We truly put the wind in our own sails

Dear Friends,

I am one of those liberals who has wanted Elizabeth Warren to run for President.  The argument for having her run is that at the very least it would force Hillary Clinton to the left so that perhaps some of us could vote enthusiastically for her and that, at the best, Elizabeth Warren would become President.  In my view that would be great because we would finally have elected a true liberal who will fight for the American people and against big business and big money.  The fact that she would be the first woman President would just be icing on the cake.

I have now come to believe her that she is not running for President.  While she will never say never, it is clear that she is not running.  I am not disappointed in her or her decision.  I am disappointed in myself for hoping against hope that she would run.  I wanted her to do the work of pushing Hillary and the discussion of the issues to the left.  That would be far easier for me than if I had to take on that task.  It is now very clear that we, we the people, must take on that task.

Rachel Maddow interviewed Senator Warren tonight.  It was a great interview because Rachel went way beyond asking her for the one millionth time if she was going to run.  The interview is not yet available online, but it will be tomorrow at the Rachel Maddow Show website (here).  If you have the time, you should watch it.  Towards of the end of the interview, Senator Warren made a clear, concise and passionate argument for breaking up the big banks that are too big to fail.  Rachel acknowledged Senator Warren's great position but asked if the Democratic Party is any better at reigning in Wall Street than the Republicans.  Rachel specifically cited Senator Schumer and Hillary Clinton as two Democrats with extremely close ties to Wall Street and who have not supported Senator Warren's efforts to effectively control the big banks.  Tellingly, Senator Warren did not answer the question but made a wonderful call to arms saying that it is we the people, the American people who support breaking up the banks that need to force the action.  She said that it was time for the American people to say that Congress will no longer work for the big business and big money that can hire thousands of lobbyists.  It is time for Congress to work for the American people.  The American people must demand it.

Senator Warren both in her decision not to run for President and in her answer to Rachel's questions has made it clear that we the people cannot wait for others to take action.  I cannot wait for Senator Warren to push Hillary to the left or Senator Schumer to actually regulate and control Wall Street.  If I want some thing to happen, I have to get active.  Senator Warren used a great phrase to illustrate her point.

"We truly put the wind in our own sails!"

It is long past time for the liberals to quit complaining about the Republican lies and terrible policies and get to work making clear to the American people that a liberal government will move this country forward to be more like the fair and just society that we would all like to live in.  We need to "put the wind in our own sails"!

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Assholes, A Theory

Dear Friends,

I just finished a book by Aaron James entitled Assholes, A Theory.  James is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of California, Irvine.  He has a blog entitled "On Assholes/More Theory" (here).  The book was interesting but slow at times, but I really loved the chapter on Asshole Capitalism. His thesis provides a very good way to understand the existence and rise of Asshole Capitalism and the incredible danger it represents to a fair and just society.  I cannot do justice to the book and its thesis, but I want to give you my thoughts (borrowing heavily from James and the philosophers he cites).

When James described himself as a "progressive in the style of John Rawls, he went on to describe the style of John Rawls (p. 156).  I think that he described my beliefs as well.  Roughly the Rawls style calls for

(1) equal basic liberties; (2) fair equality of opportunity in access to positions of greater reward and power, which dramatically mitigates the effects of fortunate birth; and (3) limits on the inequalities in income and wealth we allow in order to create incentives for hard work, risk taking, an so on, so that they must work out, over time, to the greatest advantage of the least well off social class.

Rawls thesis allows for a capitalist system but with limits.  James reaches that same conclusion as I will discuss in a moment.  First, I should give you James' definition of an asshole.  Please understand that James takes great pains to be clear about his definition of an asshole.  I am only quoting here is own summary (pages 4-5).

... a person counts as an asshole when, and only when, he systematically allows himself to enjoy special advantages in interpersonal relations out of an entrenched sense of entitlement that immunizes him against the complaints of other people.

James posits that the reason to select a capitalist system is that its core purpose is to provide freedom, opportunity, and general prosperity.  Asshole capitalism will in fact destroy capitalism.  "The culture of an asshole capitalist system ... sends just this kind of strong entitlement message.  Roughly, the message is that you can rightly get something for nothing or get rich without having to worry about the cost to others." (p. 145)

So what does a fair and just society look like.  Rawls (as paraphrased by James) has a good definition.  (p. 160)

Rawls suggests that we are to consider what kind of society we would be willing to live in, assuming that we are ignorant of our particular social position, including such things as our race, gender, class, or talents.  The just society is the one we would each accept from this impartial point of view.

While it is hard for me, as a person born with great privilege, to actually construct a society in that manner, I know very well that we are far from anything that would construct be consistent with that definition.  I also know that we could construct a fair and just society that uses capitalism for its economic model.  Capitalism that has as its goals freedom, opportunity and general prosperity is entirely consistent with the just and fair society envision by Rawls.

It is equally true that you can not possibly have a just and fair society if assholes are in charge and the economic system is based on asshole capitalism.

I believe that I can safely say that many of the riches people in our country are assholes and that our economy has become one of asshole capitalism.    Senator Bernie Sanders' Facebook posts contain significant evidence to support my position.  For example,

The Koch brothers clearly represent the assholes that are destroying the capitalist system that America had been striving for - one that provides freedom, opportunity and general prosperity and certainly one that Rawls could support.  To make a few more dollars which the Koch brothers wrongly believe they are entitled to, they will take those dollars from those in our country who need them the most and in many cases have not had the opportunity to be financially successful.

James discusses what entitlements are warranted and how to determine them.  This paragraph (p. 157) made the issue quite clear to me.

What one is entitled to, we may assume, is fair treatment by the system of social cooperation overall. Any specific entitlements one has are then subject to adjustment as needed for cooperation to be fair to all.  So if the social promises of capitalism require increasing teacher or trash collector pay, then teachers and trash collectors will have a moral entitlement to a pay increase.  And if those same promises include things like well-maintained roads and schools and refuse services, where this requires things like capping or heavily taxing banker or CEO bonuses, then bankers and CEOs have no moral entitlement against this change in the rules.  All is fair if needed for capitalism to actually do what it is suppose to.

James goes on to tell the story of the meeting, at the beginning of the Great Recession, when Hank Paulson meet with the big banks to tell them that the government would bail them out with taxpayer money (p. 158).  The immediate question by John Thain, Merrill Lynch CEO was "What kind of protections can you give us on changes in compensation policy?"  By any definition of an asshole, John Thain is one and his expectation of entitlement also demonstrates the entitlement feel by the big banks.  They believe that they are entitled to all the profits, and the taxpayers can bear the risk.

It is this sense of absolute entitlement regardless of the cost to others or society, that if it runs rampant will destroy real capitalism.  As James says (p. 161-2)

One comes to own those benefits as one's own in an absolutist sense, quite aside from what fairness requires in the system of cooperation through which those benefits are created.  It is this that gives entitlement capitalism an especially strong tendency to undo itself.  Society becomes awash with people who are defensively unwilling to accept the burdens of cooperative life, out of a righteous sense that they deserve ever more.

James argues that capitalism can only fulfill its intended purposes (freedom, opportunity and general prosperity) if enough people "do enough to uphold the set of practices or institutions, at some cost to themselves" (p. 162) that support capitalism and hold asshole capitalism at bay.

In the United States asshole capitalism has taken hold.  Unfortunately, there is no clear path forward to push back at it.  We need many more people willing to fight against asshole capitalism and for a cooperative world that provides fairness and justice.  After reading James' chapter on how to proceed, I am very concerned.  James quotes Kant (p. 176) as saying "If justice goes, there is no longer any value in human beings' living on the earth."  Fortunately, James does not leave it there but goes on to paraphrase Rawls (p. 178)

we can be reconciled to our condition, despite its evils, callousness, and unfairness, as long as we can credibly see the possibility of achieving a reasonably just social order.

James ends his book with a clear message about how to proceed (p. 185)

The extent to which assholes pervade and undermine social life is to a large extent up to us.  Assholes are produced by society, but society is ours to make and remake...We can together reject asshole capitalism and firmly resolve to move toward a more stable, more decent, and more just capitalist order, on a national and global scale.

I leave you with the last sentence of James' book and his call to arms. (p. 187 bold and capitalizations are mine)

"SOCIAL LIFE CAN BE FAIRER AND LESS FOUL, IF, BUT ONLY IF, COOPERATORS OF THE WORLD UNITE."

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Plutocracy v. Oligarchy

Dear Friends,

In my blog about big business and big money controlling America (here), I called America a plutocracy.  I often hear other people call us an oligarchy.  I was curious about the difference between an oligarchy and a plutocracy so here is the result of my research on that subject.

Merriam-Webster online dictionary says

Plutocracy

: government by the richest people

: a country that is ruled by the richest people

: a group of very rich people who have a lot of power

Oligarchy

: a country, business, etc., that is controlled by a small group of people

: the people that control a country, business, etc.

: government or control by a small group of people

David Rosen wrote an article on plutocrats v. oligarchs (here).  He starts the piece with the derivation of the two words.

Oligarchy is defined as “government by the few” and came into English use around 1570.  The term derives from two Greek words: oligos meaning “few” and arch for “rule”; similar English-language terms include monarch or hierarchy.  Plutocracy is derived from the Greek ploutos meaning “wealth” and kratos for “govern.” 

In light of the topic of my blog, I think that my use of the term plutocracy was the appropriate one although both words have their merits.  The combination of the two words clearly identifies America today, a country controlled by and benefitting a few very rich people.   

Thanks for reading and please comment,

The Unabashed Liberal