Ideologies that Further Environmental Sustainability Are Actually Good Things
In response to an earlier piece, a staunch advocate of free-market economics objected to the notion of a government’s making policy that phases out fossil fuels in favor of renewables, on the basis that it’s an “ideology,” and notes: “Losers always want to change the rules.”
Two points:
• You treat the subject “ideology” as if it were a disease. Hundreds of millions of our fellow travelers on planet Earth have ideologies that go like this: “Our civilization has lots of ailments causing incredible degrees of suffering, and, at this point, these ailments could result in mass extinction. We think that dealing with this is important.” Basing government policy on a concept like that seems pretty acceptable to me.
• When you write: “Losers always want to change the rules,” let me point out that we are ALL potentially BIG losers as we continue along our path of environmental negligence; there will be zero winners when the full effects of climate change, ocean acidification, and loss of diversity have been received, and that includes rich people. Never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Ideologies certainly have their place. Often they are based on long experience and it is to our benefit to observe them. However, it makes no sense to cling tenaciously to an ideology which makes no sense in present circumstances.
If free market principals can be used to get us off of fossil fuels quickly enough, then fine; perhaps we should use free market principals. But unless we can find a way to use free market principals to get us off of fossil fuels quickly enough, then perhaps we have so stretch or modify that ideal to some extent in consideration of a more important ideal, i.e., to save our civilization.
Oh C’mon Craig, that’s a complete distortion of my observation !
Firstly, I’m neither a “staunch advocate of free market economics” nor was I responding to ” the notion of a government making policies phasing out fossil fuels in favour of renewables ” !
If you are going to passionately castigate me for my reply, at least get the context right !
The notion I was replying to was the proposal that somehow “big money” could be removed from American elections.
I think in your passionate zeal, your ardor has led you to distort the context of my comment, by doing so you do me and yourself a disservice.
My contention was that the notion of removing “big money ” from campaigns in a in a society with 313 million people is not practical. Nor is it necessarily compatible with the principles of “representative government” which requires access for all organizations and individuals to take part in the democratic process.
Even though I am not a supporter of the US ethanol industry, I defend the right of the US Renewable Fuels Association to spend tens of millions of dollars lobbying and supporting the campaigns of US politicians favorable to the interests of their members.
It’s the right of the American elector to hear all the voices in any debate. No system is perfect, America isn’t ancient Athens or a small village, the system will always be a contest between those with the greatest ability to convey a message in an appealing and acceptable format. Mass communication to millions of voters is an expensive and complex business.
Even “grass roots” or “peoples campaigns” need a great deal of energy and organization, involving donations and time from many thousands of dedicated participants to acquire any traction in a huge population.
Attempting to legislate for limiting the right of free speech and political support to just those opinions you may favour, is neither practical, and certainly not desirable.
My comment was of a general nature, an observation on the general conduct of the right for individuals and organizations to contribute to the enormous costs of the US political system, you have chosen to distort the context of my observation in order to score a narrow partisan political advantage.
My comment also included the observation that some participants in any contest, be it politics, sport or any other competition are unable to accept the own failures, and instead of accepting the lesson and reorganizing their campaigns to be more effective, instead choose to bleat “we was robbed” and demand the rules of the contest be changed in their favour.
………..Oh, and yeah, what I do believe (even passionately) is that no cause, no matter how noble, can ever justify abandoning the commitment to the principles of free speech, or limiting any person or organization’s access to the electoral process.
Sorry; I didn’t mean to be so irritating to you, and I certainly don’t want to get things wrong. Maybe I don’t understand your position; I would have said it was:
* Free market economics is good (not that government can’t play a role a role in incubating technology R&D)
* Government programs based on ideology are bad, in that they are unfair to the established players who make the economy run and that they will ultimately fail at great expense to the taxpayer.
If this isn’t right, could you please tell me, in a sentence or two, what you stand for?
I probably should have asked you this three years ago…..
In any case, that the right to free speech means that corporations can spend as much as they wish affecting our elections is a very twisted concept, and it is certainly not what the framers of our constitution intended. They would be furious if they could see how we’ve distorted the document they created for us. We’ve reached a point in the US where the will of the people is irrelevant. If we can’t fix that, we are completely wrong to call our government a democracy.
In relation to the two issues you raise.
“Laissez-faire free market economics” is not possible (or even desirable) as either a political or economic proposition.
Civilized societies are a delicate balance of diverse checks and balances representing a myriad of social needs and aspirations. Getting the balance right should be the objective of good government.
Governments have a duty to participate in the regulation, preservation and promotion of the economy. The degree of government intervention will always be an ongoing debate by citizens.
Governments who attempt to implement rigid or doctrinaire economic policies, based on inflexible ideological beliefs, must inevitably fail at great cost to the citizens.
In regard to the US founding fathers, the framers of the US constitution etc.
While some of these men were inspired by lofty ideals, they also made accommodation for economic interests of a less noble kind ! (slavery, disenfranchisement of women etc)
You wrote:
“the right to free speech means that corporations can spend as much as they wish affecting our elections is a very twisted concept ”
“Twisted ” Really ? The framers of the constitution tried to establish a society where the maximum participation in public life was not only possible, but desirable.
Probably the most absolute of these freedoms was the right to free speech. The framers of the constitution didn’t say only some people or organizations should enjoy the right free speech, or could only exercise that right within a strict set of guidelines.
The framers of the constitution envisaged free speech as being without restriction.
Indeed the framers of the Constitution felt free speech so important, that the principle should be enshrined in the in the First Amendment.
Now, you may dislike large corporations, (well, those corporations you dislike to be precise) spending money on getting their message across to electors, while I find the propaganda of bloody-minded, troglodyte trade unions and their supporters infuriating.
The difference between us seems to be I would never propose restricting even the most reprehensible Trade Union, (or it’s members0 the right spend funds influencing the electorate. In fact, I would actively defend the right to Union participation in the political process without restriction, no matter how much I disagree with what those organizations espouse.
In contrast, you seem to be okay with the RFA (and the huge corporations funding RFA) spending vast sums while advocating other corporations (of whom you disapprove) be deprived of having a voice.
No political system (or any system devised by man) is perfect. The good news is that with the advent of the internet, and diverse media competition, the ability to influence electorates by spend large sums is wanning/
Donald Trump has displayed at least one remarkable political achievement ! While spending only relatively modest sums, he’s generated massive media coverage. The coverage may not be applauding Trump, but the sheer scale of focus has brought him a support base far beyond better funded candidates.
The right of free speech was so important to the founders of the fledgling Republic that as early as 1799 James Madison argued the Constitution guaranteed the right of free speech beyond that defined by English Common Law.
However, the right to free speech under the amendment is not absolute. The principle is largely held to protect the right to freely and peacefully disseminate political, philosophical, artistic and social concepts.
In 1927 Justice Brandeis wrote a dissenting opinion that today is widely accepted:
” Those who won our independence believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth.
Without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile, with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine. The greatest menace to freedom is an inert people. Public discussion is a political duty. This should be a fundamental principle of the American government.”
In recent years, the US Supreme Court has consistently struck down attempts to restrict corporations from funding political activity or expressing political opinions. The reasoning being that such legislation is inherently discriminatory, and impossible to implement without the risk of partisan enforcement.
The US Supreme Court held that the ruling “political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment”, meant the principle must must apply to all organizations, or none. The idea that certain types of organizations could be suppressed, while others tolerated, violated not just the First Amendment, but the spirit of the constitution.
Trying to ban your perceived enemies, is in my opinion, a losing game.
Marco, I have heard many bits of wisdom over time. Some of it does not immediately sit well and is only acceptable after pondering, sometimes for a few years. Here is one.
What is the best form of government? Here we are not thinking about corruption or best for any one individual or organization, but best for the whole. It would be an enlightened, benevolent dictatorship.
In many of your comments you uphold common beliefs in Democracy and for everyone to be heard. But one of the things we try to do in more enlightened times is avoid a might makes right rule. The loudest and most powerful voice is not always the wisest. In fact, very often that overpowering voice is somewhat partisan. And so rule should be wise and therefor “enlightened.”
It is fine to have discussion among equals as long as every voice allowed to be heard. When it comes to making a decision we want to know that there is some sense of fairness. We want our government to look out for everyone equally. And so we want our governments to be benevolent.
We also want our governments to be free of corruption. We attempt to use democracy to achieve the previous goals but when a decision is made based upon wide knowledge and a wide support we want it to be free and unfettered to arrive at its goal. We want execution to be unerring and without corruption. And so if the other qualities are in place a dictatorship can most certainly achieve these goals.
Sadly the world has very limited experience with an enlightened and benevolent dictator. When someone comes even close to this they end up being killed. And equally to our chagrin we have too much experience with despots and tyrants (in the pejorative sense.)
When you can accept such a hypothesis a person can then begin to see that every step away from such a goal is a compromise that works to assassinate progress as well.
Thank you for your comments.
The idea of an all knowing, wise benevolent Dictator, is very commonly held up to be the perfect form of government. Very idealistic, and more than a little born from a yearning for a father figure to make you feel secure by telling you what you ought to think and how to behave.
Such an idea is very attractive for those who want to conform to the dictates and tenets of a group, controlled by a hierarchical authoritarian, social structure structure.
I can understand why such a system can produce a feeling of security, and belonging. ( no nasty, awkward oddball dissenters and outsiders eh ?) but i want no part of such a bizarre arrangement.
Apart from the concept being tragically impossible, it also denies the spirit of the individual to be different, and valued for that difference.
The very term “Dictator” is anathema to freedom ! It’s the right of every citizen to be wrong, even anti-social (as long as not violent). Humans are endowed with free will. Freedom means the right to make mistakes, freedom also means humans must accept responsibility for their own actions, and suffer the consequences of failure. People must be allowed to be the captains of their own destiny.
Adults are not children, the idea of accepting a wise dictator (no matter how benevolent) to dictate human affairs is a denial of what makes humans, ….well, human !
We’re at an impasse here, but that’s fine.
Thanks for your comments Marco here are some further thoughts.
First I did check the actual definitions of “dictator,” “despot,” and “tyrant.” To my surprise the denotative definition is rather the benign rule by one. It is the connotative definition which is so adverse to public opinion. Perhaps because the it is the way many families are “governed” with typically the mother or father having the final say. This also usually allows the other spouse and the kids to have their say and influence. It is just when it comes to the final decision rule by consensus is more difficult.
But there is also too often the mis-assumption that if you are not participating in government (or willing to accept a handout) you simply want to be pampered and coddled.
It is certainly part of nature to fight for survival, but I would argue that it is part of civilization to afford more time that is not devoted to sustenance. Civilization implies a division of labor. Some may devote their attention to governance, while others would then be free to devote time to defense, policing, maintenance, education, construction, investigation and all the other things we do in a civilized society.
I don’t know if you have ever had a chance to read Plato’s “Republic.” It has been billed at the first “utopia,” although Socrates presented it as an analogy of the perfect person “writ large.” In it you will find many of the descriptions of what we do as a society and as individuals.
Within the daily grind to forge a path sometimes it is useful to keep in mind the ideals of what we hope to achieve. If there are no ideals then where is the hope and what keeps us from corruption?
@ Breath on the Wind
Thank you for your interesting comment.
Yes, I have read Plato’s Republic. (The English translation, not the ancient Greek).
Plato’s republic is an exercise in dissembling hypocrisy. Plato tries to justify the institution of slavery by advocating the abolition of freedom.
by advocating all children should be given to the state to be reared and employed as the state sees fit once adult, almost all citizens become ” slaves “.
Plato would have been right at home as a PR spin doctor for Stalin, as he tries obscure the issue of slavery by claiming that rulers are enslaved (by responsibility and fear of those who rules over) therefore “freedom” leads to slavery.
The Oxford Dictionary defines dictator :
1) ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force.
1.1A person who behaves in an autocratic way.
Example sentences
1.2(In ancient Rome) a chief magistrate with absolute power, appointed in an emergency.
I believe our present “western Democracies” which are really more based on the idea of “representative government” allow greater freedom and innovation than more restrictive political ideologies.
The idea that the state exist for the benefit of the individual, not the individual for the state, is a very idealistic and fragile concept indeed. The freedoms that concept produces must constantly and vigilantly defended.
Surely, that’s an “ideal” worth striving for?
Clever use of “ideal” at the end there. And you thought I wouldn’t notice. 🙂
Ah Craig, i was indeed foolish to think i could slip something by you …:)
LOL. We get along well; I like that.
Marco, There are some who like to say that people are either a Platonist or an Aristotelian. I suspect you may find more to identify with in the latter.
Your words also remind me of an Indian story about 5 blind men describing an elephant. Each compared the beast to something completely different depending upon what part they grabbed. You seemed to have latched on to some part of the Republic I have not noticed.
Perhaps you have found what you needed. But my reference to the text was initially only as it described the various functions of a government and a response to your suggestion that an individual not directly involved in governance is not necessarily idle, useless or even just a “child.”
In sports we learn that a team must work together to achieve a common goal. Military generally is similar. You don’t have to be part of the team and I am not saying that this is ideal in our world. It is just efficient to have concerted action. Individual actions are sometimes problematic. On that note, and in contrast, I wonder if there ever has been a country of pure Libertarians or even Anarchists.
@ Breath on the Wind,
What an interesting response,which I thank you for sharing.
After consideration, I don’t regard myself as an adherent of any particular philosopher, or ideology. ( Not even Alasdair MacIntyre).
When the Roman Octavian was asked why he didn’t study philosophy, and what had Rome to compare with the glories of Athenian culture, he pointed to the vast Roman network of enduring, safe and well policed roads, available to all. He offered the example of Roman aqueducts that provided clean water to the whole populace, to the principle of extending Roman citizenship to all persons, no matter from what race or background, who proved themselves worthy.
Octavian argued the provision of public baths, the diligence of Rome’s civil service, illustrated that Rome’s achievements were in the advancement of amenities for Romans, and indeed for all people who desired peace and civilization.
To Octavian the measure of a nations greatness was in the practical, pragmatic improvements of civic life.
Now, I’d be the first to agree that Octavian was foremost a shrewd politician, and put the best spin on his nations achievements, just as the Framers of the US constitution overlooked a great deal of hypocrisy, self-interest and dissembling when formatting the document.
Ideals are important, since they inspire and elevate aspirations. But as Octavian pointed out, they must be tempered by practical, realistic, pragmatic implementation.
You are correct when you say that society must have some degree of social cohesion and consensus. That’s the basis of representative government. The minority must accept the decision of the majority as a legitimate mandate, the majority must equally respect the rights of the minority. This is especially true when it comes to peaceful dissent by the minority.
The US system has it faults, but remains (thank to it’s strong constitution) one of the most robust and practical examples of democratic representative government.
Small nations like Switzerland can probably claim to have more advanced democratic practices, but may of these would not survive, or prove practical, in a huge and diverse nation like the US.
The stable and resilient democratic representative governments of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK are fortunate to have retained by convention(rather than formal constitutions) the ancient vague safeguards of an evolved system of Constitutional Monarchy and Westminster style parliamentary governance.
Us democracy is in no danger from the likes of Donald Trump. (the US and everyone else might be in danger:) but not US democracy. To his credit, Trump is committed to upholding the principles of the American system of government.
Nor is corporate wealth a danger to US democratic representative government. Corporations play an important part in not just the US economy, but they represent the economic interests and lifestyles of tens of millions of US citizens.
Just as the Trade Unions, Greenpeace, Serra Club, Civic Groups, RFA and even Mothers Against Drink Drivers, and thousands of other politically active associations and organizations have right to support or oppose political candidates and seek to influence public support for their diverse agendas, so too must the voice of Corporate America be heard.
US corporations are the front line forces in helping the US to remain economically competitive. National economic survival depends of the success of these corporations.
Removing or crippling the voice of corporations in US public life, does constitute a very real threat to US democracy. If one voice can be stilled, where does it stop ? Once the rules start to be changed to accommodate one side or another, the government grows less and less representative, and certainly less consultative.
I afraid I lack a certain tolerance for those who rant on about corrupt politicians, then proudly announce they don’t vote!
I regard voting as the primary civic duty of a citizen. Those who fail to do so, so no respect for the enormous sacrifices made to obtain the right to vote freely, and secretly.
Marco,
You wrote, “Removing or crippling the voice of corporations in US public life, does constitute a very real threat to US democracy. If one voice can be stilled, where does it stop ? Once the rules start to be changed to accommodate one side or another, the government grows less and less representative, and certainly less consultative.”
That is a valid concern. However, the fact that enormous corporate wealth is being used to exert undo influence on the democratic process is also a valid concern. It has been shown that spending more money on political campaigns does influence the way people vote because endless repetition changes the way many people think. If that were not true and voters voted only on the basis of information rather than permitting themselves to be influenced by endless repetition, then the amount of money wealthy corporation spend on political campaigns would not influence the outcome of elections.
Limiting the amount that wealthy corporations spend on political campaigns is not the only way to reduce their influence. Making clear exactly what the sources of the political campaign funds are would tend to reduce the influence of the corporations which spend huge amounts of money on political campaigns. It may also be that better education would make voters aware of how they can be influenced irrationally by endless repetition.
Of course silencing corporations by banning them from spending any money on political campaigns would also distort the democratic process, but right now the greater danger seems to be the excessive influence that corporations have. What is needed is a reasonable balance.
Surely there is room for differences in opinion about how to achieve a reasonable balance so that corporations could not distort the democratic process by excessive spending on political campaigns. Limiting corporation spending on political campaigns may be a reasonable thing to do, but I think that too much emphasis has been put on that instead of the other remedies such as making clear the sources of spending on political campaigns and teaching voters to pay more attention to the issues and not permit themselves to be overly influenced by repetition.
@ Hi Frank,
I think you over-estimate the size and influence corporations wealth exerts on voters. Corporations are driven essentially by self-interest and generally limit their political involvement to issues that have a direct concern to their employees, trading circumstances, or shareholders.
Mostly corporate is spent on influencing economic issues. Other social concerns are addressed by funding or contributing to charities and civic groups.
Voter education is important and should be a concern of the electoral authority to increase participation. However, it would be very dangerous for any government authority to try to “balance” any viewpoint.
I don’t agree that “corporate wealth” can really influence elections to the extent you describe. Endless repetition of any can become counter-productive. Endless repetition can raise awareness, but it also becomes irritating and produces a dislike of the message. On of the demonstrable effects of endless repetition is a heightened awareness of alternatives.
As any political strategist or advertising practitioner will tell you, people are far more resilient and less easily manipulated than is popularly imagined.
(How many jingles can you remember for long defunct products)
If your proposition were true, it would be impossible for Bill Clinton or Barack Obama to be elected. California would never have passed CAFE, corporate tax wouldn’t exist and the ethanol industry would have been abandoned decades ago.
The certainty of “reasonable balance” in the democratic process can’t be artificially achieved by complex regulation. It6 has to be reconciled and accepted that the pendulum of political opinion will swing erratically, because humans are humans, and voters being human, are sometimes erratic and irrational.
Healthy Political debate reflects society. The loudest voices are a cacophony of extremists all crying their opponents are unfair, in the middle is the vast majority of the populace who will usually vote for moderate candidates who can be trusted to represent and address the voters principle concerns.
The process of electing a democratic representative government can never be made perfect, or it would no longer be democratic or representative, since it would not take into consideration the contrary, erratic, irrational nature of the electors ! 🙂
@Frank,
Sorry, just an afterthought. If a campaign to stop “corporate involvement in elections” was successful, wouldn’t that just prove corporate involvement wasn’t the danger the campaign claimed or the campaign couldn’t have been successful ?
Hmmmm…
Marco,
You wrote:
“Corporations are driven essentially by self-interest and generally limit their political involvement to issues that have a direct concern to their employees, trading circumstances, or shareholders.”
Quite so; I fully agree. The problem is that when a corporation protects its own interests it may be supporting action that is contrary to the interests of the public. A good example is corn ethanol. Producing corn ethanol is certainly in the best interests of the corporations which produce it, their employees, and the farmers who grow the corn. However, it is NOT in the best interests of most Americans since it increases the price of food. It also causes gasoline (petrol) which contains it to degrade faster which is a problem with vehicles and equipment which are not used often enough to prevent the degredation. When the fuel degrades, the ethanol settles out thereby causing problems with the fuel system. There are several other problems with ethanol which I shall not cover.
Industrial air pollution is another example. Spending money to prevent air pollution is not in the best interest of companies but it is often in the best interest of the public. Companies have spend considerable money to oppose political candidates who support emission controls.
To sum it up, there are externalities which can cost the public dearly but are not seen by companies as being in their best interest to control so they spend money to influence the political system to prevent the enactment of laws which would require controlling the externalities.
Marco,
Perhaps another way to think this aspect of philosophy is a “World View.” English really doesn’t seem to have a word for it like the German and some other languages. Plato spoke of forms and ideas without substance. Aristotle was much more concerned with what could be seen, tested, and proven empirically rather than just logically. You don’t have to be familiar with one or the other to be classified as such. Of course the problem is that most people are not so neatly classified and it may be a rude thing to do in any event.
I thank you for this point of consensus, “You are correct when you say that society must have some degree of social cohesion and consensus.” But then you go on to add “That’s the basis of representative government.” While this is certainly true as far as it goes isn’t this also true for any form of collective action? All “governments,” “corporations,” “associations,” “special districts” ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3saU5racsGE ) must have social cohesion. Isn’t that what makes it a definition for “a society?” A society can be also in the form of an enlightened, benevolent dictatorship. The Catholic Church strives for this goal in form if not in every practical aspect.
I think coming from the perspective of supporting individual rights a person might feel compelled to support corporations. You point out the many economic contributions of corporations. I don’t think we disagree about such potential and real benefits. But I have to consider the essential nature of the corporation. Isn’t it a legal construct or as some would say a legal fiction? We don’t need the corporate form for collective action as we have seen that in many other forms. People get together all the time to pool their resources for a common goal. It is a fairly ancient phenomena. The essential difference for the corporation is the way it is intended to limit liability to the contributors and executives. So the essential difference between a corporation and any other form of collective action is to deprive other individuals their right to hold the individuals in a corporation responsible for their actions. That would seem to be counter to individual rights in general. This is somewhat legitimized by giving corporations “person” status. But “corporate persons” have the economic power of a society focused in its executive leadership. This immediately creates a situation of unequal standing.
There are some countries that demand voter turnout. Australia requires its citizens to vote. The US seems to be taking a different approach with republicans accepting that large voter turnout limits their involvement and employing voter registration laws to limit access to the voting booth. Corporations disproportionately support Republicans about 80% to 20%. One conclusion that could be inferred from this is that Corporations favor control over democracy. This would imply that they are strong partisan players and willing to accept injustice and unfairness if it favors their control.
@ Breath on the Wind
It’s a misconception that Australia and New Zealand require their citizens to vote. Both Countries only require their citizens to register to vote and attend on polling day. Whether they actually vote is their own affair.
It’s odd that you cite “corporate power” as such a problem in US elections, yet other with equally democratic nations, (and the same corporations) don’t experience this problem).
If the corporation really had such a death grip on the US body politic in favour of the Republican party, than neither Bill Clinton nor Barack Obama would have been elected.
I notice you don’t mention the huge organizing power and wealth of such organizations as trade unions, RFA, Serra Club etc. These organizations are organized in a similar manner to corporations (often with less scrutiny). These organizations also have strong executive leadership who sometimes act without regard the interest or wishes of members. I imagine Trade Unions seldom support Republican candidates !
Corporations, well at least large public corporations, are governed by shareholders. Individual shareholders can certainly hold the executive responsible, and Individual Directors responsible for unauthorized or illegal actions. Most nations go further an have some form of legal restriction on ” oppression of minority shareholders” written into the corporate code.
Most corporations take very little active or financial role in politics, leaving contributions to public life to their trade organizations.
Endowing corporations some of the legal status of “citizen” is a recognition of the responsibilities of corporations in law. After all, corporations can be sued, held accountable under both civil and criminal law, and more importantly pay tax.
Wasn’t the battle cry and justification of the rebelling framers of the US constitution, ” No Taxation without Representation” ? (actually James Otis proclaimed “Taxation without representation is tyranny “. If that’s no longer valid, then give me back our 600 acres in New York ! 🙂
I think it’s the nature of political life that partisan groups are formed to represent the self interest of various factions in any society. That’s the essential dynamic of democracy. Endless tinkering with the rules to try to prevent any faction being more successful, can be counter-productive and result in chaotic, ineffective government. Minorities must accept the mandate of majority.
Marco, you raise some very good points. You ask how a corporation is different from a non-profit organization that is supporting social causes? Both should have rights and as long as they are taxed they should have a say in government.
I could argue from how money is gathered, the self interest of the group or their ultimate goal but perhaps instead the strongest argument is a matter of influence. In fact a non-profit is likely paying no tax and according to your position perhaps they should not have a say in government. This argument carried to a conclusion suggests that the level of tax should indicate the level of influence. The largest tax payer then should have the most votes. This might be seen as the most effective form of government if you believe that wealth is the only thing which needs to be governed. In such a system it should not be difficult for the largest corporation to introduce legislation that would limit its competition. The ultimate conclusion would be a corporation with no competition and virtually all the votes. This leads to the strongest type of oligarchy with one chief executive at its head. Some might argue that this is no different than a dictatorship. It would only be a economic way to achieve it rather than the more common military method. More than just limit individual freedom such a system would tend to also stifle innovation. Pursuing a goal of wealth alone might then be said to lead to stagnation.
It might therefor be in the interest of society to listen to the input of minorities which to your credit you also advocate. And so we might ask some opposite questions. If wealth alone can’t be the sole goal what other things must also be part of the mix? We have a surprising list of things to pick from or include. Competition rather than monopolies seems to be a strong answer from history. Some balance in legislation for market tendencies and imperfections is another answer. But it all seems to come down to one caveat, one’s freedom and liberties stop when they infringe upon the freedom and liberties of another. We have many freedoms. The right to pursue wealth, the right to have a say in government, the right to act. When court decisions and legislation is put in place to give corporations more wealth to the detriment of people, when legislation and executive rules limit citizens right to vote, when court decisions are passed down that create an imbalanced influence in government then we have an unjust and biased system.
It is the duty of each age to determine if the facts and situations of the day lead to these conclusions. Many today have determined that they do. It is useful to advocate ideals. But perhaps I trade philosophic perspectives with you when, I suggest that it is also important to see the facts on the ground and recognize a defacto imbalance in power between corporate rulers and an increasingly oppressed population.
Frank and Breath on the Wind,
I think the point you both are missing is that representative democracies are always a dynamic of disparate competing interests.
Corporations are just one participant in the competition. Their voice is heard because of the economic influence they can exert, on the other hand other organizations and individuals can exert equal influence, especially in motivating voters.
In the end, the primary concern of most representatives is to get elected and stay elected. ( That’s not to say there are no high minded candidates, just that at some stage representatives must be pragmatic and listen to the electorate or face electoral rejection).
If corporate power was so overwhelming, then no other candidates would be elected, ever ! Obviously this isn’t true, because not all corporations agree with one other and most corporations don’t bother to become involved in the political process while competing political and community organizations are equally influential.
It’s also true corporations are skilled at identifying the public mood. Corporations depend upon fulfilling the needs of consumers. The directors of most corporation usually possess considerable political skill to attain their position.
But essentially, no competition can ever be absolutely fair. It’s better to accept an imperfect system that delvers a good result, than demand unattainable perfection as the risk of destroying the spirit of the compitition.
Marcopolo,
I wonder whether you have read the biographies of the “captains of industry” who lived during the “Gilded age”, also known as the robber baron era. Included are the biographies of Jay Gould, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, etc. In reading those biographies, I learned things about economics that I did not learn in economics classes even though I have the equivalent of a minor in economics. Those biographies show what large corporations will do if there are no controls and the depths to which they will stoop to influence the government and politics. They were especially good at using underhanded methods to kill competition.
During the robber baron era, corporate power was exceedingly overwhelming. However, it was not absolute. Eventually people became so fed up that politicians were forced to take action to limit the power of corporations and banks. I expect that to occur again; history does repeat itself, but not exactly.
There are high-minded politicians who will risk their political careers if necessary to address problems so egregious that they cannot be accepted or ignored. Thus civil rights acts were enacted to address racial segregation and other evils.
The Citizens United decision of the Supreme Court has caused serious problems by permitting companies to spend unlimited amounts of money to distort the democratic system. I’m not stating that the decision was wrong; corporations have historically been treated as people for a very long time. Even so, the decision did create problems which, however, can be addressed either with a constitutional amendment or by legislation which will pass constitutional muster yet blunt the undesirable effects of the Decision.
As to those who assert that corporation stockholders can take action to limit the political spending of corporations, that would not be an easy thing to do. Stocks are often owned by institutions such as pension funds which typically do not become very involved with what corporations are doing. Even individual stockholders exercise very little control and often know very little about the companies in which they own stocks. There may be cases in which stockholders have taken action to reign in companies which are engaging in politics contrary to public interest, but I know of no such cases.
As I see it, it is desirable to take action to reduce the influence that corporations wield by lobbying and by spending huge amounts of money on political campaigns. It may be that it would be sufficient to require that all political advertisements include information about the source of the funds to pay for them. That may not be easy since corporations can form a dummy organization with a high-sounding name and use that organization to pay for political advertising. However, I think that carefully drawn legislation can effectively deal with that problem.
Frank,
There is no question that over the years corporations have behaved no better or worse that the nature of the individuals that control them.
Likewise governments have a duty as regulators and managers of the national economy to ensure good corporate governance.
I believe you are correct when you say the proper method of overturning Citizens United, is by a constitutional amendment. Such an amendment would bind the Supreme Court. However, I doubt such an amendment would find sufficient support.
Nor do I share your conviction that corporations have disproportionate power to influence elections. (any more than trade unions, etc). The danger is trying to restrict just one participant in the political dynamic. If you restrict one, you end up restricting all.
Most of those demanding that “big money’ or “corporations” be prevented from entering political life, believe if by restricting those who disagree with their beliefs they will be free to pursue their agenda without opposition.
It doesn’t seem to occur to these people that the corporation might accurately reflect the opinions and aspirations of the majority of citizens.
It’s always a terrible arrogance of the political left to assume only they can understand or represent the “will of the people “. In fact, very few leftist activists have anything in common with the “the people”, since they are almost invariably drawn from the affluent middle class academic elite.
Institutional investors such as pension and superannuation funds, are not the passive shareholders you imagine. These interests usually demand a representative on the board and take a very active role since their position depends on the performance of the fund to the members.
I think the influence of corporations has been exaggerated to explain the poor standard of American social leadership which is more of a reflection of a malaise within American society than the influence of any particular sector within the body politic.
Marco,
I’m not suggesting that corporations should have NO influence. They have concerns which should be addressed and getting those concerns addressed does require some influence. Also, although lobbyists can distort the political process, they can also provide politicians with important information which they might not otherwise receive. I just feel that they often have excessive influence. I am also aware that other organizations can have excessive influence. Your example of labor (labour) unions would have been better back when they had more influence because they’ve lost much of their influence.
The will of the people of course must be considered, but too often it is not based on thorough knowledge or understanding or on a willingness to be fair. Thus, in some cases, it is best if the politicians in office make choices which are against the will of the people and also make some effort to educate the people. That is a very difficult matter.
Although I have no reliable source of information, I would expect most stock holding institutions, such as pension funds, to try to influence companies to maximize shareholder returns and give less than adequate consideration to such things as fair employment, worker safety, and environmental degradation.
Hi Frank,
Yes, I agree most pension and super-funds, like banks and equity capital funds really only care about the divided produced by their investment. However, they remain sensitive about the share price being affected by excessive unproductive spending, or politically controversial activity.
There’s no doubt it’s the nature of US elections to spend excessively campaigns. Why is this more evident in the US than elsewhere ?
That’s not an easy question to answer. I think it’s partly because of the nature of US society. The US has a history of big spending, and excess. It’s not always negative. Look at the very successful US film industry. Modesty and prudence are don’t seem to be virtues admired in US politicians !
I also think it’s partly because the two main political parties don’t have a history of rigid adherence to formal political and philosophical doctrines. The nature of Presidential style politics, where the cult of personality is more important than party policy could also be a factor.
Maybe it due to the absurdities like the 2 year term for the House of Representatives which creates a perpetual election campaign.
Or maybe, it’s just because in a large and affluent nation corporations are also richer and feel obliged to support candidates. (Both major parties are eager recipients, Bill Clinton raised more corporate support than Bob Dole).
Some major US corporation refrain altogether. Others opt for a more even handed approach. Ford Motors for instance contributes to both campaigns. (although traditionally favoring Democrat Senators ).
Unsurprisingly, some industries favour one side or the other, but not by as much as you might suppose ! After studying extensive and responsible research conducted by reputable sources, it would appear that donations fluctuate from decade to decade and candidate to candidate, but not by as much as I would have thought. I was a astonished to discover the margin of difference is only around 10% !
This is may be a very hard fact for some on the left to accept and of course there will always be a storm of explanations and conspiracy theories as to why it isn’t true, but in reality it makes sense. Most corporations and industries want to hedge their bets and not make enemies of people who might gain office.
It could also be that the sheer size and scale of the US economy, makes spending such vast sums, seem unimaginable to the individual citizen.
The real problem is that like alcohol,there’s no way of “prohibiting” excess or even abuse by corporations, wealthy individuals or anyone/organization from giving financial support without creating an even worse problem.
It might be that this is the price American pay for living in such a huge economy.
Marco,
You did a good job of covering many aspects of political spending. Some problems don’t have a simple solution, or any solution at all, in which case we just have to muddle through as well as possible.
You wrote, “I also think it’s partly because the two main political parties don’t have a history of rigid adherence to formal political and philosophical doctrines.”
True, at least to a considerable degree, but as I see it excessive adherence to doctrines would also be a problem. Conditions change which can cause doctrines to become obsolete and, if rigidly adhered to, can cause serious problems. There has to be some flexibility.
It is certainly true that personality cults commonly result in choosing candidates who are not the best. It may be that a politician who thoroughly understands problems and is good at finding optimal solutions, i.e., a technocrat, could do a better job than a politician who has an inspiring and mildly manic personality.
Unfortunately, it is usually impossible for a government to be better than the people who elect it. If voters are strongly committed to a government which is competent and fair minded, then even a poor constitution can result in good government. Otherwise, even the best possible constitution will not result in good government. We are dealing with imperfect people so we have to expect imperfect government.
Hi Frank,
Yes, I think you’re analysis makes a lot of commonsense.
Churchill’s quote sitll rings true; ““Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
I agree with Sir Winston.
From 1994 to 2004 I lived in Fiji. The instability and several coups were blamed on a defective constitution. There now have been several constitutions. However, unless people are well educated in how democratic governments should function and are committed to fairness and democratic government, serious problems will continue regardless of how good the constitution is.
When I was in the ninth grade, in Civics Class we studied how the U.S. government and Wisconsin Stage government were supposed to function. We even took a trip to the state capitol to see the state legislature in session. We studied the history of democratic government and the Magna Carta. We also studied the responsibilities of citizens. So far as I can tell, that is not now generally done here in the U.S. and it should be done. To what extent it is done in other countries I don’t know.
On Ideology…
Mindsets Make a Big Difference…
A friend of mine shared a brilliant and valuable observation with me a while back…
Most people arrive at one of these two sets of associated conclusions about life:
The first set…
• “I’m responsible only for myself, and my kids until they’re grown.”
• “No one’s looking out for me, and I don’t need them to.”
• “My opportunities and obstacles result from my own ideas and actions.”
• “My status and prosperity are entirely due to my own hard work, and my intellect and morality.”
• “Others fail to prosper because of their laziness, their lack of intellect, and their immorality.”
• “There should be no limits on my prosperity.”
• “I have the right to keep as much as I can collect, and I shouldn’t be forced to give anything to anyone.”
The second set…
• “We all share responsibility for the way our society is organized.”
• “We need to work together, share info and resources, and look out for each other, as well as for ourselves.”
• “We depend on each other to build and strengthen the common good, and to protect the public commons.”
• “My opportunities and obstacles come from my own ideas and actions, but also from what we’ve built together and collectively allowed in our society.”
• “My status and prosperity are a benefit of the public commons of my society, as well as my planning and talents, and my handling of circumstances.”
• “The extent of my prosperity should justly represent the value of my role to any organization I choose to work with, and to our society as a whole.”
• “I understand that hoarding harms everyone, and that mandatory reinvestment is a precondition of civilization.”
Minds at Work…
Of course, we can see that this dichotomy strongly informs a person’s choice of political ideology. However, these two mindsets also dovetail with two general attitudes about making a living:
• The first – “I will get my piece of the pie. I’ll extract my own prosperity from the economy, and that’s the only thing that matters to me.”
• The second – “I will prosper within circular economy, because of my contribution to general prosperity. I’ll share and cooperate with others, so that we all prosper together.”
Minds in Power…
Just like everyone else, CEO’s and other executives can lean toward either of these perspectives…
Some – even old Henry Ford, or especially today’s Nick Hanauer, or like Costco’s CEO Craig Jelinek – clearly understand the importance of a circular economy. Jelinek told Bloomberg News, “I just think people need to make a living wage with health benefits. It also puts more money back into the economy and creates a healthier country. It’s really that simple.”
However, many other owners and executives – such as Wal-Mart’s Walton family, or the leadership of companies like McDonalds – demonstrate that they hold little regard for their workers, or the wider impact of their policies. These elites are quite content to pay poverty wages, and even guide their workers to apply for government assistance, so taxpayers subsidize the greed.
Slurp and Burp…
Further than that, some of the largest and most profitable companies in the world are structured on a highly parasitic model, usurping natural resources and extracting excessive fees for what amount to human necessities. Energy, pharmaceutical, banking and insurance companies often fall into this category.
Fossil fuel firms, particularly, specialize in externalizing many costs of their business model onto the population (local human health impacts from pollution, global destruction of natural services infrastructure, etc.). Long ago, these fuel firms cooperated with the auto companies to replace the commuter train with the freeway in our major cities. They conspired make their products into new human needs, suppressing alternatives, and largely considering the adverse impacts as things to be denied and hidden.
Then there’s the “too big to fail” banks… When their predatory loan and fraudulent derivative schemes fell apart (as some few of the most vigilant and honorable economists had predicted), they convinced our bought public servants to bail them out with taxpayer funds.
A Long History…
The sad truth is, a great many in power have concluded nothing else matters as long as they get theirs. Though this phenomenon seems to be deepening and purifying, is isn’t new.
In 1883, reporter John Dickinson Sherman asked railroad tycoon William Henry Vanderbilt about why he ran limited express trains, “Do your limited express trains pay [profits] or do you run them for the accommodation of the public?”
Vanderbilt responded, “Accommodation of the public? The public be damned! We run them because we have to. They do not pay. We have tried again and again to get [our competitors] to give them up; but they will run them and, of course, as long as they run them we must do the same.” Vanderbilt received bad publicity and clarified his response with a subsequent interview, saying, “Railroads are not run for the public benefit, but to pay [profit]. Incidentally, we may benefit humanity, but the aim is to earn a dividend.”
As the old saying goes, “You pays your money and takes your choice.” Although nature and nurture each play a part, we each get to decide which perspective we adopt and support.
Choose wisely.
Cameron,
You post accurately reflects my attitude. Oddly, some people who see themselves as Christians embrace the first set of attitudes even though that is contrary to Christian principals.
I’m please to know that we share some important conclusions, Frank.
The God of Abraham is the God of Jews and the Christians and the Muslims alike, and the world would be so much more peaceful if all three keep that fact firmly in mind.
The sad truth is – religion or no religion – people in any culture rarely practice what they preach, and the more power they have, the more purely that maxim tends to be true.
Cunning people who seek power and wealth will twist anything to serve their purposes – religion, ideology, racism, chauvinism and other forms of bigotry, nationalism/patriotism, class divides, cultural differences, fear, love, hope – anything.
Of course, claiming a thing, and its reality, aren’t the same.
As Lincoln observed: How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.
The so-called “Authorities” who CLAIM to be Christian, and who yet preach that either wealth or hatred are godliness, are specifically rejected within the text of the books to which they pretend to adhere.
Here are some examples:
1st Timothy 6:5 “Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.”
Luke 15:16 “That which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.”
Luke 6:27 “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you…”
Luke 6:37 “Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you shall be forgiven.”
There are a great many societies across the world (indeed, almost all in the West) where the monarchs or presidents or dictators or priests CLAIMED the blessing of a deity, or “divine right” or whatever they chose to call it.
Of course, similar hypocrisy occurs in all populations and cultures, within – and quite apart from – any religion. If there never were any religion ever at all among humans, there would still be no peace today.
If every last one of these people in religion, in politics, and in corporate management, took to heart the passage in 1st Timothy, “The love of money is the root of all evil,” they would think and behave quite differently – but then, it seems likely they wouldn’t make the news.
The Calvinist doctrine, which I do not accept, was that one could tell whom God loved by his material wealth. Obviously that is not Biblical.
Doctrine is established by scripture, tradition, and reason. But it is just about impossible to get around Jesus’ admonition to love our neighbors as ourselves; that is paramount. If it were actually followed, we’d all be better off. I’m convinced that it was given for our benefit. Surely the wisdom in it can be seen by people of various religious and philosophical persuasions.
Agreed. 1st Timothy 6:5 “Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.”
Frank, sadly it is quite “easy” to get around the spirit of any admonition. Lawyers do it all the time by just defining the terms to the outcome desired. Those who are determined to hate do so by essentially declaring the “others” to be not my neighbors, but some kind of invading force.
This is in a sense a lie. We are lying to others and we are lying to ourselves. In doing so we become so good at lying that we convince ourselves and add to our ignorance.