Some background: The primary goal of American political thought is to unite the motive force of the "few" with the interests of "all".

The founders of the United States had as their primary goal to unite the interest of "the few" and "the many". In everyday language, this is to say that the goal is to unite the incentive forces of those who are best at earning great wealth, status and influence with the natural abilities of all the other citizens. How is the claim that "all men are created equal" related to our political and economic foundation, given that I am claiming that the distinction between "the few" and "the many" is the operative concept in our system? All are equal in the sense of wanting basic peace and security to pursue their ends. These ends are different in degree, but not in kind. All can be said to want to be able to attain material wealth and live in peace. The key to establishing a well-functioning political economy is to "channel" the natural abilities of the "few strong" in ways which allow them to act on their powerful natural abilities and desires in such a way that contributes to the peace, stability and economic well being of the society as a whole.

An important key to understanding the American and Western political foundations as well as one of the sources of significant confusion on the part of free-market activists and the Republican Party today lies in the very concrete difference between the assumed incentives of actions, on the one hand, and actions resulting from these incentives, on the other. So for example, those on the free-market right focus on two qualities of the motives underlying capitalist activity: freedom and self-interest. Free-market zealots hold that in order for an economic activyt to be morally good or legitimate, it must be based on a complete absence of government intrustion into the system of incentives. They also hold that only individuals have interests and that citizens have no moral right to act through their government to enhance interests that are better achieved collectively. The term "collective" is anathema to this group. Many of those who have in the last three decades treated the free-market as if it is a moral absolute have failed to study the philosophy underlying America, specifically regarding the central role a particular understanding of incentives of "the few" and "all men" plays in it. They have misunderstood and mischaracterized the reasoning behind why the founders wanted to let the "few" who are most able to earn great wealth do so and keep it. In other words, they have misunderstood the way our founders viewed the profit motive, reading into the right to earn wealth a moral good that no mainstream philosopher stresses. It is a grave error to assume that our founders treated the ability to earn great wealth as a moral right. The primary purpose of establishing a system of rights was not because they are moral ends in themselves, but because doing so was viewed as the key to establishing peace, stability and economic well being for a much higher percentage of the citizenry than would otherwise occur. Stability and order is the highest end of political philosophy, not morality in the way we will tend to think of it. The only way in which property rights are to be viewed as moral is in the role they play as maximizing utility and stability for all in the given society.

The primary cause of moral and intellectual confusion around capitalism is the Austrian school of economics as well as the influence of Ayn Rand. Their influence is less than 40 years, and it is not a coincidence that with the rise in their influence we have seen the greatest jump in our economic as well as political instability since the Great Depression. In short, the error that this school of thought makes is to read a deep moral purpose into the free-market and property rights that are simply not there. The primary purpose, again, of property rights and free-market incentives can only be understood by getting into the mind-set of the philosophers who originally sought to create a system like the one we have had up until recently. It is simply false to think that the reason our founders or any mainstream political philosopher created a system of property rights was because they held that "the individual" had a moral right to earn great wealth. There is no stress on "the individual", but on types of individuals, that involving the distinction between "the few" who are naturally able to earn great wealth and who are motived to seek power and influence, on the one hand, and everyone else. If there is a moral value here, it is to create a system which takes into account the actual incentives of types of individuals.

Who are "the few," and how do current Republican Party rhetoric and behavior undermine our "checks and balances" on these "few"?

The American political economy can only be understood adequately when we grasp the heavy role of checks and balances in it. Contrary to seeing any stress in the ability of individuals to earn great wealth, what we see is a system of checks and balances that seeks to "channel" the actual motives and abilities of "the few" to earn great wealth and power in a way that maximizes the stability and well being of the society as a whole. The linchpin to our stability as we have experienced it in America lies first of all in channeling the incentives and natural abilities of "the few" strong in such a way that their actions in the world of politics and business have effects which are socially beneficial or at least not harmful to peace, security and economic well being of the rest of the citizens. The second reason why the self-interested natural tendencies of "the few" have been ameliorated in American history owes to the strong influence on the American business class of what is called the American civic religion. This value system can be understood as a kind of social Christianity. The simplest way to understand this value system is as a spirit of public service. Under this moral system, the business man would feel a responsibility to his country and/or his immediate community.

What happened to this value? Why has it been that since the 1980s those in power in American business have been acting in ways which are not good for the country as a whole or their own communities? Why are we all of a sudden witnessing the bizarre situation of allowing CEO's to earn millions of dollars when their actions lead to the failure of their firms! There is not supposed to be this kind of systemic disconnect between the actions of CEO's and benefits to society, let alone the firm! We have to look to the Austrian school of economics, Ayn Rand, and Milton Friedman to understand what has happened. In 1974, Friedman wrote an article in the New York Times that argued that businesses ought not make social responsibility part of their focus. In short, he argued that the sole moral responsibility of American business was to make a profit. Ayn Rand, Von Mises and Von Hayek had argued along similar lines. Philosophy like this will have a concrete effect, and I argue that one of the effects of this radical change of thought was to bring out what had been up to recently a more latent force of anti-social behavior. In short, a philosophy that held that seeking profit was a moral good and a moral right began to take hold of the culture by the 1980s. And today, we are seeing the results of the establishment of a political philosophy which says that the highest purpose of government is to let "the few" earn great wealth. This is not only different than the entire history of Western and American political philosophy - it is diametrically opposed!

How does this change in our public philosophy relate to the fact that our founders sought to channel the energies of "the few" ?

For our purposes, the most important effect of this change in our understanding of the rationale for the free market was to undermine the basic legs of our political-economy. Again, Western and American political philosophy does not make a moral right of anyone to earn wealth its focus. In fact, the primary focus of American and Western political philosophy is to restrain the potentially anti-social effects of "the few" who are most able to earn great wealth and power.

While the American right tends to look at the left as amoral, it is shocking how much the free-market right has contributed to so quickly transforming the United States from a society in which the interests of the few and the many were relatively in sync - owing to the two forces noted above - the system of checks and balances and the American civic religion as a form of social Christianity. By projecting the message that "the individual" has a moral right to earn as much money as he can, and that on the flip side, the government does not have a moral right to levy taxes, market fundamentalists have, I would argue, brought out a latent anti-social impulses that our founders had sought to "constrain". So for example, we are shocked when we see all sorts of CEO's taking millions of dollars even as their firms go bankrupt. Why are we surprised? For three or more decades we have been allowing a radical philosophy take hold in our society, a philosophy which would be most influential in enabling "the few" to get what they want - great wealth and power. There should be no surprise that the various executives of AIG and other firms are making great wealth even as their firms fail. For what the free-market movement has done has de-linked the motive force of "the few" to earn great wealth from any benefit to society as a whole. And ironically, it is the free-market right which has done the most to undermine capitalism! This is exactly what Western political philosophers would predict. And this leads me to the last part of this paper, the views Western philosophers had of those activists who treat politics and economics as a vehicle of a passionate moral goal.

The other few: The radical activist.

Plato has hinted throughout his work that in addition to "the few" who are most able to earn great wealth and power as a source of instability, there is another group. The second and equally destabilizing force are those intellectual types who give in to the temptation to use politics as a way to realize a deep moral vision of society. The best example in history of an attempt to use politics as a means of realizing a deep moral vision is Karl Marx and historical Communism. Karl Marx is one of the most destructive sources of political philosophy not only in the West, but in the world. His great error was to try to use the political structure of society as a way to implement a radically deep vision of justice grounded in the notion of equality. In contrast, the American founders carefully kept all moral language in the Preamble to the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The proper role of deep positive moral values in a society is in the social/cultural and private sphere, not the political sphere. For Western political as well as spiritual philosophy, it is dangerous and inappropriate to seek to attain goals felt to be deeply moral via politics. It does not matter if these ends are sought by force or by laws that make it possible for a few to earn great wealth around the paradigm of freedom. What is to be avoided like a very dangerous plague in Western and American political philosophy is the injection of moral passion into politics. This is one of the things that is to be most avoided. And this is precisely what the market fundamentalists, hand in hand with the "religious right" have done in American politics in the last couple of decades.

The primary cause of the decline in our economic well being today - a decline that will not be fixed unless we get back to the kind of foundation intended by our founders - is the injection of moral zeal by both the free-market right as well as "religious fundamentalists". (I mention this latter group because the free-market right would not have been able to do what it has done without the political alignment with "religious fundamentalists.) It is not a coincidence that the Republican Party has gained power in the recent times via an alliance of two groups who are characterized by moral zeal. For our founders, and all mainstream Western political philosophers, this moral zeal is the single gravest threat to the long-term viability of our society.

Signs of moral zeal in the Republican Party:

The most concrete manifestation of moral fanaticism in the Republican Party today is the manner in which they have voted in lockstep against Obama's various policy proposals. Note that we never see the Democratic Party voting in lockstep in this manner. Economic policy making is about maintaining basic economic well being - not religious values or economic values treated as if they have the import of religious values. A good political-economy must be maintained with a spirit of moderation, and today's Republican Party has become increasingly fanaticized.

The kinds of policies Obama is pursuing are par for the course in a crises such as we are in. Given a situation which was brought about by past immoderate taxing and spending policies, these policies are moderate, and seek to help the citizens maintain basic economic well being. This is normal governance. The kinds of tax policies pursued by the last administration are abnormal. The Republican Party is so confused today both morally and intellectually, and doesn't have a leg to stand on.Until some in the Party admit their mistakes and come back to the basics of American and Western thought in a spirit of moderation and a willingness to compromise, they should not be granted legitimacy.

There is a third group of "few", that type Plato sought to cultivate: The moderate political philosopher who sees things as they really are and attempts to work for the common good

 

Terence Hoyt
March 17, 2009