American society has become increasingly stratified and the reason is increasing regulation, universities' domination of the labor market and the Federal Reserve Bank. Max von Weber argued that the Protestant ethic engendered capitalism. Talcott Parsons argued that social norms that are fundamental to economic development include universalistic versus particularistic; specificity versus diffuseness of role relations; achieved versus ascribed status; and collectivity versus self orientation.
The idea of universalistic versus particularistic social norms is that in order for a society to develop, laws must apply universally. Resources must be allocated on the basis of universal criteria that reflect objective achievement such as competence rather than by social class, race or other ascribed characteristics. Relations should not be based on general considerations such as family connections, but rather on specific achievements.
America has increasingly become a society where status counts more than achievement. We can see this in the recent proposal to appoint Caroline Kennedy to the US Senate. To see how far we have fallen from America's past achievement orientation, let us compare a Senator from the early 1820s, Andrew Jackson, with the proposed appointee from New York, Caroline Kennedy.
Andrew Jackson, assisted by Davy Crockett who was under Jackson's command, defeated the Red Stick Creek Indians at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend in 1814. In the Battle of New Orleans in the War of 1812, according to Wikipedia:
"on January 8, 1815, Jackson's 5,000 soldiers won a victory over 7,500 British. The British had more than 2,000 casualties to Jackson's 13 killed and 58 wounded or missing."
In 1817 Jackson led a campaign against the Seminole and Creek Indians. Having been ordered to prevent runaway slaves from going to Florida, Jackson invaded Florida, resulting in calls for his censure. Using the invasion as a pretext, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams negotiated the Adams-Onis treaty with Spain, whereby Spain ceded Florida to the US. Jackson served as the first US governor of Florida in 1821.
In 1822 the State of Tennessee elected Jackson to the US Senate. He ran for president in 1824, and although he won the most votes he did not win a majority, and John Quincy Adams was selected by special vote of Congress. Of course, Jackson was elected to the presidency in 1828, and in his second term abolished the then-central bank, the Second Bank of the United States.
Now, let's compare Caroline Kennedy's resume to Jackson's. Caroline Kennedy's grandfather was a wealthy bootlegger who managed to get himself appointed to several government sinecures, to include the first chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission and Ambassador to Britain. Her father was president. Kennedy attended Harvard and Columbia. She is a mother and wife. She has coauthored and edited several books. She has no other important achievements.
Americans are increasingly insensitive to the lack of emphasis on achievement in their culture. The reason is that universities have intruded into the allocation of labor. Universities masquerade as a form of selection-by-achievement, but they are nothing of the sort. The reason people get into a selective college is a test score that is independent of achievement and/or family connections or other status criteria. Few if any college students can boast of important achievements, and the few who do achieve important things in college like Bill Gates or Michael Dell, do so in spite of the college curriculum, not because of it.
The emphasis on attending a selective college would not in itself render American society ascription as opposed to achievement-based without a second factor: the increasing dominance of Wall Street over American business life. In the nineteenth century Wall Street was a neutral actor that served to finance American business in light of small-scale banks and scarce credit (scarce because of the gold standard). However, that changed in 1913 when the Federal Reserve bank was established and given the power to expand and contract the money supply. In 1933 the gold standard was abolished, and in 1971 its final remnant was cleared away. Since 1971 Wall Street has expanded dramatically because of the massive support it has received from the Fed.
The beneficiaries of the massive expansion of credit have of course been Wall Street executives. They have benefited at the expense of the public and of other businesses, which have not had equal access to credit and to resources that they would have in the absence of the Fed's credit monopoly. This is because of the income tax, the inheritance tax and the inflation tax.
Given the allocation of the public's wealth into Wall Street's hands, the question needs to be asked: who gets to be the recipient of the Fed's beneficence? The answer, of course, is that selection is made on the basis of family background and academic credentials.
Thus, universities serve as the selection device by which a privileged aristocracy, handed wealth by the Fed, gains entry. Universities are the post-World War II form of primogeniture.
Achievement no longer matters for much in American culture. Rather, you get into a good school and then hope you get a job on Wall Street. You try your hand at the markets, and if you're lucky you become a billionaire. This trend of allocation of wealth on the basis of status rather than achievement has brought us Caroline Kennedy. What is new about Kennedy is the arrogance of our politicians. They are willing to put forward a candidate who lacks any competence whatsoever, and whose only claim to the post is aristocratic family background.
America is reverting to the 17th century before our eyes.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Letter to Governor Paterson: Kennedy Appointment Turns My Stomach
PO Box 130
West Shokan, NY 12494
January 3, 2009
The Honorable David A. Paterson
State Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
Dear Governor Paterson:
I oppose the appointment of Caroline Kennedy to the Senate. Ms. Kennedy lacks meaningful political or business experience. Indeed, she lacks meaningful work experience of any kind. While experiences gained in motherhood can be transferable to work, a series of responsible but more limited posts leading to the Senate would be an appropriate career path.
Rather than basing your interest in Ms. Kennedy on her experiences, achievements or characteristics, you are basing it on her family name and background. Sociologists would call your fixation on her background ascription- as opposed to achievement-based. Ascription of status is characteristic of feudalism and aristocratic societies, not of growing or successful ones.
Retrogression to medieval aristocratic privilege has increasingly become characteristic of our society in general, and of New York State in particular. That is, the nation and the state have become increasingly fixated on privilege and status at the expense of achievement. This, in turn, is related to excessive power of Wall Street and big business reinforced by government whereby business success is no longer based on innovation but on political power and access to government, particularly to Federal Reserve Bank credit. Your appointment of Ms. Kennedy is symptomatic of New York's culture of privilege. It turns my stomach.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.
West Shokan, NY 12494
January 3, 2009
The Honorable David A. Paterson
State Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
Dear Governor Paterson:
I oppose the appointment of Caroline Kennedy to the Senate. Ms. Kennedy lacks meaningful political or business experience. Indeed, she lacks meaningful work experience of any kind. While experiences gained in motherhood can be transferable to work, a series of responsible but more limited posts leading to the Senate would be an appropriate career path.
Rather than basing your interest in Ms. Kennedy on her experiences, achievements or characteristics, you are basing it on her family name and background. Sociologists would call your fixation on her background ascription- as opposed to achievement-based. Ascription of status is characteristic of feudalism and aristocratic societies, not of growing or successful ones.
Retrogression to medieval aristocratic privilege has increasingly become characteristic of our society in general, and of New York State in particular. That is, the nation and the state have become increasingly fixated on privilege and status at the expense of achievement. This, in turn, is related to excessive power of Wall Street and big business reinforced by government whereby business success is no longer based on innovation but on political power and access to government, particularly to Federal Reserve Bank credit. Your appointment of Ms. Kennedy is symptomatic of New York's culture of privilege. It turns my stomach.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Car of the Future
There comes a time when the gears of the universe click into place and the automotive future revs into high gear. A few days ago the Foundation for Economic Education offered to donate a book I am using for my senior seminar to my students, Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlett. Around the same time, the Republican Liberty Caucus of New York chair, Carl Svensson, set up a meeting in New Paltz with Robin Yess. It is no small coincidence that Yess ran for Assembly in the 101st district in New York, which is where I happen to live. Today, Ms. Yess forwarded the following video link from the website of (can you believe it?) the Foundation for Economic Education! On top of which I was just thinking of doing a blog about the automotive bailout. Plus, I just bought a car.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Progressivism, Morality and Power
What is called "liberalism" in American popular parlance is better termed "social democracy", although even that term fails to fairly characterize it. I nevertheless use the term "liberalism". Liberalism is in part a moral system. Liberals believe that state action can improve moral outcomes. For example, liberals believe that it is more moral to have less income inequality than more, and therefore that it is moral for the state to force wealthier people to give their wealth to less wealthy people.
There are a number of interesting corollaries to liberal morality. For example, there is a shamanistic belief in the power of the state to bestow morality. If an individual with less wealth were to simply take the wealthier person's assets, then that would be termed theft. But the liberal believes that morality is conferred upon the theft if the state takes it.
Part of the liberal's claim is that democracy bestows morality. A group of people decides that a given income distribution is fair, and then morality is bestowed on the theft by the fact that the group made the decision. Hence, liberalism is a system of fetishization of some construct, be it the state, democracy or power itself, by which the liberal believes that morality or right is conferred.
In the eighteenth century Hume showed that there is no intellectual basis for ethics, but rather right and wrong are emotions hence cannot be proven. However, the intellectual content of the emotion, right and wrong, can be conferred by a wide range of constructs. Aristotle believed that virtue derived from a socially inculcated set of habits and that a virtuous individual has integrated virtue into their decision making capacity, their right reason or ortho logos. Descartes, an Enlightment rationalist writing in the Christian tradition, believed that God verifies the authenticity of perception and that as a result logical (and moral) choice is possible. Locke argued that labor confers ownership and therefore it is morally right for a free individual to lay claim to property and estate. None of these beliefs suggests the need to curtail or control human nature. Control is not normally considered part of ethics.
In contrast, John Dewey, the proto-typical liberal, father of progressive education and arguably founder of modern liberalism says this in the introduction of his book "Human Nature and Conduct":
"Morality is largely concerned with controlling human nature. When we are attempting to control anything we are acutely aware of what resists us. So moralists were led, perhaps, to think of human nature as evil because of its reluctance to yield to control, its rebelliousness under the yoke."
It is true that the inculcation of habits involves a degree of control, but none of the great philosophers, particularly Aristotle, saw good habits as in themselves representative of morality. Rather, morality involves freedom and choice between good and evil.
Dewey, however, claims that the Sunday School teacher's mission represents all morality, that all morality involves control. More likely, Dewey fetishizes control and power, and therefore defines morality as control. How far Dewey would go with that definition was and is uncertain. In the real world, Dewey never did protest Stalin's crimes.
Thus, Dewey defines morality as control. This is characteristic of liberalism, which idealizes control or power used in conjunction with democratic processes or for social democratic ends. Is liberalism's goal democracy, equality or power for the liberal? In fact, the liberal regime has yielded less equality and less democracy than existed in the nineteenth century. What has changed is the allocation of power.
There are a number of interesting corollaries to liberal morality. For example, there is a shamanistic belief in the power of the state to bestow morality. If an individual with less wealth were to simply take the wealthier person's assets, then that would be termed theft. But the liberal believes that morality is conferred upon the theft if the state takes it.
Part of the liberal's claim is that democracy bestows morality. A group of people decides that a given income distribution is fair, and then morality is bestowed on the theft by the fact that the group made the decision. Hence, liberalism is a system of fetishization of some construct, be it the state, democracy or power itself, by which the liberal believes that morality or right is conferred.
In the eighteenth century Hume showed that there is no intellectual basis for ethics, but rather right and wrong are emotions hence cannot be proven. However, the intellectual content of the emotion, right and wrong, can be conferred by a wide range of constructs. Aristotle believed that virtue derived from a socially inculcated set of habits and that a virtuous individual has integrated virtue into their decision making capacity, their right reason or ortho logos. Descartes, an Enlightment rationalist writing in the Christian tradition, believed that God verifies the authenticity of perception and that as a result logical (and moral) choice is possible. Locke argued that labor confers ownership and therefore it is morally right for a free individual to lay claim to property and estate. None of these beliefs suggests the need to curtail or control human nature. Control is not normally considered part of ethics.
In contrast, John Dewey, the proto-typical liberal, father of progressive education and arguably founder of modern liberalism says this in the introduction of his book "Human Nature and Conduct":
"Morality is largely concerned with controlling human nature. When we are attempting to control anything we are acutely aware of what resists us. So moralists were led, perhaps, to think of human nature as evil because of its reluctance to yield to control, its rebelliousness under the yoke."
It is true that the inculcation of habits involves a degree of control, but none of the great philosophers, particularly Aristotle, saw good habits as in themselves representative of morality. Rather, morality involves freedom and choice between good and evil.
Dewey, however, claims that the Sunday School teacher's mission represents all morality, that all morality involves control. More likely, Dewey fetishizes control and power, and therefore defines morality as control. How far Dewey would go with that definition was and is uncertain. In the real world, Dewey never did protest Stalin's crimes.
Thus, Dewey defines morality as control. This is characteristic of liberalism, which idealizes control or power used in conjunction with democratic processes or for social democratic ends. Is liberalism's goal democracy, equality or power for the liberal? In fact, the liberal regime has yielded less equality and less democracy than existed in the nineteenth century. What has changed is the allocation of power.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
