Tuesday, January 17, 2012

January 17, 2012

I become weary of talk of "the American dream," "freedom," and similar patriotic slogans because too often they are cover for something in which we have no reason to take pride. However, at least once a year, on Martin Luther King Day, I abandon cynicism and celebrate those words; to him they meant something.
Eugene Robinson, writing in The Washington Post, noted the aptness of the placement of the King statue, between the Jefferson Memorial, "which honors the man whose stirring words now apply to all Americans, not just a few," and Lincoln Memorial, "a tribute to a leader who shepherded the nation through days much darker than these," and started the process by which the principles of the Declaration became applicable to all. In his famous 1963 speech, King put it this way:
Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.
Dr. King did not pretend that the battle for a share of Jefferson’s vision was over:
. . . One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.
. . . When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. . . .
If any people had right to reject Americanism, to reject the notion of a shared heritage, it was those whose ancestors had been kidnaped, sold and enslaved by men mouthing the virtues of America, but King didn’t do that. He began his speech by referring to "the history of our nation." He didn’t make his indictment in terms of the irrelevance of American principles, or of their falsity, but as a demand that they be applied. He recognized and celebrated our founding principles and merely argued that we should live up to them:
I say to you today, my friends, even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."
Would that every reference to our heritage and principles could be so valid.


There is another theme to King’s speech: faith. I have been critical of politicians who invoke religion, not least because doing so implies — or shouts — that a some partisan or interested program is God’s will. However, I’ve clung to an ill-defined exception to be applied where the appeal is not to doctrine but to moral principle. King’s address is an example. I would like to be able to add another qualification, that the issue be above politics, but that isn’t possible. Any serious social issue is political in the broad sense, and the campaign for civil rights for black people certainly had its political aspect. Whether or not my rationale makes any sense, I always am moved by these two passages, the second of which closed his speech:
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.
. . . From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

Saturday, January 14, 2012

January 14, 2012
As usual, the current political campaign in part involves a war of words. The choice of terminology plays a large part in defining the issues, and defining the issues goes a long way toward deciding them. One of the current debates is whether to use the word "capitalism."
Republican pollster Frank Luntz recently offered this advice: "Conservatives should not be defending capitalism. They should be defending economic freedom. And there is a difference. The word capitalism was created by Karl Marx to demonize those people who make a profit. We’ve always talked about the free enterprise system or economic freedom." 1 That may be questionable economic or linguistic history, but it’s good political advice: wrapping business practices in the patriotic bunting of freedom, or liberty, always has worked. Calling business "free enterprise" cloaks a multitude of sins. Referring to the free market or, more daringly (leaving out freedom) "the market" or the "market system," also works, as those concepts or labels can be held up as alternatives to (shudder) socialism. However, thanks in part to the Occupy publicity, capitalism and the market have taken a hit, so conservatives probably ought to heed Luntz’s suggestion and harp on "freedom."
A somewhat similar point was made by John Kay, writing in The Financial Times. Referring to a series of articles on "Capitalism in Crisis," he said, "The Financial Times is debating capitalism, but what it is really debating is the future of the market economy." Luntz had dismissed "capitalism" as a Marxist term, but Kay exonerated Marx, claiming that he "never used the word capitalism. But after the publication of Das Kapital, the term came to describe the system of business organisation which had made the industrial revolution possible."2 So, to him,"capitalism" is a positive word, but he agrees that it should be abandoned.
(Whether he is correct about Marx may depend on the translation of Capital being used; perhaps the one he relies on doesn’t use the word. I have a copy of Volume I, translated by Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling, which uses "capitalism" once; referring to another author, Marx said that he "betrays the innermost secret soul of English capitalism."3 However, even identifying the translation may not answer the question. A version of Volume I on the web, attributed to the same translators, uses "capitalism" twice, the other time in the phrase "in the period of capitalism," which my book renders "in the capitalist period."4 It hardly matters. Marx used the terms "capitalist" repeatedly, as a noun and as an adjective, often substituting "capitalistic" as the latter.)
Kay’s principal point is that "capitalism’ is an outdated word. Today’s business leaders are not capitalists in the nineteenth-century sense. "Modern titans derive their authority and influence from their position in a hierarchy, not their ownership of capital." That is true, and making that clear might spare us blather about risk-taking and entrepreneurship. (It’s odd that a French term, difficult to pronounce or spell, would be the business buzz word. Even George W. Bush, Mr. Real ‘Murican, used it.)
Kay ended his article with this: "Sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking. By continuing to use the 19th-century term capitalism for an economic system that has evolved into something altogether different, we are liable to misunderstand the sources of strength of the market economy and the role capital plays within it." I certainly agree with the first sentence, but shifting the reference from capital to the market, standing alone, won’t lead to clear thinking. What is needed is a more sophisticated and realistic view of economics, including an awareness of the shortcomings of the market, both as a concept and as the basis of our system. Capitalism, free enterprise, the market, or whatever label next becomes fashionable describes a system which works well if and only if its inherent limitations and daners are recognized and appropriate duties and limitations are imposed.
However, the shift in the terms of reference will have to wait. Mitt Romney’s primary opponents are, in a nice twist on the linguistic tactic, turning "venture capitalism" into "vulture capitalism." That has led to a debate about the virtues of capitalism. Perhaps the C word will disappear during the final campaign, but Romney’s claim that Obama practices "crony capitalism" may keep it alive. No doubt we’ll hear more than enough about freedom and the market too.


1. http://thinkprogress.org/ posted by Faiz Shakir on Jan 11, 2012
2. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/86667196-3afc-11e1-b7ba-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1jBRguu00
3. Marx, Capital, Chapter XXIV, § 4 (Britannica Great Books, Vol. 50, p. 296)
4. Chapter XXIV, § 1: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ ; cf. Britannica Great Books, Vol. 50, p. 290

Posts © 2011-2012 by Gerald G. Day