Federalism can truly be a great compromise.

For Part II, visit: http://loudmouthelephant.blogspot.com/2012/11/modern-federalism-great-compromise-part_20.html

Like what you read? Want to keep up with our blog's postings? Enter your email address for a free, direct-to-email subscription: