In Honor of an Inauguration

As we respond to an economic crisis we find that almost everyone has come to agree – whether consciously or unconsciously – that the principles of laissez faire economics are the social equivalent of sticking one's head in the sand. They are a religion -- believing in an invisible power that can be trusted to protect all the people and make everything alright in the end. But, after all is said and done, it leaves many people in the lurch. In reality, there is no higher power besides the collective force of billions of people interacting with each other on a daily basis. In those relations, how can it be assured that people treat one another well and justly? Obviously an unregulated market is a breeding ground for exploitation – the lying salesman, the creditor who happily encourages debt only to turn aggressively against the debtor when a default occurs. What can be done? While ever mindful that we shouldn’t put our hopes in one person, Barack Obama has shown the maturity and the courage to provide us some new principles that could change the way we think and interact. I believe they take two avenues: (i) the personal and (ii) the social.

Our new President has said that there should be a declaration of independence in peoples’ minds – they should free themselves from ideology and old thinking. This is a revolutionary view in many ways, but ultimately what Obama asks for is something that ought to be regarded as very moderate: he asks for pragmatism. Do what is likely to be effective or good, and forget whether it comports with your view of yourself. This focus on hearts and minds is a fine goal, but maybe it is ultimately unrealistic, given what we know of the human mind and its dependence on symbols and status. Perhaps it will happen on the margins, or among the younger generations. In any event, it is a noble effort, given its contrast to his predecessor’s appeals to fear.

The other approach is that people should redouble their efforts to organize collectively and seek to ensure that all are treated equally and fairly. This comports with the ideals of our American democracy. It is also, however, an imperfect calculus. Those who have power set up institutions to prevent its loss. Those who have no power are not motivated, and for good reason: they and their predecessors have been told “no” at every turn. So, public interest groups tend to advance narrow interests instead of a broader social good.

Although in many respects the government may be superior to private industry in tending to all the peoples’ needs, government is also apt to corrupt the few who – out of necessity – must rise to propel the organized masses toward the fulfillment of its goals. Unfortunately many times these leaders have secret, selfish goals that are cloaked in the guise of working on behalf of the greater good. Further, government planning, seen in the last century as a potential savior of the working classes, has been increasingly used by private economic interests to have the government to fund their private profits. Just look at what has happened with the financial industry bailouts.

So the necessity arises in the 21st century to change the way we view democracy. We must think pragmatically, not simply about the advance of our “national interest” or the interests of our industries; we must think about the economic and social conditions that produce the greatest good for the greatest number. But we must also not permit the elite to decide what is best for the masses. We must encourage all people – the washed and the unwashed, the vulgar and the refined – to participate in society at all levels. We must open our institutions to those who have never been inside of them before. For institutions are only useful to the extent they change as conditions change. We have a black President now, but we are far from including everyone in our institutions.

We wish President Obama well, but we must all see to it that we are all involved in one way or another, and that we are open to each others’ views. Otherwise the change he speaks of will not truly be our own. It will be someone else’s: someone with access, someone with a big rolodex of contributors, someone with celebrity. I don’t know what the answer is, but I believe it begins with deciding that this is not a fight, but is a calculus. Government can be run without reliance on mysterious forces, with full information, with serious considerations of what is, and is not, in the best interests of the greatest number, and with sober execution of policies that are not designed to be symbolic, but rather workable.