Capitalism and Morality?

An old friend sent me the following recently and I thought I'd share it and my response. Oh, and I hereby apologize to all my adoring readers (okay, both of you) for my protracted silence. That's another story which, courage permitting, I'll tell some other time.

Anyway:

"To exist in bondage and poverty is the natural state of man throughout history. The Founding Fathers of the United States managed to change this. But now the basic problem is lack of understanding of where the freedom and then the wealth (the wealth was made possible by the freedom) came from. It came from Capitalism. However most people in the West, including unfortunately most businessmen, do not understand the moral basis of capitalism – they know it is the most productive social system yet devised but they go along with the notion that it is selfish and evil. Once you cede the high moral ground on any issue you’ve lost and it’s only a matter of time before they destroy you.

Public servants see themselves as protecting the innocent masses from the big bad businessmen (including all property owners) and when they have the businessmen more or less agreeing with them (Ayn Rand’s “the sanction of the victim”) then all hope is lost. If people understood the true moral basis of freedom (that everyone owns their own life and therefore the product of their effort) and that the government’s only task is to protect this freedom, we may have a chance. But can you see this sort of education happening in our schools? No chance. What’s next? I don’t know."


I don't know, ----. I think your friend's arguments are somewhat fractured here, but I'm not anxious to insult him. Is bondage and poverty the "natural" state of man, or the historic? Did the Founding Fathers change this via capitalism or democracy? (It's critical to note that the former is an economic, not social, system, though it has obvious social ramifications, while the later is the system of governance that guarantees our God-given freedoms).

Is he suggesting that capitalism as practiced by vast multi-national corporate conglomerates unfailingly occupies the moral high-ground to the betterment of all mankind? I'd suggest that the events of Autumn, 2008, convincingly refute that notion, and that the behavior of the worst offenders continues to do so. As Alan Greenspan, in something of a daze, was forced to admit before Congress that fall, the market nearly "corrected" itself, and us, into a global depression. What a deal: capitalism thriving through the privatization of gain and the socialization of risk. Show me the morality.

I could prattle on for hours about the abuses of corporate capitalism and the case(s) for regulation, there being no lack of examples (Halliburton, Monsanto, big oil, big whatever spring to mind), but I doubt I'd sway anyone who fundamentally hates the idea of government. Or anyone who conflates morality with an economic system. I like government, as do all the putative government-haters currently in or running for office. And I absolutely do feel that it is a legitimate role of government to protect its populace from abuse at the hands of concentrated power - the underlying premise of representative democracy. And I think that anyone who seriously believes our freedoms are best protected by corporate CEOs, investment bankers, hedge-fund managers and portfolio managers is profoundly disconnected from contemporary reality.

I may be on the losing side here. The Supreme Court, in perhaps the most egregious example of judicial activism in its history, recently conferred upon corporations the status of citizenship. Lovely. A corporation with majority Chinese ownership is now enabled to influence American elections with every penny in it's bank account. Ah, freedom!

Is There a Democrat in the House?

Like Will Rogers, "I am not a member of any organized political party - I am a Democrat."

Tonight the Senate seat held by Teddy Kennedy for 47 years fell to a Republican. There'll be plenty of finger-pointing, but make no mistake: This seat wasn't won by the Republicans, it was lost by the Democrats. We won in '08 on the promise of change which we have repeatedly failed to deliver. President Obama turned his considerable political capital over to the likes of Ben Nelson and Max Baucus and, most appallingly, Joe Lieberman, all of whom squandered it with stunning selfishness, while disturbingly few genuine Democratic voices could be heard over the din of "no" Republicans and tea partiers and their sponsors at Fox Noise.

This is a wake-up call. If the people we elected don't start behaving like Democrats, don't abandon their doomed efforts to appease obstructionists, we will soon witness the most complete and unnecessary collapse of a political party in modern history. And this nation will suffer enormously for their failure.

Sorry, Ben

Eating crow! Hoist on my own petard! Stewing in my own juices! Other cliches! (Sorry, don't know how to make this thing type in French.) My brother the Younger has brought to my attention the fact that words attributed to Ben Stein in my last blog were, in fact, not his, as confirmed by Mr. Snopes. Oh, the shame! Consuming crow on my birthday, apologizing to that nattering nabob of negativism (thanks, Spiro!).

Gulled by my expectations of Mr. Stein and his ilk, I failed to confirm the validity of what has been demonstrated to be false attribution. I should have recognized the tone of that piece as more O'Reilly/Beck than, say, Stein/Will, and thus inherently suspect. Not that the latter are incapable of taking anatomically challenging positions, just that they do it with greater panache. Oh well, fools rush in (another cliche!).

So, Ben Stein, for my false accusations I am truly sorry and I humbly repent. As for the party or parties in fact responsible for that piece, may you burn in hell for all eternity.

Whose God?

A friend recently sent me one of those email things that's intended to be passed along to as much of one's contact list as one feels appropriate. Penned by Ben Stein, it originated as a commentary on CBS. In it, Stein holds forth about how Jews, Christians and people who believe in God are tired of being "kicked around" for their beliefs, adding "I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat." He goes on to say that while we worship celebrities "we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him." After quoting Billy Graham's daughter, he picks some bones with Dr. Benjamin Spock, all to lament the failed morality of our once great nation.

His case is weakened by his own history, as well as by the facts. The "history" to which I refer is the fact that Mr. Stein was a speech writer for Richard Nixon, for whom he remains an active apologist; he's on record as feeling that lying and subverting the Constitution is justifiable if one's motives are pure, at least in the case of Mr. Nixon. Also, of course, Mr. Stein is a columnist for "The American Spectator", a far right- wing publication noted for its Fox-like willingness to distort the truth. I mention this because the innocent might come to the table thinking the very bright, and very funny, Ben Stein joins them sans agenda.

Ben Stein is bright and he does have an agenda, in this case, oddly, to align himself with people one suspects he holds in minimal esteem. Conservatives having embraced fundamentalism, he's evidently happy to pander as fits his purposes (see "Constitution", above). He knows better, but his carefully-crafted rant reflects the feelings of a good many fine people, and raises questions deserving attention.

Let's consider the Constitution, that being a document of some significance in our democracy. The first sentence of the First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof(;)." As Mr. Stein knows, and the rest of us should know, it makes that statement prior to guaranteeing free speech. That wording, and its prominence, arises out of agreement with and respect for the brave pilgrims who boarded the Mayflower to (1.) escape the (government sanctioned) Church of England so that they could (2.) practice the religion of their choice. Take a moment to note how those two goals are reflected in the first sentence of the First Amendment.

That noble, widely-admired document has held up pretty well over the years, despite the efforts of Ben Stein's associates. People of all faiths remain free to practice their faiths unimpeded by government intervention, as witness the fact that the United States boasts many, many churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, meeting houses and on and on. I am frankly shocked to learn that Mr. Stein isn't "allowed to worship God". I guess I'm not either, though I distinctly recall sitting in the church of my choice less than three hours ago. (For the record, the service I attended was not interrupted by government troops storming the doors, nor was the service conducted in secret). If Mr. Stein is not allowed to attend synagogue when, where, and as he chooses, that is, to experience what I experienced, he needs to be aware that the Constitution guarantees his right to do so and that there are countless groups and individuals, starting with the President, ready to leap to his defense. Hey, I'll leap to his defense, and I don't even like the guy!

Okay, so Mr. Stein can, as he knows, practice his faith as he wishes, as can the rest of us who aren't involved in human sacrifice, the torturing of animals, or whatever. But, irony being what it is, the next phrase of the First Amendment ("or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;") protects Mr. Stein's right to distort the intent and application of the opening phrase. He's an educated man and he knows full well that the intent of the framers was to establish non-theistic government, which has absolutely nothing to do with an atheistic country. Our Constitution defines the role of government, and our government takes no stand on religion or faith other than to butt out while protecting our right to practice it. The distinction here is enormous, and enormously important. The U.S.S.R. actively (and unsuccessfully) opposed religious faith, while the current regime in Iran is doing a stellar job of pointing up the flaws of theistic government, and nothing in the American experience even faintly reflects either of those extremes.

A danger arises should we elect to apply the Constitution selectively, a fact Mr. Stein cynically chooses to ignore. Now again, for practical purposes no one is prevented from practicing their faith in this country. Are those who seek to keep religion and faith out of government and governmental institutions overzealous? It can seem so, but what's the alternative? If we decide that "God" is to be not just recognized but supported by our government, whose God will it be? And with that, whose beliefs/faiths/dogmas/doctrines shall we embrace? And whose shall we ban? Shall we kick them around? And what if you are one of them?

Few knowledgeable people sincerely believe the U.S.A. was established as an atheist (as opposed to non-theist) nation, but some have attempted to argue it was established as a Christian nation, to the implicit or explicit exclusion of all other faiths and in utter ignorance, or denial, of the Constitution. But among Christians alone, we have believers who insist the earth is 5000 years old, or embrace the doctrine of papal infallibility, or are sure God devotes the majority of His (since God is most assuredly an anthropomorphic He) attention to our genitalia. Unless, of course, you happen to be a member of The Fellowship, a.k.a. The Family, (Senator Ensign, Governor Sanford), a powerful, secretive Washington-based "Christian" organization notable for sponsoring The National Prayer Breakfast, supporting the misbehavior of its members and engaging in (and disavowing) various clandestine, unacknowledged activities. As a Family member you're among the chosen, so anything goes. But aside from that, we Christians regularly bicker heatedly, sometimes violently, among ourselves, often behaving in ways Jesus would find appalling. Whose God?

Whose God? The Old Testament God? The New Testament God? Both? Where does that leave Native American traditions, or Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, others? Where, for that matter, does it leave atheists? Their rights are no less valid or protected than anyone else's, yet even now some sort of avowed Judeo-Christian faith is a virtual litmus test for American politicians. And we've yet to elect a Jewish president.

Clearly, the framers of the Constitution were inspired when they agreed to keep religion out of government and government out of religion. Commentators and politicians who bemoan that fact to manipulate public sentiment are either ignorant or disingenuous. The country would be better served by their silence.

Surrender to Osama

A few years back the Bush Administration announced a "War on Terror", the idea being to persuade we frightened masses that they'd defend us from all those nasty people who "hate us for our freedoms". Successfully waging that war involved surrendering a number of those freedoms and ignoring some of the more quaint passages in the Constitution, but, hey, sometimes you have to make sacrifices. Of course, terror is a tactic, not a definable enemy, so such a war can be waged indefinitely, or at least for as long as our noble defenders can create, pander to and leverage our fears. And again, absent a definition, the theater of said war can be virtually anywhere, which explains why we lost interest in Afghanistan and invaded Iraq. (Destroying WMD mysteriously morphed into "spreading democracy" following the San Diego "Mission Accomplished" celebration, despite the fact that we weren't "nation building"; but a war on terror is a movable feast).

Odd, then, that our most vocal erstwhile defenders are now waving the white flag. A recent, unsuccessful act of terrorism has a surprising collection of these strutting "victors" calling for ever greater limitations on our freedoms and on travel. These haters of big government are demanding stricter regulations, which presumably beats asking TSA to do its job, at the expense of normal travelers. The same people who have forced the top TSA spot to remain unfilled, and allowed intelligence agency communication failings to go unresolved are demanding ever more draconian security measures, thereby assuring our enemies we're at their mercy. (A case in point is the call to ban carry-on luggage - as opposed to banning underwear, I guess - despite the fact that the normal alternative to carry-on luggage is lost luggage).

Worse, people who do in fact know better are cynically using this as yet another opportunity to undermine President Obama, as if continued application of their failed strategies could produce different results. Having repeatedly made clear their desire to "break" the President, they now choose to align themselves with the same terrorists to whom they would so willingly surrender our freedoms, all to regain what they selfishly squandered the last time they had a crack at governance. Strong language? They abandoned the notion of "loyal opposition" the moment President Obama was sworn in, choosing instead to just say "no" to anything coming from the White House (even, frequently, when an idea they previously supported is at hand). No president in living memory - and perhaps none, period - has been the target of such relentless maliciousness, and never have we seen so many seemingly decent men and women abandon their own mores so enthusiastically and transparently.

You know, a less forgiving man than I might be inclined to suggest that this sort of deliberate, conscious subversion, with an aim to bringing down a presidency, and with it a nation, borders on sedition. Such a fellow might call these people traitors, or terrorists. He might even suggest that where they are concerned, and in their way, habeas corpus be suspended as soon as they emerge from their undisclosed locations, and they be packed off to Guantanamo Bay for a little R&R, there to have their thirst quenched with a little waterboarding. But not me. I wouldn't suggest such a thing.