Amos's River of Justice

Our Season of Creation

  • The question of morality in political and economic systems has been brought into the national conversation by Paul Ryan, a follower of Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand’s definition of morality is the morality of rational self-interest. She argued that rational and ethical egoism should be the guiding principle of morality, and she defined egoism as the virtue of selfishness. Morality, she said, is based in the needs of man’s survival, and ethical altruism is incompatible with the requirements of morality. Individual rights should be pre-eminent and laissez-faire capitalism is the only system that can protect them.

    Perhaps those who interviewed the young Ayn Rand on their talk shows were fooled by the fact that she was simply a novelist. Maybe they thought that if her ideas were simply made known to the public, the public would see through them. That could explain why they offered no substantial challenge to Rand’s claims.  I suspect they have helped to ensure Rand’s continuing influence. You might want to watch her interviews again with this in mind. She was interviewed by: Mike Wallace ((http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ooKsv_SX4Y)); Tom Snyder ((Ayn Rand and Tom Snyder, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAFKnfN4bfk)); James Day ((Ayn Rand and James Day, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-U8Zv8VpKmE)); and Phil Donahue ((Ayn Rand and Phil Donahue, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u8Jjth81_Q)).

    It is revealing that Rand herself chose to talk about right and wrong, good and evil, and it is therefore appropriate that the Catholic Church has been one of her main critics.  However, Rand had another purpose besides the promotion of her definition of morality. She claimed her views represented the ultimate truth about America, and she posed as a patriot when all the while she was working to redefine who and what America is. It is therefore appropriate that President Obama chose to enter the debate, stating that her ideas do not define who we are. ((Brinkley, Douglas, Obama and the Road Ahead: The Rolling Stone Interview. Rolling Stone Politics, Nov. 8, 2012. Available: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obama-and-the-road-ahead-the-rolling-stone-interview-20121025))

    What do we mean when we talk about morality?

    The following definition of morality is from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

    “It is necessary at the outset of this article to distinguish between morality and ethics, terms not seldom employed synonymously. Morality is antecedent to ethics: it denotes those concrete activities of which ethics is the science. It may be defined as human conduct in so far as it is freely subordinated to the ideal of what is right and fitting.”

    America’s definition of morality, on the other hand, will require more discussion. [intlink id=”96″ type=”post”]We have seen[/intlink] that the creators of the secular foundation for morality had no intention of creating a new code of behavior. Their task was to develop a new basis for the old code. This was necessary because the moral authority of the church had been destroyed in the Protestant Reformation.

    The Church’s morality is based on natural law theory. Natural Law theories assume any rational person can know the kinds of actions that are prohibited, required, discouraged, encouraged, and allowed.  The theological version of natural law, such as that of Thomas Aquinas, assumes that God implanted this knowledge in the reason of all persons.  The secular version of natural law, attributed first to Thomas Hobbes, assumes that natural reason allows all persons to know what morality prohibits, requires, etc. These are not empirical claims about morality but claims about what is essential to morality, or about what is meant by ‘morality’ when it is used normatively.((Gert, Bernard, “The Definition of Morality”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/morality-definition/>.))

    Ayn Rand claimed to have dispensed with all previous rational arguments for morality with her critique of Emmanuel Kant. However, of the moral philosophers who contributed to America’s form of government, Kant’s ideas were probably the easiest to refute. Kant, by the way, was not a natural law philosopher.

    Theories of Morality in Perspective

    According to Bernard Gert, the term ‘morality’ is used in two ways: descriptively or normatively. Descriptive codes of conduct are put forth by a society or some other group such as a religion, or by an individual for her own behavior.  On the other hand, the assumption behind a normative code of conduct is that all rational persons would agree to it, given specified conditions.

    A descriptive morality might appear to be a normative system within small homogeneous societies. However, in large societies not all members accept the same code of conduct. A natural response to this problem is to switch attention from groups to individuals. However, when individuals propose a moral code, they imply that their guide to behavior should be universally adopted, or at least accepted by everyone in their group.

    When an individual claims that morality prohibits or requires a given action, the term ‘morality’ is ambiguous. It is not clear if she refers to a guide to behavior put forward by a society; a guide that is put forward by a group; a guide that a person regards as overriding and wants adopted by everyone in her group; or a universal guide that all rational persons would put forward for governing the behavior of all moral agents. But when she refers to her own morality, she invariably speaks normatively. I believe this is how Rand meant her ideas to be understood.

    When the term ‘morality’ is used descriptively, the proposed code of behavior has no implications for individuals not belonging to that group.  A person who accepts a normative definition of morality, however, commits herself to that code of behavior. For this reason, there are serious disagreements about which normative definition to accept.

    The Reformers Compared

    Thomas Hobbes’s remedy for the chaos of the Reformation was to establish a new basis for the old morality–not to create a new morality. He thought that “If higher laws are not equated with intangible goods like virtue, wisdom, and salvation, then the ills of civilization can be avoided and mankind can enjoy enduring civil peace.” Hobbes identified the same human traits as Ayn Rand, but while Hobbes considered them regrettable, Rand arbitrarily called them moral. This is typical of Rand’s thought, but it is also evidence of a continuing ‘[intlink id=”96″ type=”post”]process of forgetting[/intlink]’, which was already evident during the Enlightenment.

    Hobbes insisted that there is no utmost aim or greatest good as put forth by the ‘old moral philosophers,’ Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. Rand insisted there is in deed an utmost aim, survival. Further, the individual’s moral purpose is his own happiness. Finally, according to her fictional hero, John Galt, human perfection is ‘an unbreached rationality’. ((The Ultimate Philosopher, Ayn Rand on Human Perfection. Available: http://ultimatephilosopher.blogspot.com/2011/03/ayn-rand-on-human-perfection.html)) While Hobbes lamented that human nature is restlessly striving for power after power that has no end and therefore no happiness or perfection, Rand considered such striving to be a virtue.

    “Hobbes presented the materialist account of man as a creature of appetites and aversions: seeking pleasure, avoiding pain, and desiring power after power. The materialist account supports the view that no natural end for man really exists, only the ceaseless motion of a complex machine. The materialist account also strengthens the case against the Aristotelian-Thomistic view of man as a rational and social animal naturally suited by language and friendship to live in a political community. Hobbes’s model shows that human beings are selfish, competitive, and anti-social and that they are rational only insofar as reason serves the selfish passions. The logical conclusion was [his] ‘state of nature’ teaching, which describes the anarchical condition of individuals without an artificial social contract and a coercive sovereign to hold them together.” (Leviathan, Part I, as summarized in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Of course, Ayn Rand thought selfish striving was moral and that it should be given free reign.  Now back to Hobbes:

    “The mechanical model of man, however, [was] not sufficient to refute classical natural law. Hobbes develops a second argument based on moral experience, showing that human beings are motivated not only by pleasure and power but also by vanity–a false estimate of one’s superiority to others. In historical writings, Hobbes shows how the passion of vanity has undermined traditional political authority where kings have relied on higher law to gain obedience from the people. The defect of this arrangement is that traditional higher law doctrines are easily exploited by vain and ambitious men who claim superiority to the sovereign because of privileged knowledge of divine, natural, and common law. Hobbes’s account of the English Civil War (1642-60) in Behemoth illustrates the problem: King Charles I was overthrown by Puritan clergymen, democratic Parliamentarians, and lawyers of the common law who sought recognition for their superior knowledge of higher law yet who could not agree among themselves about whose doctrine was right, producing sectarian wars that reduced English society to the anarchic state of nature.”

    By contrast, Ayn Rand thought she could determine who among her acquaintances deserved her love.

    Today, Hobbes is notorious as an atheist materialist and advocate for absolute monarchy over constitutional government, but he was a major influence behind the natural rights principles of modern liberalism that became the middle-class materialist view of morality. Still, he would have disagreed with later thinkers who advocated constitutional limits on state power because he thought the sovereign’s absolute and arbitrary power was the only way to keep people in line. The movement to limit the scope of government to the protection of rights led away from Hobbes’s absolute monarchy and toward constitutionally limited government. This movement was led by Locke, Hume, Montesquieu, and the Federalist. ((Lloyd, Sharon A. and Sreedhar, Susanne, “Hobbes’s Moral and Political Philosophy”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/hobbes-moral/>.))

    Ayn Rand in the Real World

    The limited government debate should be taking place in the context of this evolution from Absolutism to limited government. In a more specific sense, the discussion of Ayn Rand’s ideas should be carried on within another context. Because of her support for both Big Oil and Israel, a tendency she shares with Paul Ryan as well as the neoconservatives who emerged from RAND Corporation, it seems reasonable to compare her ideas and influence with theirs.

    The RAND Corporation used positivism to develop ideas similar to Rand’s. Ayn Rand was motivated by personal experience with Marxism; RAND Corporation was motivated by a perceived need to defend against the Soviet threat to the United States. Also, both efforts aimed at redefining America: Ayn Rand wanted to promote unfettered capitalism; RAND Corporation wanted to promote American imperialism. Their methods differed, but the effects on the body politic were complementary.

    RAND Corporation

    “At its most basic, Kenneth Arrow’s work (at RAND) demonstrated in formal terms–that is, in mathematical expression–that collective rational group decisions are logically impossible. Arrow’s paradox, or Arrow’s impossibility theorem, as it came to be called, presented an unshakable mathematical argument that destroyed the academic validity of most kinds of social compact. Arrow utilized his findings to concoct a value system based on economics that destroyed the Marxist notion of a collective will. To achieve this result, Arrow freely borrowed elements of positivist philosophy, such as its concern for axiomization, universally objective scientific truth, and the belief that social processes can be reduced to interaction between individuals.

    “Arrow assumed that individuals were rational, that they had consistent preferences that they sought to maximize for their own selfish benefit. Arrow also assumed that reason, as he defined it, was not culturally relative but identical in all human beings, who act according to the same rules of logic.

    “Furthermore, Arrow assumed the objectivity of science–that its laws are universal and that there aren’t two different sets of choices for capitalist and Communist societies, as some economists had theorized before World War II…[He] posited the individual as the ultimate arbiter of decision, using the phrase ‘consumers‘ sovereignty‘ to signal individual preference as the basic building block of any economic system.

    “Arrow’s impossibility theorem, then, lay a theoretical foundation for universal scientific objectivity, individualism and ‘rational choice‘ while undermining Marxism, totalitarianism, and the idealistic democracy. Simply put, he posited that immutable, incontrovertible science tells us the collective is nothing, the individual is all.”((Abell, Alex. Soldiers of Reason: The RAND Corporation and the Rise of the American Empire. Harcourt, Inc. Orlando Austin New York San Diego London. 2008))

    Note that axiomization was also a concern of Ayn Rand.

    Paul Ryan

    As for clues to Paul Ryan’s intentions behind his proposed privatization of Social Security, Israel would be the place to look.

    About fifty years ago, a certain Ja’akov Levinson, the head of Israel’s Bank Hapoalim, took over Histadrut’s retirement funds…

    “During the recession of 1965-66, these pension and provident funds, which were previously managed by various organs of the Histadrut, were brought under one roof. The immediate purpose was to boost the ailing finances of companies such as Solel Boneh, Koor, and Teus, which were hurt by the slowdown. The plan was backed by Labour Minister of Finance, Pinchas Sapir, and the man in charge of the operation was Levinson. In a typical manoeuvre, Levinson, who had no intention of having the Histadrut executive looking over his shoulder, merged the previously separate funds into a separate pool named Gmool, which he then turned into a department of his bank, far from the peering eyes of the Histadrut Controller. Gmool’s deal with the government was sweet and simple. Half of its funds had to be kept in government bonds. The other half was earmarked for investment and subsidized credit, with the interest rate financed by the government’s development budget. The beauty of the deal was that the precise allocation of these funds was up to Gmool’s managers to decide – that is, for Levinson. In this way, Levinson crafted for himself an enormous leverage, far greater than any of his competitors, and one which he quickly put into use. The mechanism worked more or less as follows. Workers and employers would make monthly contributions to Gmool. After putting half of these in government bonds, the rest was up for discretionary investments. Of that half, part would be earmarked for buying new stocks issued by Hapoalim and its subsidiaries; this part provided Levinson with ‘free money’ (since Gmool had no ability to exercise ‘control’) as well as a powerful vehicle for manipulating stock prices (since it enabled him to control both supply and demand). The other part would be invested in, or lent to Histadrut companies; in order to get these loans and investments, however, the companies had to mortgage their assets to Hapoalim, open their books to Levinson’s peering eyes, and accept his representatives as director on their boards.” ((Nitzan, Jonathan and Shimshon Bichler. The global Political Economy of Israel. Pluto Press, London, Sterling. 2002))

    You might say that both of these examples are ancient history, that they don’t explain the Ayn Rand resurgence today, but it looks like they were merely forerunners of today’s Rand-inspired injustice. It is likely that the interest in Ayn Rand today is the response of ruling corporations to Dodd-Frank. ((Reese, Frederick. Defang Dodd-Frank to Protect Wall Street Vampires: A Look at the Proposed Changes. Mint Press News. May 7, 2013. Available: http://www.mintpressnews.com/defang-dodd-frank-or-protect-wall-street-vampires-congress-to-decide/157026/)) Although Dodd-Frank was passed in 2010, it hasn’t been fully implemented. The House Committee on Financial Services continues to try to overturn its regulations, in spite of the fact that the four largest U.S. banks that would be affected by it constitute half of the nations entire economy and hold more than half of the nation’s fiscal deposits. These are: JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo. The collapse of any one of them would have the potential to permanently compromise the nation. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was created as a way to guard against this threat, but from the beginning it has been challenged by Republicans in the service of the banks.

    Most of the Republican caucus insists the 2008-2009 mortgage crisis was a fluke and therefore, they say, the banks should continue to regulate themselves. This isn’t the first time we’ve seen this type of denial. We saw the same thing after the collapse of Long Term Capital Management in 1997. ((Roger Lowenstein. Long Term Capital Management: It’s a Short Term Memory. The New York Times, Business. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/business/worldbusiness/07iht-07ltcm.15941880.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&))

    Goldman Sachs

    I previously mentioned two firms that were top donors to Tea Party republicans, one of them being Goldman Sachs. According to one article, a managing director of Goldman Sachs is the Co-Chair of the Ayn Rand Institute. ((Martens, Pam and Russ Martens. Resurrecting Ayn Rand: Hedge Fund Money Teams up With Koch & BB&T. Wall Street On Parade: A Citizen Guide to Wall Street. Feb. 28, 2012. Available: http://wallstreetonparade.com/resurrecting-ayn-rand-hedge-fund-money-teams-up-with-koch-bbt/))

    What’s really at stake?

    This isn’t really a partisan issue, although Rand, Ryan and others try to frame it as such. It isn’t capitalism against big government at all. This is about a few powerful corporations becoming more powerful than the government. In support of this assertion, I’ll close with a strongly worded critique of Rand’s ideas in the Wall Street Journal. It seems a fitting conclusion to the discussion that Ayn Rand initiated about morality:

    “We have lost the collective spirit that led 57 capitalists to risk their lives and fortunes signing the Declaration of Independence. That’s dead. Today it’s “every man for himself” in a capitalist anarchy.

    You ask, why do we embrace our own demise like out-of-control addicts? In behavioral economics, as in classical Greek drama, Jungian psychology and cultural mythologies … all the battles we see “out there” are actually projections of unresolved conflicts raging deep within our own souls … we’re rehashing old traumas projected on the outside world as battles between our highest ideals and our darkest secrets … classic battles between good and evil.
    But they are conflicts buried deep in what Jung called “The Shadow,” a prison of dark secrets we cannot admit even to ourselves. In there, fierce battles are fought for the possession of our immortal souls … projected onto news, politics and finance, in television and films, theater, literature, history and dreams, at the dinner table and in the bedroom, “out there” we try to resolve our innermost secrets, never fully understanding how our minds are tricking us into inaction.

    And as our individual souls and our collective unconscious splits further and further apart, eventually we will collectively implode and collapse.” ((Farrell, Paul. B. Ayn Rand’s Death of the Soul of Capitalism. The Wall Street Journal, Market Watch. June 14, 2011. Available: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ayn-rands-death-of-the-soul-of-capitalism-2011-06-14?pagenumber=2))

  • I have recommended that taxpayers cut off discretionary spending as a response to the government shutdown and looming default.  However in the last week there has been little Congressional response to the lobbying efforts of business groups.  There is a simple explanation for that: the shutdown is fueled by ideology rather than political and economic expediency.  It has come to the point where a radical group of Republicans feels free to ignore the money interests that helped get them elected.   Unfortunately, they are still listening to the biggest of these money interests, think tanks and PACS which are run by people who don’t have to worry about votes or balance sheets.

    Take, for example, Ted Cruz.  He would not be a Senator today without the help of The Club for Growth and Senate Conservatives Fund.  Together, in the 2014 cycle, they gave him $1,021,648.  This is more than 55 percent of his total contributions.  His other top contributors are banks, lobbying firms, and of course Goldman Sachs.  You might expect Goldman’s input since his wife is a vice-president there, but the bank shows up as a contributor to other radicals as well.  Cruz wants to wipe out Affordable Care.  What he doesn’t say is that it won’t affect him either way; he has health insurance from Goldman Sachs through his wife.  Then there is the other disturbing contributor that keeps coming up when you look at the finances of Cruz and others in this radical group, Berkshire Hathaway.

    Before I get to the main point of this post, I would like to point out the irony of this situation.  Business has always thought it had an alliance with the Republican Party, and against the rest of us. That is, against employees.  Consumers they like.  They didn’t seem to object when women were being called sluts, maybe because they sort of liked the idea of not having to pay for employees’ birth control.  And of course, they’ve always been fine with holding down the minimum wage.  A weak labor union is a good labor union.  Affordable care?  Not if it means they have to pay.  And yet it never occurred to them that the stingy, mean, unjust spirit behind this thinking would turn on them.  What did they think would happen?

    On second thought, my main point might backfire.  I was going to suggest that business use its clout to end this, but who would they be most likely to help?  We already know the answer to that question.

    If the Congress hasn’t resolved this by Thursday I recommend the following: no one goes to work, no one drives, we buy only necessary food items. Employers who fire anyone at that time for any reason should be boycotted.

    [I don’t have positions in Goldman Sachs (GS-PC) or Bershire Hathaway (BRK-A).]

    Update:

    I’ve been thinking about my recommendation.  I don’t think it was too extreme considering the seriousness of the threat, but because  I wouldn’t be risking as much as many of you I’ve decided it’s not a good idea.  Things seem to be looking up so it may never have come to that, but at least I can remove the stress of thinking about it.

    [display-posts category=”the healthcare crisis”]

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Recently, there are hopeful signs that retailers and manufacturers are pressuring Congress to end the impasse over the spending limit. [ref name=”NRF calls for Immediate End to Government Shutdown”]NRF”]NRF Call for Immediate End to Government Shutdown. October 9, 2013. Available: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/nrf-calls-immediate-end-government-160000729.html;_ylt=A2KJjagM3lZSjWoAC9zQtDMD[/ref]  [ref name=”GOP Lobbyist: Business Needs to ‘Step Up’ Against the Tea Party”]Fang, Lee, GOP Lobbyist: Business Needs to ‘Step Up’ Against the Tea Party, The Nation Magazine. October 9, 2013. Available: http://www.thenation.com/blog/176578/gop-lobbyist-business-needs-step-against-tea-party[/ref] Of course if the taxpayer walkout suggested by [intlink id=”1305″ type=”post”]General Honoré[/intlink] had anything to do with it, we’ll never hear it from John Boehner.  Sadly, we have yet to see evidence of his good intentions.  

    According to an Associated Press article, [ref name=”House GOP leaders seek short-term debt extension”]Associated Press. House GOP leaders seek short-term debt extension. October 10, 2013. Available: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/10/house-gop-leaders-seek-short-term-debt-extension.html[/ref]  Boehner is offering to increase the debt limit, but only through November 22.  In addition, he intends to hold on to the bargaining chip of the government shutdown, meaning that the decision to reopen the government will remain in the hands of a few rogue politicians and we will go through this again before the end of the year.  

    To be fair, the bit about the default came at the end of my last article. Depending on one’s level of cynicism, that post could be interpreted as a plea to avoid a default on the debt, never mind the government shutdown.  Obviously, nothing can be left to chance.  

    I agree with Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew who stated that the United States should not be put in this position.  He was referring to the Republicans’ determination to hinge their spending bill on deficit reduction and cuts in government programs.  Lew also objected to the attempts by Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah and other GOP senators to extend the debt limit for the shortest period they can get away with.  

    “Our view is this economy would benefit from more certainty and less brinksmanship.  So the longer the period of time (for the debt extention) is, the better for the economy.”

    In my opinion the Republicans’ proposals are doubly unacceptable because of the time constraint.  The House is not scheduled to pass this bill until Friday.  That pushes a resolution into next week, assuming the Senate approves the bill.  They should be made aware that if they continue to work on a bill that merely postpones this train wreck until a later time, they are wasting precious time. 

    The outlines of a reasonable agreement are there:  Obama is willing to sign a short-term increase so that Boehner has more time to work with the Tea Party faction.  That would head off a default.  Even Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. has dropped his demands on ‘Obamacare’ and would extend the borrowing cap for four to six seeks to allow talks on a budget deal. Then, as Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont. said, “We need to reopen the government and pay the nation’s bills, no strings attached.”  

    I’m aware that when taxpayers forego discretionary spending it is a hardship on retailers and manufacturers, but the Republicans in the House, the Democrats in the Senate, and President Obama know how to remedy that. Our walk out should continue until Congress passes an acceptable bill as described above.  

    When the crisis has passed, we should make changes in procedure to assure this can never happen again. [ref name=”How to Solve the Debt Ceiling Crisis Forever”]Green, Joshua. How to Solve the Debt Ceiling Crisis Forever. Businessweek. October 7, 2013. Available: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-10-07/how-to-solve-the-debt-ceiling-crisis-forever[/ref]

     

  • In the government shutdown saga, righteous indignation is appropriate. However, it is also futile.  Some people out there think the extortionists in the Republican Party are making sense. To make matters worse, it’s not clear whose side John Boehner is on.

    One of the weirdest parts of this drama is the refusal of the Speaker of the House to call a vote. Some say he could pass an emergency spending bill if he would only allow it to come to a vote.  He claims it wouldn’t work.

    Recently I asked Lieutenant General Russel L. Honoré, U.S. Army, Retired, [ref name=”generalhonore.com”]Generalhonore.com[/ref] if there is some way to force a vote on a spending bill. In retrospect, his answer was painfully obvious: fight extortion with extortion.

    General Honoré suggested that taxpayers do a walk out. Stop buying cars, TVs, clothing. Buy only essential food. Stay home and read to your kids. Those in charge ought to get the message…after four or five days.

    Extreme maybe, but the stakes are high. They now include a default on U.S. debt.  It’s time to call their bluff and teach the Tea Party who’s boss.

  • If you were hoping for a debate over Affordable Care on September 25 in Phoenix, you would have been disappointed. What was clear at the town hall conducted by Mayo Clinic and ASU Foundation was the panelists’ exasperation with the political debate about who pays for medical care. Contestants are so wrapped up in their squabbling that substantive issues never enter into it. In the meantime, people are dying.

    How might people spend their time if they don’t feel compelled to debate the Affordable Care Act? They might address the problems that still exist regardless of whether the Act goes into effect.

    The panelists at Wednesday’s meeting were ASU president, Michael M. Crow; Mayo Clinic Vice President and CEO, Dr. Wyatt Decker; and Dr. Richard Carmona, Surgeon General of the United States from 2002 to 2006. This town hall was part of a collaboration between Mayo Clinic and Arizona State University, but similar collaborations have been taking place with Mayo in Rochester and Mayo Clinic in Florida. Although Mayo Arizona has been working with ASU for about ten years, there was a new development in June of this year, a $1 million grant awarded to Mayo Clinic by the American Medical Association. Mayo Clinic is one of eleven applicants who received the grant, part of the AMA’s Accelerating Change in Medical Education program, aimed at the creation of a new model of undergraduate education, but its effects will go beyond these eleven schools. Selected schools will form a learning consortium to spread best practices to other schools.

    The panelists were all justifiably proud of Mayo’s record. First, Mayo Clinic is the safest teaching hospital in the nation. Also, Mayo’s costs are lower. Lower costs were attributed to the fact that doctors are employed and not in private practice, so they don’t benefit from any procedures and tests they order. And Mayo charges a flat fee for procedures. This means that if there is a poor outcome, it is the clinic that loses money, not the patient and her insurance company. Great care is taken to make sure things are done right the first time around. For more on Mayo’s Model of Care see: Mayo Clinic Model of Care

    However, in spite of Mayo’s good record, none of the panelists claimed to have the answer to the medical crisis. On the contrary, they made it clear that the system is unsustainable and that it can’t be saved as it is–not by money nor by increased efficiency.

    Not only is the system unsustainable, it is self-perpetuating. In other words, it is difficult for those already in the system to think of a way to solve its problems. Therefore, their goal is nothing short of the creation of a new kind of person through educational reform; a new kind of doctor with a broad and comprehensive understanding, not only of the medical system, but of human behavior and the structure of society.

    I appreciated the humility of the panelists in the face of the looming medical crisis, but I hope this town hall was merely the beginning of the discussion because I have a few concerns.

    Dr. Crow shared a quote to the effect that industries fail because they don’t understand what people want. I would hope the panelists remember that the survival of the medical industrial complex is not the concern of medical consumers. If the industry is at fault in this crisis, maybe it should fail.

    He also stated that the system used to work, but because times have changed it no longer does. Is this true? What is the definition of a working system? I’d like more discussion about that.

    Finally, I would like to suggest that the proposed additions to the curriculum are part of the old way of thinking Mayo is trying so hard to escape: evolutionary theory, psychology, cultural anthropology. I’ve discussed some of the problematic ideas that stem from these disciplines, but my main objection is they’ve been used to justify the categorization and control of human beings. They shouldn’t be accepted without question.

    I think the town hall was a positive start, so I say these things in the spirit of a conversation. The panelists’ initiation of this conversation certainly beat the competition in the House of Representatives.

    Now about Affordable Care. Although nothing was said about it at the town hall, Mayo’s FaceBook page does provide a link to a video with the following information: The clinic estimates that doctors will see a decrease in payments for services of at least 10 to 20 percent. On the patient side, insurance premiums will go down but many policies will have high deductibles, ((cnbc video: Mayo Clinic and Affordable Care. Available: http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?play=1&video=3000201514&6415814=1.))

    Of course, insurance policies already have high deductibles. If the Republicans have plans to improve that situation, they aren’t saying.

    [display-posts category=”the healthcare crisis”]

  • Since Obama announced he would seek Congressional approval for intervention in Syria, some have gone on to speculate whether Congress will make the “right” decision. I think this illustrates the partisan politics behind most of the arguments, pro and con. For example, those on the left are against military action, possibly because Assad is partial to their way of thinking. On the other hand, one of the groups in favor of intervention, the neo-liberals, hope Assad’s ouster will give them access to Syria’s economy.

    I appreciate Obama’s decision, and not just because I’m against further involvement in Syria. Regardless of what Congress decides, adherence to the law has its own benefits. It inspires confidence and promotes faith in the good will of a country’s leaders, both at home and abroad. In this light, it is interesting that Obama’s supposed allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, have pressured him to bypass Congress–in other words, to bypass the voice of the people.

    The proper foundation of law, as understood by the ancient Romans, was discussed by Georges Dumezil:

    “Finally, we know that the institution of the fetiales, which is generally attributed to Numa (and otherwise to Ancus, his grandson and emulator), was founded to preserve peace through the strict observance of agreements and, when that was not possible, to lend to the declaration of war and to the conclusion of treaties a regulated and ritualistic character. In short, Numa’s fides is the foundation of Rome’s supreme creation, its law.” ((Dumezil, Georges. Mitra-Varuna. Trans. Derek Coltman. Urzone Inc. New York.1988.))

    The benefits of adherence to the law are not limited to foreign relations. A better understanding of the law might also help us sort out America’s domestic problems. Recently, we have seen our laws changed to suit the goals of certain leaders. These goals include the increase of presidential power, and a higher birthrate through the subjugation women. It is reasonable to assume that laws which decrease liberty and justice have no relation to ‘fides’. In future posts we’ll try to develop a better understanding of the proper foundation of law.

  • Many in the media may not be representing the most authoritative interpretation of what is happening in Egypt. The following is from an article in Ahram online published by Al-Ahram Establishment, which has since 1875, published the Middle East’s oldest newspaper, The Daily Al-Ahram. ((About the Daily Ahram. Availiable: http://english.ahram.org.eg/UI/Front/Aboutus.aspx)) This article puts into perspective Obama’s support of the Brotherhood in Egypt, and the scorn his policies have received from the right.

    There has always been a certain amount of mistrust between the Saudi royal family and the brotherhood. It’s true that the Al-Saud family has supported the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist organizations since the time of President Gamal Abdel Nasser in the 1950s and 60s, but this is because they both opposed Nasser’s policy of exporting to the Arab world a socialism and Arab nationalism hostile to the West. The Islamists were useful to the Saudis in resisting Nasser, although they have always had ideological differences. Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabism is a form of Salafism, which is ‘austere, puritanical, and rigorous’, while the doctrine of the Muslim Brotherhood movement is more flexible. The Brotherhood sought to reconcile Islamic tradition and Western political experience, while it also tried to counter socialism and Nasserism in the Arab world. While this alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood served their purpose, “…the Al-Saud family saw the activist and “republican” formula of Islam promoted by the Brotherhood as a threat to the absolute monarchy formula established in Saudi Arabia, which advocates popular obedience and prohibits revolt against the political regime.”

    Not only do the Saudis fear the challenge to their rule of the Brotherhood’s doctrine, some Saudi leaders fear an alliance of Egypt, Turkey and Qatar, which would reduce their influence. These fears came to a head when the Brotherhood came to power in Egypt and Tunisia. ((Mourad, Hicham. The Muslim Brotherhood and Saudi Arabia. Ahramonline. May 15, 2003. Available: http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContentPrint/4/0/71498/Opinion/0/The-Muslim-Brotherhood-and-Saudi-Arabia.aspx))

    It’s probably not news to most of you that we have been given an inaccurate picture of Egypt’s situation, but it goes deeper than that. For years we have been given an oversimplified, if not completely wrong, view of Islam. Islam is far more complex that we realize. For example, there are distinct factions that have been locked in struggle for generations, and they are represented today in Egypt. There is fundamentalist versus extremist Islam. Americans tend to confuse the two, but they differ in many ways: basically, fundamentalists want all of life to be influenced by religion, while Extremists want a puritanical system influenced by an anachronistic vision of history. Iran is fundamentalist; Wahhabism is extremist. ((Didier Chaudet, Florent Parmentier, Benoît Pélopidas. When Empire Meets Nationalism. Sciences Po, France, University of Geneva, Switzerland and Monterey Institute of International Studies, USA. Ashgate. 2009))  More to the point, the Muslim Brotherhood combines fundamentalism with activism and republicanism. Then there is the secular faction. The heroes of this faction include Nasser in Egypt and Kemal in Turkey. Secularism often coincides with military rule. This is the faction behind the current military coup in Egypt.  In his support for the coup, Dreyfuss has some strange bedfellows. The neocons also happen to prefer secular government in the Middle East.

    You will recall that Obama’s previous efforts to be conciliatory toward Islam have consistently resulted in accusations that he is a Muslim. The good news here is that the U.S. government’s factions are alive and well.  The bad news is that we don’t see these factions at work because of the incestuous relationship between the ‘democratic imperialists’ and the media.

    The neocon view of Islam has been disseminated by specialists such as neoconservative Stephen Schwartz and neocon followers like Bernard Lewis. They begin by making a distinction between two types of Islam: Arabic, which they reject; and European, Turkish, preferably Sufi Islam, which they represent. Yes, even as the Muslim label continues to hover over Obama, the neocons are in deed Muslims:

    “Ahmed Chalabi is a friend of Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, and Stephen Schwartz converted to Islam under the name Suleyman Ahmad Stephen Schwartz. He was influenced by a group who is favored by Pipes and by neocon Orientalists, the American Naqshbandi Sufis, led by Sheikh Hisham Kabbani.”[backref name=”When Empire Meets Nationalism”]

    Kabbani shares the neocons rejection of Arabic Islam. The neocons’ sufi-ness serves this agenda and allows them to assert that Islam is an individual religion chosen by individuals in a spiritual rather than political perspective, whereas Islamism (Arabic Islam, i.e. Wahhabism) is a political ideology. However, the effects of these assertions are much broader than the condemnation of Wahhabism. They have allowed the neocons to appear supportive of Islam while discounting the beliefs of the majority of Muslims.[backref name=”When Empire Meets Nationalism”]

    If we believe the media, Islam as it is practiced by the majority can’t win. On the one hand, they argue that it has always had imperialistic politics. On the other hand, economic, social and political explanations for terrorism must be rejected. Terrorism is merely evidence that dialogue is futile. The only option that remains is to conquer enemy territories regardless of what the populations of those territories want.(When Empire Meets Nationalism”)

  • The problem with a conversation like this one is that it’s easy to get drawn into hit-and-miss analyses of foreign policy. You try to resist the temptation, but once in a while a headline comes along that’s impossible to ignore–like the one about ‘young Turks’ protesting in the streets of Ankara. https://www.gulf-times.com/story/356371/youths-seek-greater-liberty-not-revolution.  Whose idea was that headline? You assume that, whoever came up with it, Prime Minister Erdogan wouldn’t appreciate such propaganda in Turkey.

    In 1908, a group called the Young Turks helped bring down the Ottoman Empire. They also helped Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and his secular government come to power.

    This train of thought would remind you that the neocons think of secularism as insurance against Islamization, and that they prefer a secular government for Turkey. This is troubling because Kemal’s Turkey was full of racist nationalism, not unlike the rest of Europe before World War I.1

    However, if there’s one thing I’ve learned while trying to educate myself about American foreign policy, it’s that there’s no single faction you can blame for the world’s problems. No matter which one happens to be in charge, good intentions and honorable behavior are mixed in with sheer madness. And even though the U.S. is having its way with the world at this time, America isn’t the sole cause of the world’s problems. To find the true cause, you need a longer timeframe.

    Is There a Cure for US Policy?

    It has been suggested that the cure for U.S. policy is to develop an intellectual tradition to rival the neocons. This is probably a good idea. Unfortunately all ideas are not equal. For the last 30 years, the neocons’ ideas have been well-funded by military and government contracts and transnational corporations. They have also been promoted by a captive media. Competing ideas won’t have that kind of support, regardless of their quality. For that reason, I recommend beginning the discussion by diagnosing the disease, rather than treating the symptoms. Current ideas are one of the symptoms.

    Less Inequality

    In a nutshell, our inheritance and real estate laws funnel wealth to an elite minority and allow a widening gap between the rich and the poor. Some would say patrilineal inheritance favors men, but it doesn’t really. Patrilineal inheritance allows a society’s wealth to be drained away in frivolous pursuits such as war. Matrilineal inheritance, on the other hand, preserves the property of mothers and thereby benefits entire families. In addition, the ‘usufruct‘ 2 of a woman’s inheritance can be used by her father and/or husband for a limited time.

    The usufruct is the ‘legal right accorded to a person or party that confers the temporary right to use and derive income or benefit from someone else’s property. Usufruct is usually conferred for a limited time period or until death. While the usufructuary has the right to use the property, he or she cannot damage or destroy it, or dispose of the property.’

    Matrilineal Inheritance Benefits Everyone

    My point: matrilineal inheritance benefits everyone without depleting a society’s wealth. It also protects its property from those who would wage war and monopolize industry.

    But of course, that’s why matrilineal inheritance is always the first thing to go. Misogyny helps the process along by misogyny, and the Judeo-Christian story of the Fall of Man justifies it in the West. It is entirely illegitimate, but those who benefit will never give it up without a fight. Still, it’s good to know that our current problem is not as complicated as the ideas that shore it up: Mothers are impoverished and subjugated while a small cadre of powerful men use their inheritance to impose misery on the human race. The tail is wagging the dog.

    Ideas are important. However, once the wealth of the land becomes vulnerable to a good argument there will be no end to good arguments. Change the laws first; correct the ideas at your leisure.

    See also: Onan and the Patriarchal Agenda

    and: Adam, Noah and the Snake-King

  • This issue of women’s rights is at the center of any serious discussion about political reform. It can be argued that women’s rights are synonymous with human rights, or that the repression of women is the foundation of all repression. Every repressive regime in the world has developed a rationale for limiting the freedom of women. Onan and the patriarchal agenda demonstrates this trend.

    In this article, I will show how the biblical story of Onan is used to justify a patriarchal agenda and the repression of women’s rights. We will also see how it remains so powerful after all this time.

    Society Treats the Patriarchal Agenda as Proper

    Even though there is clear evidence of this effort, powerful influences make women’s rights look like a peripheral issue. Systems of male rule are bound up with religion and treated as proper, inevitable, even moral. In addition, they are sustained by claims to great antiquity. For example, until the eighteenth century, educated classes in Europe and the United States believed that Abraham established the patriarchal order.  Believers were told that Abraham’s descendants carried it forward until it radiated from the temple of Solomon to the rest of the world.

    Confronting These Ideas is a Necessity

    I based my suggestion for self-governing, matrilineal communities on a pre-patriarchal model of society. I am aware that revolutionary change is improbable. However, it is a waste of time to talk about reform without confronting the ideas that have made reform necessary. I will use the matrilineal model to identify the principles that lead to strong families and communities. I will also call into question the dogmas that obscure these principles.

    The Withdrawal Method of Birth Control Was Condemned by Onan and the Patriarchal Agenda

    We haven’t yet had the discussion of Christianity that it deserves. We’ve talked about its Hermeticism and the ‘heretical’ teachings of some sects, like the Dispensationalists. But we were analyzing their influence on current events. Now we’ll talk about the historical effects.

    Misrepresenting the Religion of Israel and Christianity

    In this post I want to expand on another troubling tendency that I have already mentioned, the tendency to disguise unrelated ideas as the religion of Israel. Here, we will discuss the Biblical story of Onan, the son of Judah, in greater detail. Onan married his sister-in-law Tamar, but instead of fathering a child with her, he practiced the withdrawal method of birth control. The Bible says Yahweh killed Onan Onan for spilling his seed on the ground.

    The Quiverfull Movement

    This story is especially relevant today because of the Quiverfull movement. Quiverfull is the vanguard movement of America’s pronatalist agenda. It rejects any form of birth control including the withdrawal method, which they call Onanism.

    Judah and Tamar

    We first meet Onan in the account of Judah and Tamar, in Genesis 38: 1-30. In this story, Judah left the family to go and live in the Canaanite lowlands to the West.This happened immediately after Joseph was sold into slavery.

    At about that time, Judah parted from his brothers and put in with a certain Adullamite named Hirah.

    There Judah met the daughter of a Canaanite named Shua, and he married her and cohabited with her.

    She conceived and bore a son, who was named Er.

    She conceived again and bore a son, whom she named Onan.

    Then she bore still another son, whom she named Shelah; they were at Chezib when she bore him.

    Judah got a wife for his first-born Er, and her name was Tamar.

    but Er, Judah’s first-born displeased Yahweh, and Yahweh took his life.

    Then Judah said to Onan, “Unite with your brother’s widow, fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law, and thus maintain your brother’s line.”

    But Onan, knowing that the seed would not count as his, let it go to waste on the ground every time that he cohabited with his brother’s widow, so as not to contribute offspring for his brother.

    What he did displeased Yahweh, and he took his life too.

    Whereupon Judah said to his daughter-in-law, “Stay as widow in your father’s house until my son Shelah grows up” –for he feared that this one also might die like his brothers. So Tamar went to live in her father’s house.

    A long time afterward, Judah’s wife, the daughter of Shua, died. When the period of sorrow was over, Judah went to Timnah for the shearing of his sheep, in the company of his friend Hirah the Adullamite.

    When Tamar was told, “Your father-in-law is on his way to Timnah for the sheep-shearing,” she took off her widow’s garb, wrapped a veil about her to disguise herself, and sat down at the entrance to Enaim, which is on the way to Timnah; for she saw that, although Shelah was grown up, she had not been given to him in marriage.

    When Judah saw her, he took her for a harlot, since she had covered her face.

    So he turned aside to her by the roadside, and said, “See now, let me lie with you” –not realizing that she was his daughter-in-law. She answered, “What will you pay me for lying with me?”

    He replied, “I will send you a kid from my flock.” but she answered, “you will have to leave a pledge until such time as you send it.”

    He asked, “What pledge shall I leave you?” She answered, “your seal-and-cord, and the staff you carry.” So he gave them to her, and lay with her, and she conceived by him.

    She left soon, took off her veil, and resumed her widow’s garb.

    Judah sent the kid by his friend the Adullamite to redeem the pledge from the woman, but he could not find her.

    He inquired of the men of that place, “Where is the votary, the one by the Enaim road?” They answered, “there has never been here a votary!”

    So he went back to Judah and said to him, “I couldn’t find her. What is more, the townspeople told me, ‘there has never been here a votary.”

    And Judah replied, “Let her keep the things, or we shall become a laughingstock. I did my part in sending her the kid, but you never found her.”

    About three months later, Judah was told, “Your daughter-in-law has played the harlot; moreover, she is with child from harlotry.” “Bring her out,” Judah shouted, “and she shall be burned!”

    As they were taking her out, she sent word to her father-in-law, “It is by the man to whom these things belong that I am with child. Please verify,” she said, “to whom these things belong–the seal-and-cord and the staff!”

    Judah recognized them, and said, “she is more in the right than I, inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Shelah.” Nor was he intimate with her again.

    Bible Writers May Have Inserted Onan’s Patriarchal Agenda

    There are several problems with this story, but the most obvious one would be the portrayal of Levirate marriage. According to Yaffa Eliach, Levirate marriage simply didn’t work that way. The obligation to remarry belonged to the widow. This obligation was taken quite seriously and there were legal ramifications if she breached it.

    The woman was obliged to remarry, but her brother-in-law could release her from her obligation to him. He could do this by giving her a legal document relinquishing his claim. 3

    Yet, in this story we have Tamar mooning over Judah’s ‘seed’. It’s as though she knows it represents a royal line, or these are the last men left on earth.

    What Can the Institution of Levirate Marriage Tell Us?

    It seems to me that if Levirate marriage obligated the widow rather than her brother-in-law there was a different dynamic than what we see in this story. It’s more likely that it was part of the custom of matrilineal inheritance and/or bridewealth.

    The Bible does not provide detailed information about Israelite customs in this matter. But according to Roland de Vaux, among the Israelites, the mohar was a sum paid by the groom to the bride’s family as compensation for the loss of their daughter. The bride’s father could use the profits from this payment, but the principal reverted to her at the time of ‘succession’, or her husband’s death. (This explains why Rachel and Leah complained in Genesis 31:15 that their father, Laban, ‘devoured’ their money after having ‘sold’ them. Apparently he used the principal of the mohar, rather than holding it in trust for his daughters.)

    The Palestinian Arabs, Babylonians, Assyrians, and the Jewish Colony of Elephantine Had a Similar Custom

    The Palestinian Arabs of today have a similar custom, the makr, and part of it goes to the bride’s trousseau. In Babylonian law, the tirhatu was paid to the girl’s father, and was administered by him. It reverted to her if she was widowed, or to her children after her death. In Assyria, the tirhani was given to the girl herself. There was a parallel in the Jewish colony of Elephantine, where the mohat was paid to the girl’s father, but was counted among her possessions.

    In Israel, parents might give their daughter gifts after her wedding, and these were considered her property. In Babylon, the father gave his daughter presents that belonged to her in her own right. But while she was married, her husband had the use of them. They reverted to her if she was widowed or divorced, without fault on her part. Assyrian law has similar provisions. 4

    You could argue that under such a system the groom’s family would have stood to lose their investment in the marriage if their son died prematurely. They would also lose any benefits that accrued from the bride’s property while the marriage lasted. Levirate marriage would protect this investment.

    This would explain why it was the man’s right to release the woman from this obligation and not the other way around. It also makes nonsense of Onan’s stated motive. He should have given Tamar a letter releasing her from her obligation.

    Onan’s Supposed Motivation is All Wrong

    Of course, the story doesn’t attribute monetary concerns to Onan. It says he was reluctant to ‘raise seed to his brother.’ In my opinion, this presents its own difficulties. It seems to me that It implies either non-Hebrew religious beliefs or a non-Hebrew political organization. The following is my own speculation.

    The belief that one could raise seed to a deceased brother is consistent with the belief in a fully functional afterlife. Unfortunately, the Hebrews didn’t have such a belief at that time.

    But perhaps Onan’s reluctance had a more worldly aspiration–he wanted to be the father of a dynasty. If that’s the case, he would have resented the fact that the royal line would be attributed to his brother. Again, the Hebrews didn’t have kings in this period, not to mention dynastic succession.

    Perhaps We’re Looking at a Matrilineal System in Disguise

    On the contrary, the modes of inheritance mentioned above indicate a matrilineal system, although it takes a rare scholar to admit this. It is customary to call such an inheritance a gift, but property belonged to the woman in her own right.

    It also follows that any ‘seed’ would have belonged to Tamar’s line, regardless of who the father was. Tamar’s seed would only belong to her husband’s line if  bridewealth was paid to her father’s family.

    Did the Bible’s ‘J’ Author Use This Story to Trace a Lineage for King David?

    According to the Anchor Bible, this episode was written by the Bible’s ‘J’ author, who wanted to trace the lineage of King David from the tribe of Judah. Unfortunately, the Judah of this story doesn’t match Judah, the brother of Joseph. This Judah stays in Canaan long enough for his three sons to reach manhood, but when the story of Joseph resumes there has been no corresponding passage of time and Judah is still living with Jacob’s family. 5

    Conclusion

    I conclude that the story of Onan is suspect. Perhaps it was never anything more than pro-patriarchy, pronatalist propaganda. After all, that is how it is used today. This isn’t the first time we have seen a ruling class agenda in the Bible and, as usual, it hinges on the subjection of women–especially of their reproductive potential.

    Compare Moor’s Hindu Pantheon

    Recently, I found corroboration in Moor’s Hindu Pantheon for my theory that the story of Onan is an Indo-European idea.

    “To the four deities of purification, Maruta, Indra, Vrihaspati, and Agni, goes all the divine light, which the Veda had imparted, from the student who commits the foul sin avacirna.”–Ib. v. 122.

    According to this source, avacirna is a term for anyone who commits the sin of Onanism. The offender must follow specific instructions to expiate this sin.

    “…sacrifice a black or a one-eyed ass, by way of a meat offering to Nirriti, patroness of the south-west, by night, in a place where four ways meet….Let him daily offer to her in fire the fat of that ass; and, at the close of the ceremony let him offer clarified butter, with the holy text Sem, and so forth, to Pavana, to Indra, to Vrihaspati, and to Agni, regent of wind, clouds, a planet, and fire.”–Ins. of Menu, Chap. XI. verses 119, 120.

    The imposition of patriarchy on the world is still blamed on Israel. This is not surprising considering the effort that has gone into making it appear that way. The biblical story of Onan is not evidence for a patriarchal system in Israel. It is only evidence that the ruling class has no shame.

  • In the [intlink id=”985″ type=”post”]last post[/intlink] I said that the creation of self-governing communities should be one of the first steps toward the reorganization of society and I used the matrilineal clan as a model. I’ll defend this recommendation in the next few posts, but for now I’ll just say that while we may never return to that way of life it is a useful ideal, and can reveal important principles for political organization. I’ve also argued that the patriarchal family is not a solid foundation for the kind of social organization I have in mind. We hear over and over how important the family is to modern society but recently, when 38% of Wisconsin’s union families voted to retain the union busting governor Scott Walker, they demonstrated that whatever the patriarchal family’s function might be, it is foreign to the principles of true community.

    The Sources of Division

    The election of Scott Walker was a disaster for the public image of organized labor, not only because of the effects of antiunion legislation, but because his legislative attacks were accompanied by antiunion propaganda–in other words, divisive tactics. Repression combined with propaganda has always worked to delegitimize unions in the eyes of the public. Critics say union leaders lost momentum by channeling the protests into the electoral process, ((Gordon Lafer, Doug Henwood, Jane McAlevey, Bill Fletcher, Adolph L. Reed Jr., Mike Elk. Opinion Nation: Labor’s Bad Recall. The Nation. Cited July 3, 2012. Available: http://www.thenation.com/blog/168435/opinionnation-labors-bad-recall)) and they may have a point, but union strategy in the United States has always been a delicate proposition. The forces that divide have been especially active among the unions. Chief among those forces are the nation’s churches, defenders of the patriarchal family.

    Since Wisconsin’s recall election, union leaders have been talking about the need for community outreach. This deserves more discussion, but in the business of community building, unions face stiff competition. Churches have already perfected the art of providing a family-like environment for their members. Unfortunately, many ministers see nothing wrong with dividing families and communities to achieve political goals. There is no parallel among advanced nations for the level of church meddling in American politics.

         Religion

    The 1890s were a crucial time for American unions. According to Robin Archer, the second Great Awakening had led to impressive growth in evangelical Protestant churches and for the duration of the nineteenth century, they boasted the largest number of members. During this period, the largest denominations were the Methodists and the Baptists–both of them heavily influenced by evangelicalism. Most Protestant clerics and revivalists were hostile to the labor movement, and in each period of industrial unrest they denounced unions. Some of them even suggested the use of “bullets and bayonets” and “Gatling guns.” As sinister as this sounds, the explanation for these attitudes is more disgraceful.

    In most Protestant churches, the clergy depended on lay members for their initial appointment, their personal income, support for their projects, and even their continued employment. This was especially true of revival leaders. Leaders like the Chicago-based Dwight L. Moody, offered to help protect the interests of wealthy businessmen in return for the financial backing necessary to organize big city crusades. (Previously, we have seen that the [intlink id=”689″ type=”post”]Moody Bible Institute[/intlink] in Texas is a supporter of Christian Zionism.)

         Religion in Politics

    Evangelicals have always collaborated to force the government to legislate morality, leading in the 1850s to a realignment of the party system and the establishment of the Republican party. In response, the Democratic party was formed of those who didn’t believe governments should establish cultural norms. While the evangelicals emphasized personal conversion experiences and moral activism, the Democrats belonged to churches that emphasize formal rituals and traditional authority. Religion amplified conflicts and caused each party to became a sort of political church.

         State Repressison

    And then we come to the phenomenon of physical repression. While the ministers merely threatened violence, the armed forces acted on the threats. After the 1877 railroad strike, business leaders called for the return of state militias to help control discontented workers, and they personally funded many of the units. Today those militias are known as the National Guard. Some states outlawed the use of armed forces on civilians, and in response, the industrialists simply created their own private armies. They also made use of public and private police. It was not unusual for American armed forces to fire on strikers, and such severe repression naturally came with higher levels of propaganda to justify the government’s actions.

         Conflicts among union leaders

    As if these sources of division are not enough, there are also conflicts among union leaders, especially those on the left. In the early 1890s the American debate took place between union leaders and the socialists, and was based on two interpretations of Marx’s writings. In the rules that Marx drafted for the IWA, he stated, “that the economical emancipation of the working classes is therefore the great end to which every political movement ought to be subordinated as a means.”

    One group believed this meant that the establishment of economic organizations of workers ought to be the focus of activity and that political action would have to wait until a sufficient level of class organization and class consciousness had been achieved. The other group interpreted it to mean that the establishment of a working-class political party was the essential prerequisite for economic emancipation. [ref]Archer, Robin. Why Is There No Labor Party in the United States? Princeton University Press. Princeton and Oxford. 2007[/ref]

    Left Factions in Europe and the United States Compared

    Because of differences in the political and economic environment, Europe and the United States took different paths. However, conflicts among union leadership persist in both countries. For example, Shalom Lappin defends the European Social Democrats, and their emphasis on “strong unions, market regulation, and the development of a comprehensive welfare state through mainstream democratic processes.” He argues that this strategy was successful in western Europe, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand from 1945-1975, and partially successful in America in the same period; and that the current decline of western social democracy is merely a result of globalization.

    In Europe, according to Lappin, the radical and liberal left have allied themselves with anti-western, militant and political Islamic movements. This tendency began during the cold war and involved the rejection of working class politics for the politics of culture and identity. This faction now operates within antiwar and antiglobalization movements, with the Islamic jihadists claiming to represent the third world poor.

    In the 1960s, the radical left in the United States came to be identified by opposition to Vietnam. Lappin argues that by “dabbling” in the counterculture the radicals managed to alienate the conservative working class and allowed the right to invent a counter movement that has dominated American politics for the last thirty years. One of the tools of the right is the myth of a liberal elite who controls the media and holds the reigns of power. This myth has allowed conservatives to pose as the populist opposition to the liberal power structure. The result is that American voters consistently vote against their own class interests by supporting conservative Republican politicians.[ref]Lappin, Shalom. How Class Disappeared From Western Politics. Dissent Magazine. Winter 2006. Cited July 7, 2012. Available: http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/how-class-disappeared-from-western-politics[/ref]

    A little History

    In Gerald Friedman’s history of labor unions in the United States, he writes that in the American labor movement, one of the most divisive events was the 1949 expulsion of all Communist-led unions from the CIO. This meant the loss of the organization’s most energetic and imaginative leaders. Those who remained were left with no choice but to accept a place in the capitalist hierarchy, and in 1955 they merged with the AFL.

    In the periods when conservatives are voted into power, state support for unions has been withdrawn and American unions have had no leverage over capitalist forces. In Europe, governments have generally supported the labor movement. For example, they require nonunion employers to match union concessions. In the United States, union employers are the only ones affected by labor negotiations, making it hard for them to compete with nonunion rivals. This has caused American firms to prefer a nonunion workforce, and sometimes to move to nonunion locations.

       Control of women as a motive, again

    Private union membership in the United States began to decline after World War II, and since the 1990s, unions have had little effect on wages or working conditions for American workers. For this reason, it seems curious that Walker and others are so obsessed with them. However, one reason for this obsession may be that even though private unions have shrunk, the United States has seen the growth of female unionization. In contrast to the largely male unions in Europe, female membership in public sector unions have ‘feminized’ the American labor movement. ((Friedman, Gerald. Labor Unions in the United States EH.net. February 1, 2010. Cited July 7, 2012. Avaliable: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/labor-unions-in-the-united-states/))  When Walker first launched his attacks, several articles called attention to the possibility that he was motivated by gender and race. This seems more likely in light of the war on reproductive rights.  

    But if Walker intended to divide one union from another by not going after the largely male unions like the police, he was disappointed. Those unions demonstrated solidarity with those under attack.  This brings us back to the importance of community.

    Collective action is always difficult because it requires that individuals commit themselves to the group effort. In the case of the unions, “individualist logic” leads workers to opt out of membership, creating a free-rider problem. This means that if subsequent union efforts win concessions for workers, the nonmembers will benefit equally with members. On the other hand, if collective action fails, only the activists will suffer. That is what divisiveness looks like at the community level. In Wisconsin, it has led to political defeat.

    “In capitalist labor markets, which developed in the nineteenth century in the United States and Western Europe, workers exchange their time and effort for wages. But even while laboring under the supervision of others, wage earners have never been slaves, because they have recourse from abuse. They can quit to seek better employment. Or they are free to join with others to take collective action, forming political movements or labor unions.”((Friedman, Gerald. Labor Unions in the United States. EH.net. February 1, 2010.))

    Unfortunately, the effects of dismantling this system can be shared by everyone.

error: Content is protected !!