The Liberal Opportunity Society VI

by Gary Boatwright, Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 08:04:52 PM EST

Elevated - Ben P

I started off this series of diaries with a review of Gar Alperovitz's book, Beyond Capitalism. In my last diary, I worked in an Atlantic Monthly article by Jack Beatty, Recharging the "L" Word. This week, I'm introducing some ideas from William Greider's book, The Soul of Capitalism.

I've just scratched the surface of some solid ideas in the progressive community to correct the problem of increasing inequality of wealth. Every single idea I have covered is better grounded economically, politically and demographically than supply-side economics, extending Bush's tax cuts or privatizing Social Security. The only thing stopping Democrats from going on the economic offensive is fear of their own shadows and Rush Limbaugh. It's time for the Democratic party to start putting forward some economic ideas that benefit working Americans instead of corporate America.

Update [2005-3-7 3:36:52 by JollyBuddah]: I just stopped by Seeing the Forest, and he links to three Digby posts that suggest we may be at a tipping point in favor of liberal economic ideas. All we have to do is convince the DLC that bankruptcy is just as critical to working Americans as Social Security.

Greider's central premise is that the values of the free market system are in conflict with core American values.

The problem is not the marketplace and it is not the government. The problem originates in the context of clashing values between society and capitalism and, since this human society cannot surrender its deepest values, it must try to alter capitalism's. As we look deeper for the soul of capitalism, we find that, in the terms of ordinary human existence, American capitalism doesn't appear to have one.

Let me dismiss two criticisms of Greider's book right off the bat. First, Greider is not a communist or socialist; Greider does not hate America's free market economy. Second, Greider does not believe that the solution to our economic problems will come from big government solutions.

Greider does acknowledge the role of government in our economy:

It was government, not private enterprise, that built the sewers and water systems that eradicated common illnesses and thus extended longevity; government also built the roads and schools that financed technological development. Life-enhancing changes also were wrought by social reformers, from working-class labor organizers to the martyred advocates of racial equality to upper-class humanitarians -all morally angered by obvious injustices, pointless brutalities.

Greider also recognizes the strengths of our free market economy:

This constant recycling of capital is the brilliant core that makes the capitalist process so dynamic and creative, an engine that continuously borrows old money earned from past enterprise to launch new enterprise into the future. The surplus of wealth does not sit idle in miserly piles. It finances a continual regeneration. Thus, capitalism adapts more readily to the unknown future because, in a sense, it is continuously reinventing the future.

America, that is, has solved the ancient economic problem known to all previous millennia of human toil. We have escaped the elemental struggle that has stalked human societies since the origins: hunder, scarcity, the burdens of producing enough for human survival and a general standard of well-being that is not restricted to the powerful few; the king and high priests. . . . For the fortunate minority who live in the most advanced nations, the fundamental economic threat is now, quite literally, extinguished.

So what's the problem? Greider describes one aspect of the problem as "the principles of more".

The regime of "more," individual grievances aside, also leads to an unfulfilled society, as some people are beginning to recognize. This was actually the point Samuel Gompers was trying to make back in 1893, though his remarks were maliciously caricatured. What the labor leader said in full was: "Labor wants more schoolhouses and less jails; more books and less arsenals; more learning and less vice; more constant work and less crime; more leisure and less greed; more justice and less revenge; in fact, more of the opportunities to cultivate our better natures." Gompers's list of "demands" seems uncannily relevant to our present dilemma. It suggests a social definition of "more" - a general prosperity that does not confuse and destroy life itself.

Grieder believes that America is ready for change.

The house of economics is due for major renovations, if not a complete tear down, because the economic order has lost one of its main emotional suppositions: the motivating fear of scarcity and deprivation.

But somehow the fear of scarcity lives on in spite of apparent abundance.

[W]hy does the economic order still require a permanent subcategory of the impoverished and dependent - Marx's famous "reserve army" of the unemployed? For that matter, why must society accept a capitalism that persists in generating greater inequalities, generation after generation, as the required terms for sustaining general abundance?

Those seem like fair questions. What are we missing?

The big, fundamental questions have all been answered, or so we are told. Continuing disputes among economists or business and political leaders typically involve the subsidiary issues of how best to mange things for maximum output and efficiency.

Something seems to be just a little out of kilter.

I suspect many Americans, including among the affluent, experience a vague sense of personal shame because they regularly encounter conflicts between their own values and human aspirations and the imperatives of the economic system - conflicts they are unable to resolve. They either do not earn enough to "live well" in material terms. Or they earn more and more, yet still find themselves unable to "live well" in human terms.

Ah, yes. Our old friend alienation. Grieder asks a few more questions.

Why does it have to be this way? Are Americans inevitably consigned to a series of dispiriting trade-offs between their lives and values and social obligations, on one hand, and the demands of gorgeous, beckoning abundance? Or might people, instead, actually change the nature of American capitalism? . . . My premise - that American capitalism is ripe for reinvention - is not based on fanciful supposition.

If we had any supply-siders or Milton Friedman free market utopians here, they would be chomping at the bit to see what Grieder's Big Government Solution is. Those people would be sorely disappointed.

The federal government cannot do this for people. . . .
Government's handicaps are more substantial than the conservative mood. Washington, as we explore later on, has itself become a principal barrier to reformulating the economic system, and it regularly acts as unwitting collaborator in much of the social damage. . . . [T]he arena of electoral politics is not the place to discover which ideas, which ventures and arrangements, are the most viable solutions. People on the grund have to do that for themselves.

This observation is intended to disturb the settled habits of thought, especially among left-liberal progressives, and discourage the notion that they can count on government to descend like a dues ex machina and miraculously resolve these deeper conflicts between society and the economic realm.

Greider acknowledges that government has played an important role in moderating the evils of capitalism in the past.

The great accomplishment of twentieth-century reform politics was to establish government as the counterforce to capitalism, the rival power center that confronted business and finance on behalf of society, that could brake the encroaching domination of private economic power, curb the excesses and abuses, or clean up the social wreckage that business left in its wake. . . .

Yet there is another discomforting reality to face: Government in the long run did not succeed in resolving the deeper collisions between society and capitalism. . . .

Government instead has become the battleground for ongoing political conflicts over what exactly society is allowed to want or what it can afford, within the terms of business accounting. . . . I do not say this to belittle the great political accomplishments of the past or to second guess the many significant improvements government interventions have achieved. What I do assert is that "strong government" is an insufficient response to the underlying problem of capitalism.

The problem is not the marketplace and it is not government. The problem originates in the context of clashing values between society and capitalism and, since this human society cannot surrender its deepest values, it must try to alter capitalism's. As we look deeper for the soul of capitalism, we find that, in the terms of ordinary human existence, American capitalism doesn't appear to have one.

Alert readers will have noticed that I came full circle. We are back to the question about the soul of capitalism. Where we are heading next is into the morass of those moral values thingies. I'll cut off with a quote from a 1944 Viennese economist.

The Viennese economist Karl Polanyi described in The Great Transformation, published in 1944, how the struggle for domination between free-running capitalism and society's values led to the cataclysmic breakdown known as the Great Depression and gave rise to the violent, irrational politics of fascism. Polanyi wrote:

To allow the market mechanism to be sole director of the fate of human beings and their natural environment, indeed even of their purchasing power, would result in the demolition of society. For the alleged commodity "labor power" cannot be shoved about, used indiscriminately, or even left unused, without affecting also the human individual who happens to be the bearer of this peculiar commodity. In disposing of a man's labor power the system would, incidentally, dispose of the physical, psychological, and moral entity of "man" attacked to that tag. Robbed of the protective cover of cultural institutions, human beings would perish from the effects of social exposure ... Nature would be reduced to its elements, neighborhoods and landscapes defiled, rivers polluted.

Polanyi's recitation of the endangered elements resonate familiarly because it invokes many of the same injuries and grievances that society experiences today. Though the realm of prosperityis many times higher and far more inclusive, Americans encounter the same pressures tugging at the public's precious assets, from defiled landscapes and rivers to workers robbed of self.
. . . How these trade-offs might be approached and eventually realigned is our subject.

In one of my early diaries I linked to Jim Gilliam's blog where he states that the opportunity society is our idea. You don't have to take my word or Jim's word for it. Google "opportunity society" and decide for yourself who has the real claim to providing working Americans with an opportunity society.

Everything I have covered in my first five diaries should be the economic conventional wisdom in the Democratic party. It's time for Democrats and liberals to take back the economic intiative from Bush and the Republican party. It's time for proud liberal Democrats to stop allowing a vote on restricting bankruptcy protection for middle class Americans. It's time for proud liberal Democrats to start letting Americans know that we are the party of working Americans and the Republican party is the party of corporate America. Isn't that supposed to be the conventional wisdom?

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

8 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Alan Greenspan is a hack

Ron Brownstein doesn't actually say that, but he comes close in today's column in the L.A. Times, "Greenspan's Warning on Deficit Ignores His Role in Its Growth: Is he kidding?"

Let's recap again. Clinton's plan was to use the projected federal surpluses to pay down the national debt. That would have significantly reduced, and eventually eliminated, federal interest payments on that debt (now running just under $180 billion annually). Then he proposed to use those savings to help fund Social Security.

That wouldn't have solved the problem of an aging society entirely: the exploding costs of Medicare would almost certainly have demanded tougher efforts to control medical costs, as well as reduced services and more taxes. But Clinton's fiscal strategy represented a good-faith effort by today's taxpayers to lighten the load on their children.

I can't explain why Brownstein violated the RWCM principle of never criticizing any conservative without also criticizing a Democrat. Here's Ron's analysis of what Bush did instead, with encouragement from Greenspan:

As Greenspan noted last week, today's young people face the prospect of exploding interest costs (projected to exceed $300 billion by 2010) to fund our rising debt -- even as our retirement and the unrelenting rise in healthcare costs saddle them with soaring bills for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Sure, the kid doesn't make the bed, but doesn't that seem a little severe?

Greenspan last week described this slow-motion crisis as if he were some concerned bystander. But in the federal government's financial crackup, Greenspan's more like the guy at the party who handed the car keys to a drunk. Now, after the wreckage, he's sad. But we'd all be better off if he had spoken up when it could have done some good.

In an amazing editorial position for the O.C. Register, which may explain why they do not have it available on-line, the editors have an editorial with the headline, "Unrelated issues cloud bankruptcy bill's fate: There's no clear-cut case that change is crucial"

Not capable of the same ideological restraint exhibited by Brownstein, the O.C. Register brings in Democrats for criticism, but still concludes:

That leaves us indifferent as to whether it passes. It will be interesting to see, however, whether abortion and the minimum wage, which logically have nothing to do with bankruptcy, determine the bill's fate.

They are referring to amendments sponsored by Kennedy and Schumer. Schumer's amendment would prevent abortion protesters from escaping civil judgments by filing bankruptcy, and would kill the bill, so it will not pass. This is the first I have heard of Kennedy's minimum wage amendment, which the Register indicates may be allowed by Republicans, if it sucks in a few Democrats to support the overall bill.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-07 04:48AM | 0 recs

permalink

great diary

I think it's great that Bush initially pushed the "ownership society" idea, because I think the lib vs. con idealogical divide can be best summed up as ownership vs. opportunity. The opportunity society says that we each deserve a chance to make the best possible life for ourselves. The ownership society says we only exist to benefit the people who own everything - men born into privledge, who have done nothing to deserve their success besides being born into the right family. In other words, men like George W. Bush.

Someone once asked Clinton why the Republicans hated him so much. And he said it had little to do with his policies - he did a lot of things Republicans had been advocating, like balancing the budget, welfare reform, etc. It was because he wasn't upper class. We like to pretend that in this country class divisions don't exist, or only superficially, but to Republicans, they certainly do. That Bush Sr., born on third base with a silver foot in his mouth, could be bested by a poor kid from Arkansas born with nothing but brains, ambition and charm - that burned them up more than any health care proposal or reproductive rights bill ever could have.

Clinton is the embodiment of the opportunity society - a poor kid from a single-parent family in a small town, who through hard work, intelligence, and of course that legendary charisma, became the most popular president since Ike. To me, the fact that someone of Clinton's background can become president underscore's everything that's good about America.

To the Republicans, it represents everything that's wrong. In their minds, a "deserving" candidate would be someone like George W. - a dull-witted, lazy, tempermental man who's never done an honest day's work in his life, and has nothing to recommend him but his wealth and family name. That's the ownership society. It's wrong, and most people know it's wrong - when we go to the movies, no one roots for the spoiled rich bully to beat the underdog. So why do 50% of us vote for the bully? If we can solve that disconnect, we'll have our opportunity society.

by schroeder 2005-03-07 05:56AM | 0 recs

permalink

TPM Bankruptcy blog

TPM's special limited edition bankruptcy blog delivers a huge Joe Biden smackdown and tears into the DLC Fainthearted Faction as well. You know what to do.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-07 07:04AM | 0 recs

permalink

Great Diary

I will now try to find the other 4.

Given your name, you should know the answer here. Fulfillment can never be found in things. There can be no end to "wanting" because there is always something left to want. There is only one place, one time, in which one can be happy and fulfilled, and that is RIGHT NOW, with whatever one has or doesn't have.

Your quotes from Polanyi are interesting. There has always been a tradition in German economics, which influenced the economics of some Asian thinkers and countries more than ours did, that the purpose of a society is not to allow a few to amass as much money and power as possible, but to allow as many as possible to lead "the good life".

by Mimikatz 2005-03-07 08:07AM | 0 recs

permalink

For quick reference,

here are the previous posts in this great series.

by Super G 2005-03-07 08:45AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Great Diary

Careful. That sounds downright Christian. Or is it Communist? I get all those radical ideologies so confused. Next thing you know, some stupid politician will propose a Jubilee Amendment to the bankruptcy bill.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-07 09:48AM | 0 recs

permalink

Class Warfare

No administration in at least 100 years has waged class warfare as relentlessly as this one. What has made them totally immune from criticism or any honest analysis reaching the folks in the so-called heartland (maybe we should call it the hateland and refer to schools of thought rather than states) was the continued blathering in the 2000 campaign that DEMOCRATS are itching to unleash class warfare while W is a uniter not a divider.

Quite frankly, I can find times when the wealth was split even less evenly or when the feds sent in troops to close down labor unions. But bad as it was, this represented patches of bad policy or simply the way things were. These guys, on the other hand, want to turn the clock back and repeal the 20th century. And their doing it. McKinley was not such a hot Pres but these guys WANT to copy him and exceed him even if it means reversing a 100 years of life, aka progress.

Yeah, and so what if we are labelled as engaging in class warfare. We already have been branded with a scarlet L, let's go somewhere with it. Damn if I don't think that a few minutes of Michael Douglas' president smacking it to the Republican foe or some of the best of "President" Bartlett was a lot more effective than Kerry's Senate speak.

As we all know it's been close to 50 years since we took the farm belt (with the exception of LBJ in 64 when he took everything but Arizona and the hard, racist South). The guy that did it then was Harry Truman, a man who took no prisoners and told the plain truth in plain words about the Publicans of his day. And Tom Dewey was a SAINT compared to W.

Maybe that's what the matter is with Kansas. It's been 50 years since they heard the plain hard truth honestly told from the heart.

Yes, i'm sick of the lies. Gore not only won the popular vote but his states had a larger number of people than W's. And that's even with the big steal. "Get over it", over and over again when Karl Rove and his clones would fight in the courts literally for YEARS after an election. Let the truth be told. Well better avois the SCLM and their sell-out crew.

The same lies get endlessly recycled and are even more laughable. In the Washington governor's election Rossi and company tried to sell Seattle as some mix of the Republican-view of Mayor Dailey's Chicago (the Mayor Dailey, not his son) and the sin-city New York when it hit rock bottom. Bull.

Let's bring it on. Eisenhower and Grant didn't wear military uniforms while President but W did. Washington, in fact, was quite adamant that such things were wrong and would lead to ruin. Of course his model was the ancient Roman Cincinnatus who saved that Republic and instantly went back to farming. (Washington pushed the idea through an order of Revolutionary War vets, the Sons of Cincinnatus IIRC. The group helped settle OHIO and Cincinnatti (the city name) was given as a direct tribute to Washington and his ideal of the citizen-soldier).

No part of America has a claim to exclusive virtue or vice. And Friedman's glorification of the stockholder flies in the face of 300 years of American tradition and economic reality. These are not, for the most part, the people who took the risks and founded and expanded a company. They are simply speculators. The American tradition has recognized a far wider community that feeds and grows a corporation: its vendors, management, workers, customers, and even the communities where it does business. That the "Las Vegas" class of speculators take not only precedence but are given the complete and only claim to authority within Milton Friedman's world view is a travesty. And it is a travesty that has helped to ruin American manufacture, once the envy of the world, and empower the worst of the speculators the Enrons and Bernie Ebbers of World Com and even the Overland Park pirates talked about in the Kansas book (the Sprint mogul and others who are really what's the matter with Kansas).

It is the Republicans who work night and day to see that more and mor of our country's efforts go into the pockets of the few and connected. It is (and the record is clear on this, damn you Robert Samuelson) who create jobs and grow the economy while the Republicans are only good for combatting their bete-noire inflation. After all, Publicans pervert the economy so fewer and fewer people and dollars are chasing the limited supply of goods.

Friends, inflation is NOT the cruellest tax. Stagnation, low growth, and inequality are far worse. Look at W's disnal economic statistics. Then change the focus. Not from an economy-wide view (utterly lousy) but instead look at what happens to the bottom 60% of our population. This has not been a bad economy but a disaster for most of us.

So yes, Jolly Buddah, if folks want opportunity within this society and not a slam dunk for the top 2 or 3% only, the choice i so clear it isn't even a choice. it's inevitable. You can ONLY vote Democratic.

by David Kowalski 2005-03-07 08:40AM | 0 recs

permalink

not just politics!

jb-

i like this one. greider's good -- and Polanyi has always been one of my favorites.

i think one of the keys here is Greider's position (not far from Alperovitz's) that "government" as deus ex machina is not going to solve the problem. we need new institutions.

and, here, we find other input from Polanyi. he develops the institutional history of capitalism. if we look at the transition from the point of view of organizational ecology, the capitalist forms started within and among the fuedal economy. so, let's look for and encourage the most interesting weeds in our current overly manicured (and dying, but propped up by pesticides and fertilizer) capitalist lawns. and that is exactly what Alperovitz does so well...

by terpitudinal 2005-03-07 09:07AM | 0 recs