Centralization vs. Decentralization

[TheScout 10]

Packsaddle, you make an astute point and you deserve an answer. Since I tend to be long winded in such things here is a spin off so I don't hijack another thread.

 

As you correctly point out I do advocate decentralization of our country, expounding on States Rights in particular. Though I feel this is a wise course of action, it is something which the government is bound by contract (the federal constitution) to follow.

 

States have significant protections (or at least used to before the SCOTUS destroyed them) and we must respect that.

 

I admire as great political thinkers of the early republic, Jefferson, Madison, Calhoun, Davis. There was a day when people identify themselves more with their State then they do with the nation. I would say I do as well. Sitting at my desk I have one of those small flag stands. It has a New York and an Army flag. No American. I think of myself as a New Yorker first. I have lived here all my life. New York and its local government creations have educated me, policed my community, provide my utilities, and take care of just about all my government needs. Besides foreign policy, I am hard pressed to think of anything the federal government has ever done for me.

 

I love my State and think it has great promise for the future and wish all its people well. Despite my conservatism I hope we pass a Massachusetts style universal health care system here in New York. I would not like to see my fellow New Yorkers suffer. They all deserve health care.

 

But when it comes to other places, I seem to care far less. The fires in California really affect my life as little as the floods in England do now. New York has a high income tax. Florida doesn't have one. Every year when hurricanes hit Florida in the same places and millions of dollars from New York pours to that State for rebuilding, I question why don't they just introduce an income tax and rebuild their own buildings that they keep building in hurricane zones.

 

One may call such sentiments cold, but I see them as simply localist. That is how this country started. When it comes down to it. I love my crazy blue state with its liberal governor and even more crazy senators.

 

The union is made up of very different parts. I see the genius of the framers of the federal constitution in creating this federal system to allow such diverse places to work together. If Mr. Lincoln and his cohorts would have left the States alone, we would have saved a million lives and many many gallons of blood. If the federal courts would not have heard Roe v. Wade, a health and social issue, we would not have a polarized political atmoshpere like would today. The examples of one size fits all solutions causing problems is numerous.

 

The BSA is quite different. It is a private organization, and not bound by any contract to respect the perogatives of the councils.

 

So the first difference is the BSA is legally allowed to get involved in local matters as it sees fit.

 

Secondly, the goal of the BSA is different. It is not to create a "more perfect union" of different places, but to, as the mission statement says, help young people make ethical decisions.

 

Though I would say different places have different values (again, recognized by the genius of the federal constitution) I am a moral absolutist. Only one set of values is right. If you believe in your heart that atheism is immoral, and the goal of your organization is to help people make ethical decisions, you should not provide them with atheist role models. It is contray to the mission.

 

Though I am not expert on the internal affairs of the BSA it is my understanding that it is rather decentralized. All program, and the vast majority of training is done by the councils. Camps, offices, stores, are run at the council level. National simply provides a few guidelines and supplies.

 

The membership restrictions are important to the mission and are not burdensome on the councils. If the BSA started telling councils which camps to sell, who should be hired as DEs, etc. that (though within their rights) would be quite silly.

 

I don't know how good a job I did at explaining myself in that rant. It is a quite sublte distinction.

 

For example, I am a general proponent of centralization on the State level. You might also be interested to know I am a devout member of the hierarchical Roman Catholic Church. But that those are both different stories for different days . . .

 

 

 

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

Maybe not completely but at least I understand in more detail the apparent contradiction you present.

The question regarding BSA has a lot to do with perception. When one of the small rules you describe from Irving causes consternation in Philadelphia, contrary to what they want to do locally, then central authority is quite clear. Less clear to them would be the decentralization of dogma or ideology in spite of the pyramid structure of the organization. The authority ultimately rests at the top.

But to maintain the moral absolutist view explains how you can support that situation (although I hate to inform you, the moral relativist train left the station with a lot of us on it a long time ago). However, if that is the source of the apparent contradiction then the real conflict is between those holding the different views, absolutist versus relativist, and further argument regarding, for example, whether or not atheism is immoral is pointless.

 

BSA, however, has adopted policies that reflect the absolutist view. This has resulted in several notable recent developments, exclusion of gays, exclusion of atheists, and the legal position that BSA is a religious organization. The last part was necessary in order to legally act on the other two. From the other thread from which this one was derived, it is also apparent to some of us that BSA's emphasis on this aspect of membership while ignoring other aspects that BSA claims should be the basis of exclusion, constitutes a glaring inconsistency. Some of us would label it hypocrisy but regardless of the label, it presents contradictions of both policy and reason.

 

Moreover, in practice BSA doesn't REALLY enforce the stated policy. They can't. It's impossible. The same way it is impossible for those of us who want to control the border and eliminate illegal aliens to REALLY get rid of the 12 million or so already here. Reality simply puts the lie to such absolutist positions. Stubbornly (and perhaps stupidly) repeating some mantra amounting to little more than a pout won't change the reality for BSA any more than it will solve the problem of illegal aliens. Reality is messy, solutions will be messy and absolutes will be illusory.

 

In the case of BSA, there is no way to know absolutely what is in a leader's heart or mind. If they are gay and are not "avowed", then they can be a member as far as BSA is concerned. If they are atheist but not "avowed", same thing. BSA doesn't act until they think they know something that they can never know absolutely. Their 'knowledge' is really an opinion based either on gossip or statements by the outed leader. But then BSA acts in its absolutist way. The boy or the leader is sometimes given a chance to recant. Just say the words, "I believe", and everything will be fine. "I am not gay" and everything is fine. If they don't recant then the media eventually reports one more story to sell to its readers and listeners and moral absolutist scouters wring their hands over the bad publicity (there's that 'mentally awake' thing again), maybe even start a thread on a forum or something.

 

But through it all, in spite of its desire to maintain an absolutist policy and an absolutist grip on local membership, BSA remains hopelessly inconsistent in application and if a little more 'mental alertness' was availble, the inevitability of the situation would be obvious. Here's my concern:

Perhaps it IS obvious. Perhaps this inconsistency is actually OK with the top of the pyramid. THAT, to me then, would truly be hypocrisy. My chances of ever knowing that, one way or the other, are slim to none.

[TheScout 10]

True, the "small rules" as you describe them do have the long arm centralizing effect. But I think you can agree for the most part the BSA is actually quite decentralized in delivery of program, though there is that ultimate authority.

 

I think you are correct in your analysis of the relativist/absolutist divide. That is why the debates here go in circles. The ideas are irreconcilable.

 

Some of us will never agree on the morality of homosexuality and atheism.

 

I must honestly say, I do not see the inconsistency in the policy. An obese person can still be in my opinion physical strong, though not in perfect shape. A tobacco smoker can still be, mentally awake. From certain absolutist views homosexuality and atheism is never acceptable. It is an easier line to draw than the others. The other would be nearly impossible.

 

Some rules are harder to enforce then others. You correctly point out the hardship of the BSAs enforcement methods. Same could go for don's ask don't tell. Still a good policy. Hard to regulate, but necesary.

 

I don't see how absolutism puts us in a lie. I hope we as Scouts are stubborn enough to hold to our convictions.

 

I think you could remove the illegal immigrants, all 12 million. Deport criminals. Go after the employers. Cut benefits. Jobs and free stuff dry up they leave. But again, a different argument for a different day . . .

 

Moreover, in practice BSA doesn't REALLY enforce the stated policy. They can't. It's impossible. The same way it is impossible for those of us who want to control the border and eliminate illegal aliens to REALLY get rid of the 12 million or so already here. Reality simply puts the lie to such absolutist positions. Stubbornly (and perhaps stupidly) repeating some mantra amounting to little more than a pout won't change the reality for BSA any more than it will solve the problem of illegal aliens. Reality is messy, solutions will be messy and absolutes will be illusory.

 

You point out how the BSA is fighting a tough battle. It is. However, that doesn't mean it should give up. Some of greatest characters in history have been idealiss.

 

Now for my concern, the BSA waters down its morals, and becomes like any other youth organization, just providing a fun time. We all know scouting's purpose is not for the boys to have fun. That is just a trick. The mission statement tells us the goal is to have scouts make ethical decisions.

 

To the absolutists of the world the requires a set of standards. How else to teach ethics?

 

I think there are more absolutists out there then you realize, and especially in the membership of the BSA.

 

I would say that its constituency is greatly different then the population at large.