Democracy And Free Markets: Is That All?

Well-Being of Citizens

Douglass Carmichael I have been watching this lively conversation with pleasure. The tight fabric of education, issues, and representation seems to me to be a good frame or core for how we want to approach the dilemma of democracy and markets in the beginning of the 21st century.

Together they form a kind of midlevel system that has real integrity to it. While mulling the larger questions I will make a few comments on what has been said so far. Johns said "does it take a lot of education to know or is it enough to know what is important to me as an individual and a vote that way?"

This to me is a core question. It goes to the ideology that each person has an information processor in a sea of comprehensible data. It also assumes that the individual and acting alone is sufficient for the political process. This gives me an opportunity to give an example of something that I mean by education.

Garry Wills wrote an amazing book 24 years ago called inventing America, and it is a detailed analysis of the background to the declaration of independence. We have seen a shift since Jefferson’s time in the meaning of the word happiness. Gary wants to give us the background and deep in our understanding.

"The important thing to notice about Jefferson’s use of Wilson is that he makes happiness a hard political test of any reign’s very legitimacy, not a vague yearning of the individual. …." A character named Wilson was building on the writings of Adam Smith and Frances Ferguson. Ferguson says

"If, in reality, courage and a heart devoted to the good of mankind are the constituents of human felicity, the kindness which is done infers a happiness in the person from whom it proceeds, not in him on whom it is bestowed; and the greatest good which men possessed of fortitude and generosity can procure to their fellow creatures is a participation of this happy character. If this be the good of the individual, it is likewise that of mankind; and virtue no longer imposes a task by which we are obliged to bestow upon others that good from which we ourselves refrain; but supposes, in the highest degree, as possessed by ourselves, that state of felicity which we are required to promote in the world (Civil Sodefy, 99-100). "

And

"The right to sovereignty is that of commanding finally—but in ler to procure real felicity; for if this is not obtained, sovereignty ceases to be a legitimate authority, 2 Burl., 32, 33."

And

Quoting Gary, "We found, in Part Two of this book, that public happiness was a secular and scientific term for men of the Enlightenment, a "heretical" displacement of man’s hopes from the hereafter to those immediate gratifications that can stimulate Lockean man to action. Jefferson found the perfect framework for making that scientific tool a political norm \s when he studied and adopted the moral-sense philosophy. His use of the "pursuit of happiness" as the natural right to rank with life and liberty is not a vague or "idealistic" or ill-defined action, but one consistent with everything else he wrote in the Declaration and outside it. Only when we realize this can we bridge the great disjunction that has haunted all Jeffersonian studies of recent years. It has been granted, rather casually, that Jefferson accepted the moral-sense theory of private actions. But then, when men moved to the public scale of political action, it was assumed even more aggressively that he was a Lockean individualist, basing the social contract on property rights. If the latter were true, he could not be called a moral-sense philosopher in any serious way. But we have seen that it is not true. His social thought was as firmly grounded in the moral sense as was Hutcheson’s own."

The point is, we have a lot to learn about language and the way was used by the people who created our political traditions. By not knowing how the tectonic plates of political language have shifted it is very hard to know where we are, what might happen, and how we might choose a path that actually improves things.

My own feeling is that once one gets an end to the individualist logic we condemn people to be Adams in the seat of the market and information and not sources of sovereignty and compassion.

This is related to the question of education. At the time of the constitution normal newspapers were comfortable quoting in Latin, most families read from the Bible and literacy was highly prized and highly developed. Comparative studies of school textbooks from the eighteen hundreds and the twentieth century show conclusively that the demands normal students were much higher then than now.

We do not know enough about the conditions that lead to people having developed minds. It clearly says that our trinity of education, issues and representation require be embedded in the larger issues of culture. That probably also means the realities of power, technology, and money under the conditions of what a society is organized for. Is it life liberty and the pursuit of happiness (remember the quotes about happiness) or is it the pursuit of national defense and a national outreach, where the "nation" is defined by its economic well being?

The idea that we "no where the candidates stand on the issues", seems to me was finished with the impact, symbolized by Dick Morris, of focus group politics. The logic is simple the candidates moves from either left or right across the center into the issues on the other side that will gain some votes and lose the fewest. With all candidates doing this and they will move towards the same center and the result is all elections have to end up in the 50% range. Having been working somewhat behind the scenes with a group of democrats thinking about how to improve the party’s chances, and more lately with one of the candidates, "where the candidate stands" is completely buried in the process of figuring out what has a chance of winning. It is an obvious that one way out of this would be if the local media would actually look at what their candidates are likely to do given the critical issues. It is also obvious that the media will not do that. Critical issues would be airline the local business climate and local real estate interests and the policies of banks and now newspaper could survive –unless somehow the demand came from a broad base within the communities.

If randomly drawn citizen’s panels, financed by philanthropy, reported their conversations on critical issues the local media probably would carry those.

One part of this that is very mysterious to me is the question, are there solutions? Are there really even issues? For something to be an issue and has to have been the result of the process. But the current process that defines our issues is already so self-serving that I despair about solutions at this level, even though I think all experimentation is worthwhile. And the Don, I hope you report on your meeting with America Speaks.

The quotes above that moved Jefferson were part of a culture where the common good and happiness were accepted as legitimate hands of governance, and governance without those aims would not be legitimate. How far we have shifted to an individualist logic where I can know what’s good for me without considering that I am also affected by the good of the whole!

But then we need to consider the complexities of numbers, the instabilities of our actual cultures, and the extension of the cold war mentality into the current multiethnic multicultural multinational environment where the " super- empowered individual" can crystallize group motives and, acting alone, moved dangerously and destructively across all boundaries.

Progress does require education and I hope I am making a substantial case for people like us to raise our own personal standards and feel deeply that we must go read widely and deeply. I once said "there is nothing so remote that it is not immediately useful."

So, are we sufficiently educated to uphold our own interest, and recognize that the well-being of others is part of our own well-being?

(Participant) Well-being. How do we define well-being or happiness today? Is Doug’s view of the world correct that our society is being dominated by monopolistic forces which are potentially leading us toward fascism or is Harlan’s "Nobody In Charge" more optimistic outlook based on individual empowerment?

Is well-being measured by economic and military might? If we then look deeper and wider, is economic success measured by relative income or absolute and military might by our ability to defeat a lesser opponent that poses a dubious threat in less than 100 days or by how safe we actually are or feel that we are?

Dick has often sited our divorce rate, crime statistics, number of persons imprisoned, lack of health care and other issues as indicators of a lack of well-being. But one could also argue that our divorce rate is a function of society’s more liberal attitude regarding divorce and that having the freedom to exit a bad marriage or what some might argue to not have to pursue an unnatural lifestyle of being committed for life to one person (in case my wife reads this, I don’t feel this way) is an improvement. Our crime statistics and prison population are as much a function of our society’s attitude about what constitutes criminal activity and effective punishment. If Dick were king he would decriminalize drugs. As a result crime would drop dramatically only because our definition of crime has changed. As we have discussed before with health care, do we judge the system based on how many people have health care or how many don’t, by the cost or the quality? Also, of the 40 million not covered do we include those who have coverage available but for cultural and other reasons choose not to take advantage of it? Your answer determines our well-being.

It all depends on one’s perspective which is a function of our place in the world, our prejudices and beliefs.

Doug might measure well-being by the pursuit of a more Renaissance lifestyle and living closer to nature. But the Japanese might have more admiration for the individual with Zen like focus in the pursuit of one thing whether that is flower arranging or Judo, in any case not what we would consider a well-balanced life.

Our founding fathers in separating church and state did so because they believed religion to be so important and from experience needed to be protected from the state (see Farewell to Christendom by Thomas Curry). Their ideas of freedom and happiness were based on their culture of white protestant males. Within 100 years due to a large influx of Catholic immigrants, the Constitution was being interpreted with regard to church and state to protect the state from the Church.

I have concerns about the economy primarily based on excessive debt at all levels (personal, corporate, and government) encouraged by the Fed, tax policy, and individual shortsightedness. I think the potential consequences could lead to significant change. Whether this change is good or bad will again depend on your perspective. I do not think our economic problems are part of a trend that indicates a decline of our civilization as much as cyclical.

When it is difficult to identify a problem much less a solution particularly when they both depend on one’s perspective perhaps flexibility is the key.

Does our current system of governance offer us the same amount of choice that our economic system provides? Of course some of you might argue that our economic system doesn’t provide much choice either. But I certainly have far more choice over how I will earn a living and what I will buy then I have for who I might vote for. I think our system; both political and economic work because from my perspective the glass is half-full but I think it could work better. I think the solution is to constantly make changes that maximize choice. In the economy that means regulate businesses to prevent unhealthy concentration (emphasis on unhealthy only) and provide incentives for innovation. For the government that means eliminate those structures that discourage more participation by potential candidates, encourage voting. For both the economy and government, solutions should incorporate a global perspective and regional rather than either or. I want maximum flexibility because I would rather rely on my own personal definition of well-being then rely on societies particularly if the two are in opposition. I also don't want to impose my beliefs on others any more than I think the state should on religion and religion should on the state. In our world of molt-cultural, ethnic, religious, and inter-cultural, ethnic, religious I prefer nobody in charge.

(Participant) John: from my personal viewpoint, I agree with most of what you say you are for in 26/37. But I have had a most fortunate life, due a little bit to my abilities and a whole lot to the family into which I was born and to colossal luck in choosing a wife 63 years ago mainly for her looks and fun to be with (I LEFT OUT THE FOLLOWING WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT: and whose human values, intelligence, and good judgment never stopped growing). If that isn't a package of luck, I don't know what might be.

BUT I don't believe that there is even close to a majority of citizens who have had it "so good". My nature is that of a pessimist, but my good fortune pushes me into understanding your optimism! :)

(Participant) Doug: Carolyn Lukensmyer was brilliant in describing her vision of ordinary citizens, aided by good facilitation that stresses understanding a problem before jumping to conclusions, and with the presentation of different preferences that are designed for this purpose rather than simply seeking a "yes" answer, is the best hope for an improved democracy.

But I won't try to explain her presentation in more detail. I only wish that there were some way to provide most ILFers with an experience in perceiving this process first hand.

(Participant) Don, my point is that it may be too difficult to decide. I am sure that my optimism is a function of my perspective and nature. I too have had a fortunate life, although growing up in a blue collar family and living in a single-wide trailer might lead some to question my judgment. Of course that again will be from their perspective. I often tell people that my reality exceeds my fantasy, which is an indication of how fortunate I feel or perhaps how low my expectations are.

Much of my luck, I attribute to the fact that I was born in a county were I could pursue my interests and develop my abilities. What may be more important is that I think I won the lottery when it came to parents. The result of all of this is that now I find myself on the other side of the tracks. But guess what; even though my reality exceeds my fantasy I am no happier than I was living in the single-wide, which perhaps gives me a somewhat odd perspective on the value of money. The problem now is: could I still be as happy if someone takes my money away now that I have it? I don’t think I want to find out.

But my main point was that society has become so diverse that even finding a definition of well-being is difficult and that rather than try, we should work on making our society as flexible as possible to accommodate our common interests and individual differences. Without choice though it is hard to determine what our true common interests are or if they are being adequately represented.

Douglass Carmichael Don and John, if you each were to add one theme to what you are writing, crossing the line into a broader domain, what would it be?

(Participant) John: I again agree that the issues we are discussing here are hugely difficult, but I disagree (and expect you might also disagree with this perception of the "it" in your opening sentence in 14:36) that they are "too difficult". Most of the choices in government, from declaring war to cutting taxes, simply can't be ignored no matter how difficult. Those in power must decide -- by definition of the duties that follow their election, they have no other option!

I also wonder of you would feel less negative about citizen participation in decision making IF their general lack of understanding of the issues and their (our) adversarial habits in debate, can be mitigated by good education and facilitation.

To answer the above question requires some confidence in the new procedures that are now on the drawing boards. I wouldn't presume to argue with you yea or nay on this because these procedures are still in their early stages.

But I would presume to suggest that (AGAIN IF) they can both educate citizens on the issues AND do so in a collaborative environment, they should be tried.

ALL BIG IF'S. AND UNDERSTANDABLY NOT TO BE TRIED UNLESS ONE FEELS THE WEAKNESSES OF CURRENT US DEMOCRACY NEEDS SOME SERIOUS SURGERY.

I guess my last sentence above suggests that whether or not there is such a need is an important discussion-in-depth about this question.

Only after such a discussion, AND ONLY IF there was a general consensus that there is a need for such surgery, would a subsequent discussion be profitable on what this surgery might be.

Douglass Carmichael Don, how did you get from diagnosis to SURGERY? What about exercise, diet, take a trip to third world countries, see a psychoanalyst?

Hey, I'd love to know what you all made of Garry Wills on Happiness...

(Participant) Don, the "it" is in reference to clearly establishing what is happiness or well-being because in our multi-cultural, ethnic, religious and inter-cultural, ethnic, religious society as opposed to when the constitution was drafted there may not be one answer. I am not suggesting that we ignore problems but that we provide greater flexibility to better represent all these different viewpoints and requirements. By greater flexibility I mean in part more choice, more potential candidates, more participation by voters, better education and better information (truth in advertising). Flexibility means a more dynamic democracy that optimizes global and regional governance. As Dick has often said, there are some things that government is better at and other things that business is better at. To take it a little further, there are some things that state and local government do better than federal. Unlike business, which every so often has to reinvent itself to better function in today’s circumstances or perish, our government rarely goes through a similar housekeeping because short of revolution there is more risk of being put out of business by rocking the boat. We should refurbish and reinvigorate our democracy. The question is how and I don’t mean if I was king for a day but what can we realistically suggest? I have some suggestions that I will get to tomorrow.

(Participant) John: I look forward to your suggestions.

Douglass Carmichael I look forward to John's suggestions.

Wills shows how the idea of happiness was a metric in the Scottish Enlightenment (Hume, Adam Smith and others). Folling from hap an occurrence, happiness was the number and variety of occurrences in a life, the number of roles played, because these were a measure of getting our talent into the world. To be contrasted with the book "Bowling Alone", which looks at the decline of "haps" in the contemporary US. Happiness is thus not fuzzy, and depends on the presence of a commons, local government, voluntary associations, and some leisure. All these are related to government policy. And, as Wills says, the felicity of the population is the chief basis for legitimacy of a government. Replacing that with "standard of living" is a slight of hand that is self serving.

Note. Democracy = conversation among relative equals, and market, the struggle for supremacy and difference, are in tension with each other. Can I be a good democrat (lower case) and rich? Can I be a good citizen and poor?

Much of the effort of the last few hundred years has been to align democracy with markets. The danger is one dollar one vote, and monopoly.

Bush can get up and say he rebuilt Iraq, and for the most part people accept it. The decline in accountability from say Johnson or Clinton to Bush is extraordinary. Why? The majority of the population supports being tough, damn the logic. Because the country experiences itself as wounded, and in trouble. I saw an article last week that total tech sales overseas are down 25% from a year ago.

Neither the democracy nor the market are doing so well. But the wealth of the top 1% and worse, the top .01% has increased even as the market has declined. That means the rest must have done worse. This is true.

Previous Page          Next Page

top