Liberally construed

Mechanics

Garry Wills' story is about the influence of the Scottish Enlightment on Thomas Jefferson, hence the American Declaration of Independence. Particularly, he believes Jefferson and other Founding Fathers were enthralled by the Enlightenment, Newtonian Mechanics, and machinery introduced at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Mechanical thinking was rampant in Europe and America during the birth of the United States in the late Eighteenth Century. The Founding Fathers were fascinated by the new age of technology just opening to them, in the same way present-day Americans are glued to their computers and the global Empire now made possible.
 

It's ironic that the economic philosophers of the Enlightenment, even the revolutionaries, generated ideas which ultimately supported the old economic, social and political elites - the Ancien Regime. It's also ironic that the 18^th Century ruling classes didn't recognize their true supporters, so tried to suppress those new ideas. Their 19^th century descendants accepted and used some of the ideas, but now they look comical: big bellies under waxed mustachios, duck walking in military uniforms flapping multi-colored ribbons, weighed down with medals and a long sword. (All satirized as Boris, Natasha, Dudley DoRite et al in Rocky and Bullwinkle.) Of course, all those old stuffed shirts and their useless swords were eventually displaced, overthrown or liquidated.
 

The modern "computer revolution," re-labelled "Information Technology" (IT), is the core of our Information Age. Because IT created huge fortunes, it enabled a rebrith of old-fashioned 19^th century liberalism, advocated by Libertarians, ultra-capitalists and market fundamentalists. Each of those labels and groups represents a slightly different version of neo-classical "economics," which is a re-interpreted form of Adam Smith's original "political economics." All of those economic views find their natural political expression in one variety or another of conservatism, or neo-conservatism. That, surprisingly, is one legacy of the Enlightenment, now represented in the Bandit Administration. (This shows just how hard it really is to change anything.) Conservatism is having its last hurrah, while the new realities of the Information Age and Global Civilization undermine the old capitalism and nation-states.
 

The parts of philosophical systems usually fit together, whether by the design of their authors or by "internal logic." The pieces are collected and put together where they will go, as in a jigsaw puzzle. If an author mistakenly assigns a piece here instead of there, that piece will eventually "drift" to its true location. That drifting happens because the design of the system (puzzle) excludes some things and includes others. If, for example, we insist on only using triangles as the basic architectural element, we can nonetheless arrange for the inclusion of rectangles and other figures by an appropriate combination of triangular sides to make borders. If a pentagonal piece doesn't fit where it is dropped, it can be moved about randomly until it finds a home. Puzzles and philosophical systems have their own "internal logic" as they develop, sometimes despite the intentions of the designers. (This model - theory!? - of philosophical systems is similar to the biochemical "lock and key" model of enzymes.)
 

The authors of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution - collectively, "the Founding Fathers" - were not only authors, but also pieces of a larger system. That larger system, according to Wills, was the Scottish Enlightenment, which included David Hume and Adam Smith. True or not, those late 18^th century people were impressed by machines and Newtonian mechanics. In writing the founding documents, the Founding Fathers hoped to set up a mechanism - a clockwork - which, once wound, would tick on unaided as long as possible, maybe forever. This same sort of thinking was at the root of Smith's economic philosophy and Bentham's Utilitarianism, which later allowed Ricardo and the neo-classical economists to use Newton's Calculus in developing mathematical economics (the economy as machine). Again, the model of it all was a clockwork, a machine that worked according to Newton's Laws. That model eventually forced its pieces into place, including Capitalism and the modern system of political representation. Ideas have implications; ideas applied determine results (which is the horror of Stanley Kubrik's A Clockwork Orange).
 

Conventions

The label, "liberal," is confusing, unlike its conservative counterpart. For the most part, American conservatives are adherents of the Republican party and easily recognize each other. Their English relatives are Tories, which is what American conservatives used to call themselves before the American Revolution. (Names change, interests and intentions don't. The Tories supported the King before, during and ever since the Revolution.) While conservatives are constant in their outlook, liberals are constantly at war with each other, seldom giving credence to any sect but one's own. (I don't know why that is so, but suspect it has something to do with the rebellious nature and intellectual inclinations of liberals. But which came first?) This gives conservatives a tremendous advantage, as they can label opponents "liberal" without ever having to define the term. Even without definition, conservatives have succeeded in their propaganda efforts, making "liberal" a detested condition or despised for whatever else it may be. Conservatives pin the "liberal" label (and all its concocted freight) on Democrats, even though most Democrats are not liberals - at least not the way I understand the term. In fact, large numbers of Establishment Democrats (i.e., Democrats elected or appointed to office) openly deny the label, and eschew modern liberalism (as defined by the New Deal and its successors). It is a commonplace that Democratic nominees run away from the very liberals who helped their primary election efforts right after Labor Day. Nonetheless, enough Democrats accept the conservative invented and approved "liberal" label to make it a synonym for "Democrat" in the public mind.

Those who are "liberal" no longer control how they are perceived by the public on account of conservative propaganda. This is a serious deficiency, as one is left at a loss for words in political battles waged with sound bite bullets. So, those Democrats uncomfortable with the "liberal" label have adopted another word for themselves: "progressive." One reason for this escape valve is the correct perception that conservatives have co-opted the liberal label. Another reason for the label is the desire to co-opt the true Left and keep it aligned with the Democrat party. The "progressive" label hopes to side step the liberal issue, re-capture the elan of the New Deal, and leave conservatives with an empty bag. Thus, Dr Dean and other prominent Democrats have become progressives to distinguish themselves from those nasty "liberuls" and the conservatives in their own party (such as Clinton camp-followers and the Democratic Leadership Council). While this has consolidated the power of Democratic party activists and energized their allies, it has failed to bring in the Greens and others on the Left (such as myself).

Words seem important enough to me to repeat my self-labelling: democratic socialist. I think I am in the tradition of the Wobblies and Norman Thomas. I view the New Deal as an essential first step toward a good and just society, although I am not a Democrat. I am sympathetic to the Greens, on account of my environmental ideas, but I am not a registered Green because I cannot accept some of their important positions. I haven't found a currently active American political party which adequately represents my views, although the old Socialist party was close. I think Bernie Sanders, Barbara Lee and, even, Barbara Boxer come close a lot of the time.

In making this distinction about labelling, I am suggesting that there is a difference beyond words between so-called liberals and myself. I have not been a participant in the neo-classical economic revival, nor have I ever approved of Libertarianism, market fundamentalism or ultra-capitalism. Those differences are exposed in considering the foundations of the United States, and the meaning of its important documents.
 

Bound
 

The most fundamental building block in any social structure is "who decides." That this is a bottom level component should be evident. After all, whoever or whatever decides makes everything else whatever it is, excepting those things which just happen to be what they are. Even things which "fall into place" are usually the result of earlier choices or arrangements, although it is possible for something to happen randomly or chaotically. We usually make a distinction that attributes the non-humanly decided to Nature. Whatever is attributable to Nature is beyond human control (by definition), and conventionally sets some sort of boundary to what is humanly possible. Thus, we think of ourselves as animals who must eat, sleep, etc; an immutable fact of nature.
 

Within the broad limits of nature, human societies are otherwise the results of decisions by someone. The initial decisions ("Founder Effect") are the most important, because they usually constrain what follows. Once a society gets going, it is difficult or impossible to make it into something else. I think that is why revolutions usually fail: the revolutionaries are unable to change themselves and think of something entirely new. Thus the French Revolution produced Emperor Napoleon and the Russians ended up with "little father" (uncle) Joe Stalin. The end result was a garish reproduction of what had been overthrown. 56 years after Mao's taking over China, modern China looks a lot like the old regime of the Emperors, somewhat reformed and re-energized. From a revolutionary point of view, the criticism of the rebels must be that they didn't go far enough.
 

In America, we still struggle with the leftovers of English monarchy. That is why we have the "Imperial Presidency," and Bandits who act as aristocrats. While the Tories evacuated to Halifax after Geo. Washington liberated Boston, they didn't stay there. Little by little, they came back and reasserted themselves. Similarly, there is a streak of intolerance that burned witches in Salem and leads straight to today's Elmer Gantrys. Those preachers are silent when doctors are murdered, and women who have abortions are hounded. The worst sin is racism, which was used in partial justification of slavery, and persists to this day throughout America. Housing is still largely segregated in every economic stratum. Neighborhoods are Black, White, Hispanic, Asian or Indian (Native American), which segregates the schools and stores as well. The workplace is one of the few "integrated" sites in America, but that integration is largely confined to the lower echelons. The management is still overwhelmingly MASPs (Male Anglo-Saxon Protestant). It is true that many colleges are reasonably integrated, and actually look like what an egalitarian America could be, but conservatives are doing their damnedest to bring back "the good old days" by ruining Affirmative Action. They know very well that social prejudice will run rampant once the regulations are removed, returning society to its previous standard, "separate but equal."
 

The fact is, it is very difficult - maybe impossible - to change a society once it gets going. Even the small population of Revolutionary America was unable to throw off its English roots. The Quebecois have never accepted English rule and are still French. Thus, it seems a society - a civilization - can only be changed by completely destroying it. Rome only disappeared when Rome was reduced to rubble. Byzantium was Constantinople, and persisted until the Muslims captured and reduced it, eventually replacing all its people.
 

The facts of history undermine the Social Contract. The Founding Fathers imagined themselves founding a new Empire based on a contract they made among themselves. Jefferson may have thought each generation was entitled to replace the contract with one of its own making, but it never happened. In the Great Cultural Revolution, Mao propounded the (Trotskyite) thesis of "permanent revolution," but what happened was the near destruction of China. If a society has to be destroyed to change, then permanent revolution is the permanent destruction of everything; i.e., nothing is left.
 

For those who don't want to start all over, starting by scratching out a living from the soil, there is no Social Contract. Even the Survivalists living in the mountains of Idaho and Montana, or the deserts of the Great Basin, are rich people not interested in starting all over. They depend on their acumulated wealth and a productive society to support them in splendid isolation. Most of them are not farming the land, preferring to live on food they buy, grown and processed by others. In fact, most of the Survivalist compounds couldn't be built without modern equipment and a lot of money. The Hippies living in various places along the West Coast are by far poorer and more ill kempt than Survivalists, but have similar beliefs about their supposed self-sufficiency and detachment from American society. They are all attempting to escape from the impositions of the surrounding society, and prefer to believe their isolation proves they attained their goal. But I think theirs is an illusion, and that they inherit the Social Contract made by the Founding Fathers. None of us, including Survivalists and Hippies, made that Contract, nor do we have the opportunity to remake it. Probably the last chance anyone had to create a really new and different society happened 14 or 20 millenia ago, when the original Native Americans arrived in Alaska and headed south, or 45 millenia ago when the Aborigines arrived in Australia. Short of tearing things down, removing the foundations, and emerging stark naked, we're stuck with the contracts our forefathers made.
 

Creeping Ahead

Nonetheless, societies do change. Things are vastly different today than they were centuries ago in Europe, Asia and America. The changes have not come rapidly, despite the sometime appearance of an overnight molting. When a new butterfly (or moth) emerges from the cocoon, it is only after a long incubation. Close observers could have seen the changes coming, so would say today's new skin was readied yesterday. The molt was only, in today's parlance, a "coming out."
 

One day, while serving as Finance Chair of the Vietnam Day Committee in 1966, a fellow came into my office with Mao's Little Red Book. He was preaching the immanence of The Revolution. At the time, it certainly seemed big changes were occurring all over the world; the Old Order was ready to crumble. I certainly hoped so, so I listened to his spiel for more than 30 minutes. (Yes, I do listen to other people's lectures, even crazy ones!) It seemed logical, but I was disturbed by a number of elements of his reasoning which indicated to me the man was not sane. After thinking about what he said for a few hours, I realized it would not happen; there would be no revolution, despite the best efforts of all us revolutionaries. The reason of my conclusion was simple enough: inertia. What, after all, kept things going as they were? Inertia, habit, conformity. Everyday people get up, get dressed, eat, go to work, eat some more, go home, eat some more, relieve themselves, copulate and sleep. We are well trained Zombies. Our social system reinforces our behavior, as in spouses and children who demand the working person 'bring home the bacon.' After that, the worker demands homage, at least for a few hours. In today's world of frequently reversed gender roles, the same pattern still applies, but the sexes perfom different tasks within the pattern. So, something has changed, but nothing has changed.

What is required to make changes in society is changing people's lives. American society is the result of billions of habitual or commanded performances every day. Businesses open their doors, and people start working at 8 AM. People work 5 days, 40 hours, out of each 7 day week. Why? Why not another system? The French revolutionaries tried to change the calendar, and we still use some of their names. But that calendar met its Thermidor, and is now remembered mainly as an historical artifact. The Revolution created the concept "Thermidor." So, it is clearly difficult to change anything, but change begins with the individual, compounded. Thus, revolutionaries must work among the people and bring about changes in performance. When enough people change their behavior, it will be easy to legislate the new order. Laws and judgements are the end of a struggle, not the beginning. This justifies the position of SEIU and other dissidents who've abandoned the AFL-CIO, as well as those political activists who've abandoned the Democratic party. Real change is never about Gucci shoes and schmoozing.

When the French went to the 35 hour work week, that implied a great deal more than how many hours would be worked for what wage. Another way to accomplish the same thing, economically, was to pay the workers proportionately more for a 40 hour week, or make overtime pay start at 35 hours. But that was not the intent of the demanded shorter work week. The question was asked, why I am spending my life at work instead of doing something else, something more meaningful? This is not an important question for people who do work they enjoy, usually professionals, managers and the like, or the wealthy who do whatever they like. It is an important question for the majority of workers who are compelled to work at jobs they do not enjoy. The modern industrial system produces a lot of Chaplinesque tramps caught up in Modern Times. For most people, there are almost always better things to do with one's life than work. And, it is one's life we are bandying about, not just some free time.

Another myth of Capitalism is that a person's time (a life) can be bought. Workers during the early British Industrial Revolution saw through this, and often left a job after a few days or weeks. In those days, it was possible to go back to the farm with some extra spending money by working a short time at a factory. That sort of behavior made it difficult for the first industrialists to make any money. The factory required a steady input of labor, so at the beginning wages were raised to induce peoiple to stay. Later on, when the factories and workers moved from the countryside into the city, those wage gains were lost. People - especially young women and children - were impressed into service and kept locked up in company owned boarding homes. That was "good" for their moral character, as women were prevented from having any sexual encounters until they were claimed for marriage (but how?). The sordid story of 19^th century exploitation evolved into the 20^th century's "work ethic;" i.e., first people were left with no other alternative, and then they were brainwashed into accepting the unnatural rigors of industrial work. Once free peoples have been enserfed by wage slavery - the notion that a person's time (a life) can be bought. (Isn't buying and selling lives what slavery is all about?)

So, the French 35 hour work week represents a real change because it implies a different set of values. My life is what's important, not some product. Once that sort of thinking becomes embedded in people's lives, there are lots of other changes that follow from it. For example, why do I need this product anyway? Why do I need nuclear weapons? Perfume? Fat Burgers? Cancer sticks? Maybe working is not all that beneficial. Maybe we could work a lot less, avoid a lot of harmful products, and live more enjoyable lives. Those sorts of thoughts are what makes change at the personal level the important.precursor to grander social changes.

To bring about the sort of democratic socialist society I envision, people need to change their beliefs about the world. More importantly, they need to change their behavior based on changed beliefs. This not only results in things like the 35 (or less) hour work week, but also in removal of SUVs and other harmful products from the market. When people ask why they need perfume, when they stop watching Madison Avenue's brainwashing messages, it will be possible to take another step.

 

Without Contract

John Locke's Social Contract doesn't help most of us out of our predicament. If there ever was a Social Contract, it was made long ago by those now long dead. If the idea has any use today, it is to imprison us in an uncomfortable past.
 

For that reason, those of us who want change - this century's liberals and radicals, not Libertarians - must reckon the American Constitution and similar documents frameworks, suggestive guidelines for solving today's problems. Our "social contract" is an unwritten document, like English Common Law, representing the common understandings and arrangements of the time. That sort of fluidity is dangerous, because it can be taken away, but freedom is dangerous and is often taken away. Preservation of liberty is only possible when ordinary people are willing to behave so as to keep it. ("Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Liberty.")
 

The divergence of modern liberalism from conservatism is easily seen through this glass. In the present Bandit Administration, a serious attempt is being made to enforce an old Constitution; a Constitution that preserves the privileges of the few and denies benefits to the many. That old Constitution is, in fact, where America started, but it is not where we have arrived. There have been many little hops, skips and jumps since 1789.
 

Our present task, to paraphrase Ben Franklin, is to have an egalitarian democracy, 'if we can keep it.'