I came across the fact that today is Teddy Roosevelt's 150th birthday. Since John McCain has called himself a Republican in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt, I thought I ought to take a quick look at the man. All I remembered from school was, "Speak softly and carry a big stick" and the Rough Riders in Cuba during the Spanish-American War.
TR considered himself a progressive, and this aspect of the man is probably part of what McCain likes about him. It is no doubt one of the reasons swing voters and independents have liked McCain in the past, although the necessity to hold the extremities of the Republican base have made it very difficult for McCain to succeed over all. He can't get elected without the silent majority of moderates in America. But he can't get elected as a Republican without the vocal minority of "death before compromise" extremities.
Some ways in which McCain is apparently not like Roosevelt are Roosevelt's approach to big business and national health care. Roosevelt lived during the last period when business had been allowed to run its own course without significant government regulation...
... And here we should be clear. I get really irritated with those who are decrying the greed of Wall Street right now. The very nature of the capitalist system is built on the principle that people will advance their own self-interest as much as they can. The entire capitalist system is built on the pursuit of one's self-interest, and greed is just another way of saying that. The theory is that if everyone pursues their own self-interest, our self-interests will cancel each other out leaving us with a compromise that maximizes everyone's "take."
The reason why I support capitalism in general is not because it is based on Christian values or Christian attitudes. I support it because it takes into account Christian beliefs like the fallenness of humanity, as well as what I believe is a healthly drive to "be fruitful and multiply." Of course the greater Christian value is to look out for the interests of others and not only for our own (Phil. 2:4). It is for this reason, as Drury has blogged this week, Ayn Rand would consider Christian ethics immoral.
History shows, of course, that in practice there has to be a referee watching to make sure that the system works. In Roosevelt's day, there was no possibility of my self-interest coming up in any way against the self-interests of a Rockefeller. Thus Roosevelt introduced the "Square Deal." He passed legislation against monopolies, where the rules of competing self-interest are eliminated.
TR worked to get the Pure Food and Drug Act passed and founded the Interstate Commerce Commission. These government organizations made sure that the self-interests of the public were fairly represented against the all powerful self-interests of big business. Alan Greenspan's admission of lack of foresight last week amounts to an endorsement of John Stuart Mill's 1800's critique of Adam Smith and Jeremy Bentham--you can't count on people always doing what is truly in their long term self-interest. "Self-interest" is a many splendored thing, and should be understood to cover everything from what is rationally in my self-interest to greed.
In short, the complete deregulation of business is not only contrary to Christian values--that's a no brainer. It is economically stupid as well from the standpoint of what Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, and John Stuart Mill were trying to accomplish with capitalism.
Roosevelt was a "conservationist" in the terms of his day. His "big stick" policy, ironically, had a lot to do with being willing to negotiate with those your stick threatens. The biggest blight on his presidency would seem to be his racist attitude toward Native Americans. We can see this now in retrospect far better than they could have seen it back then.
So happy birthday to one of the top ten presidents of US history, and the fourth face on Mt. Rushmore.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I recognize the inconsistency with decrying the greed on Wall Street without recognizing the rule of self-interest in a capitalistic system. I for one recognize this fact, but I also decry the greed that is taking place on Wall Street. So, to be consistent I guess I also decry capitalism in a certain way. :)
I don't see how the bare fact that human beings WILL act on their own self-interest translates that they SHOULD act on their own self-interest, especially given the fact that human beings live in community with one another. The principle of capitalism focuses on the autonomy of the human individual, but where I think capitalism is flawed is in its failure to locate the particular individual in the context of other human individuals in a community.
The theory behind capitalism may be that our "own self-interests" will cancel each other out, but is that what really happens? I don't think so. Why? Because such an understanding assumes that each individual's self-interest has equal weight and that each individual has equal opportunity to promote their own self-interest. I say that human beings have equal freedom in an ontological sense, but I would hold that given the nature of our system we do not have equal freedom in a functional sense.
We like to think that freedom and equality go hand in hand with one another, but they are really opposed to one another. If I endow individuals within a community with the same freedoms, I empower the individuals of the community. However, if the individuals of the community have different self-interests from different "starting points" I essentially give power to those that already have some power. Anytime you empower people, you run the risk of those people enforcing their own power on other individuals, especially if some of those people already have the deck stacked against them. Therefore my granting of equal freedom doesn't change much, because the individuals of my community aren't starting from equal points. In our current system, we may "in theory" grant everyone the freedom to pull themselves up from their bootstraps, but we too often take for granted the fact that some people don't have any boots in the first place!On the other hand, how might I guarantee equality? By balancing out my community and by limiting freedom; therefore "in theory" denying people of the opporunity to enforce their power on ohters. Essentially this amounts to giving everyone the same pair of boots and then limiting how and when they can use them.
However, we have also seen in history where the second option has failed miserably, because it takes for granted the fact that people are motivated by self-interest.
So what is the anwer then? What is a perfect balance between the two? I have no idea. I hate to be the one that only points out problems and never provides any answers, but that's what philosophers are for right?
He also started the National Parks system, right? (sorry google, i'm lazy).
When Republicans talk so much about freedom and anti-regulation, I'd wish they'd go the whole way and become Libertarians (Gal. 5:12 ;) Freedom for women to chose abortions, freedom for other countries to democratically elect their leaders or pump oil at the rate they desire, freedom for their rich risk-taking supporters to fail hard, etc.
Freedom to commit murder, freedom to steal, freedom to extort, freedom to (your immorality here), etc. ...
I mean we wouldn't want to legislate morality, why stop at abortion.
Post a Comment