The So-called "Conservative Challenge" and a "Liberal Answer" from 50 Years Ago, Part Two [essay]

1

When I shook hands with liberal Democratic candidate Eugene McCarthy in 1968, it never occurred to me that in 2012 I’d be citing memorable passages from his 1964 book A Liberal Answer to the Conservative Challenge.  But then it never occurred to me that anything written about current affairs in that time period would apply so aptly to the world of 2012 as I found that many of McCarthy’s observations seem to do today.

This is true, I think, for two reasons: (a) the fact that the statements were so perceptive in their own time, and (b) the fact that the tension between liberal principles and perceptions and conservative principles and perceptions is an enduring – if not permanent – feature of American culture.

As I came to the end of Part One of this report, I had finished leafing through McCarthy’s Introduction “The Banner Yet Waves” and Part I “The Scales of Economic Justice.”  Part II is called, “Of Payrolls and Poverty.”

2

The first chapter of this section is “The Poor, Their Plight and Rights.”  Here are some key passages.

“[In 1964] … the number of poor in the United States [is estimated] as being as being 40 and 50 million people.” [p. 37]

This number of poor Americans would have been about 23% of the total population in 1964.  As the 1960s and early ’70s boomed along, the percentage of poor in this country was cut down to about 11% in 1973.  By the 2010 census, that percentage had risen again by over 4%.

“Nearly 7 million people depend on public assistance for all or part of the income they must have for basic necessities …We have 65 million citizens in the United States who are 65 years or over… Most of these people have very limited financial means. …It is estimated that 14 million American families live in substandard or deteriorating homes…” [p. 37]

“…There is no doubt that poverty is still a fact of life in the United States.” [p. 37]

And poverty in America certainly seems to be a fact of life again, over 16% and rising in 2010, especially when we contrast the percentage at the bottom of the wealth scale with those at the top.

“Under such conditions does government have any obligation?  The conservative position generally is that it does not; the liberal position is that it does have a responsibility.” [p. 38]

“President [Franklin] Roosevelt expressed his view…in his State of the Union Address of 1944: ‘We cannot be content, no matter how high the general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people – whether it be one-third or one fifth or one tenth – is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure. …Necessitous men are not free men.’” [p. 40-1]

“These have been the elements of the liberal program and, to the extent these needs are not met, they remain as essential parts of the liberal program.” [p. 42]

3

The following chapter, Chapter 2 of Part II by this 1968 presidential hopeful was called “The Real Right to Work.”  First, some of McCarthy’s general observations:

“Unemployment is in many ways the most difficult if not the central problem of our free economy and our free society.” [p. 42]

“In a liberal view, ‘the right to work’ is too closely related to basic human rights to be used as a mere slogan against unionization.” [p. 48]

“Neither unrelieved leisure activities nor idleness is the road to happiness.  Man by nature needs more than satisfaction of his capacity to consume.  He needs also to produce, to construct, to add some degree of perfection to goods or to provide services for other men.” [p. 48]

These are statements about 1964 …or are they about 2012?

“Many thousands of Americans suffer long-term unemployment today because of age, race, lack of proper training, or obsolescence of once valued skills.” [p. 42]

“Economic theories should not divert us from the simple, positive response that justice demands when we see the misery and hopelessness in which too many of our people now live.  Evasion of their just claim for help is faulty democracy as well as bad economics.” [p. 45]

What about conservatives’ and liberals’ contrasting positions on unemployment?

“What is the conservative answer? … that there always must be workers changing jobs, industries declining as others rise, and a ready labor supply available for new products or extra shifts…[or] that current unemployment is temporary…[or] that the problem is local [and] it should be left to industry or to the states.” [p. 45]

“The liberal position emphasizes federal responsibility.” [p. 45]

“…The federal government should stand ready with emergency public works programs to help meet the very special problems of recession or unusual temporary disturbances in the economic life of the country.” [p. 47]

In the 1950s, from reading the newspapers I had inferred that what distinguished Republicans from Democrats was the level of unemployment that each party considered “normal.”  Democrats, I’d concluded, thought that unemployment of about 3% was more or less appropriate for a healthy economy; a higher level of unemployment would lead Democrats to intervene.  Republicans thought 6% unemployment was tolerable, and only if a larger percentage were out of work would they consider taking action.

In recent times, conservatives have resisted significant intervention even when the unemployment rate was well over 10%.

4

The last chapter of Part II is called “The Challenge of Automation.”  Here are what seem to me the key statements:

“Work is an activity which for most…is an expression of the human person.” [p. 50]

“In the middle of the 19^th century, John Stuart Mill, writing as a philosopher of liberal economics, said that there cannot be a more ‘legitimate object of the legislator’s care than the interests of those who are sacrificed to the gain of their fellow citizens and prosperity – those displaced by changing methods of production.’” [p. 52]

So far, McCarthy in this chapter was writing of basic liberal tenets.

“…[The legislator’s] decision may be to establish or maintain national programs of security; to improve the social security program so as to make it more effective, to have a national program of health insurance, to have a more satisfactory unemployment compensation program based upon national standards.” [p. 54]

“We have been challenged to work out devices and procedures under which every person can have a claim and a share of that which is produced.” [p. 55]

All these statements would be true for the liberal at any time.

5

Part III of McCarthy’s book is called “The Responsibilities of Responsible Government.”  That sounds important.  I will review it carefully before writing Part Three of this report.  “Stay tuned!”


*
**
***

The So-Called "Conservative Challenge" as "Answered" 50 Years Ago, Part One [essay]

*

**

***

1

One warm (or maybe hot) Spring day in 1968, I was in a little public park in a  small California town, hanging around with a shifting group of 50 folks or so.  We were awaiting the arrival of Eugene J. McCarthy, liberal Democratic Senator from Minnesota who in November the year before had announced his intention to run against President Lyndon Johnson in the New Hampshire primary.  He was about an hour late, but no one seemed to mind waiting.  I myself had waited two hours in the fall of 1960 for John Galbraith to get to our college town campaigning for John Kennedy.  In both cases, there was a sense of excited anticipation but not frustration or annoyance.

Then a car drove up, and three folks got out.  Applause and a few cheers greeted them, and McCarthy as well as a small Hispanic man shook hands joyfully as they moved toward the center of the crowd in this little park.  The third guy, evidently a staffer, settled us down and apologized for being late.  There had apparently been a big, enthusiastic crowd for them in Berkeley.

As Gene looked on benevolently, the staffer gave an impassioned introduction to the dark-skinned little man, who was apparently a significant figure in the Hispanic community, who himself then gave a wonderful short speech to great acclaim.  (I later learned a lot more about Cesar Chavez.)  But it was McCarthy whom we had come for, and it was a privilege to hear him, to shake his hand, and to wish him well.

That was in 1968, when McCarthy's 1964 book had been reprinted: A Liberal Answer to the Conservative Challenge.  I should have read it then, of course, but I have been glad to read it now at last.  It is surprisingly relevant today... when liberals might think an "answer to the conservative challenge" is as much needed as it ever has been.

2

Here are some key passages from this almost 50-year-old book:

 From the Introduction, "The Banner Yet Waves" -

“The basic ideas or concepts [in the American founding documents] are self-determination, equality, liberty, and the positive role of government.  Of these basic concepts the only one subject to serious debate is the last – that of the role of government.  It is on this point that liberals and conservatives in the United States come closest to ideological or doctrinaire – as well as practical – disagreement.  The other ideas are generally accepted by both liberals and conservatives.” [p. 10]

“The principles of sound taxation have not changed since they were stated by Adam Smith in 1776.  A sound tax system, he said, should raise enough revenue; it should be just; it should be easy to administer; and it should stimulate growth.” [p. 13] 

“Liberals have been accused of being materialists - conservatives of believing in economic determinism; liberals of lacking faith - conservatives of having no trust in human reason; liberals of perpetuating and sharpening the class struggle - conservatives of advocating unlimited competition, the survival of the fittest as the dynamic of life and progress in society.” [p. 8] 

McCarthy’s comparison between Liberals and Conservatives reminded me of one of my own attempts to address this question:

http://byronderrick.blogspot.com/2011/04/conservatives-liberals-and-american-way.html

Also, as I read McCarthy’s introduction, I was struck by how much his observations on the U. S. of the almost 50 years ago seem like things a liberal might be expected to say today.

So I read on.

3

Part I is called “The Scales of Justice,” with the first chapter "Taxes and the Quest for Equity."  Here are some of the memorable comments:

“The principles of sound taxation have not changed since they were stated by Adam Smith in 1776.  A sound tax system, he said, should raise enough revenue; it should be just; it should be easy to administer; and it should stimulate growth.” [p. 13] 

“…Social control objectives will continue to be reflected in our tax laws, as they are today in excise taxes on such things as liquor, tobacco, and gambling.” [p. 13]

“The progressive income tax is a special target of the conservatives.  Some even advocate the repeal of the 16^th Amendment.”  [ p. 13]

“Although there is a continuing debate even among liberals as to whether the rates themselves are proper or defensible, it is generally accepted by liberals that tax rates should reflect in some degree the taxpayer’s ability to pay; that is, the rate should be higher for those in high income brackets.  The top rate in the federal income tax scale has been, for many years, 91 percent. [p.14] (emphasis added)

"…Many [of the rich] benefit from special dividend credits and deductions now provided in the law.  Many have changed their investments so as to be able to take advantage of the capital gains provisions of the law.”  [p.14]

“In his 1961 tax message to the Congress, President Kennedy recommended that the present dividends exclusion …be repealed.” [p. 16]

Unlike many of his other statements, McCarthy's remark that the tax rate on the rich was 90% in his time is surely not true today, when the rich pay less than 25% in income tax.  The economy was booming in McCarthy's time.

4

Moving on, then, here are some passages from the next chapter, "The Myths of Federal Financing":

"The United States is currently engaged in a very important discussion of economic and fiscal policy." [p.19]

Does that sound familiar?

"There are three widely and strongly held conservative ideas which bear importantly on this discussion:  One, that a balanced budget is an ultimate good; two, that absolute control of inflation is not only an economic good but also a moral good; and three, that government expenditures by their very nature are wasteful and noneconomic." [p.19]

"I must ... make it clear that liberals are not in any absolute or moral sense in favor of unbalanced budgets... [or] inflation - galloping or creeping - and that liberals do not believe that governmental expenditures are never wasteful." [p.20]

Note: The reference to "galloping" or "creeping" inflation was McCarthy's nod to the rhetoric of the '60s, or rather to the clichés of the time.  Today, it is sort of assumed that annual increases in the Consumer Price Index of 3% or so is a sign of a healthy, slowly growing economy.  In the '60s, just about any price increase was seen as a threat; inflation at 3% or below was "creeping" and above 3% was "galloping.

The subject of this chapter - fiscal policy - is the most directly related to my own interests.  So far, the statements in this chapter (except maybe for the rhetoric) could have been written by a liberal today.   Moving ahead, we find these passages:

"A balanced budget may be good or it may be bad." [p. 20]

"In the years between 1953 and 1960 - the Eisenhower administration - the budget was unbalanced in five out of eight years, and the national debt increased by roughly $20 billion." [p. 21]

"Deficit financing and the extension of credit are vital to the American economy.  Credit is one of the instruments which have contributed greatly to the growth of Western civilization and certainly to the growth of the United States." [p. 21]

This part of the discussion reminded me on my own essay:

http://byronderrick.blogspot.com/2010/08/in-times-of-war-times-of-recession.html

Let's see what's next:

"A popular position on the part of the conservatives is that the imposition of a federal debt ceiling will result in something called 'fiscal responsibility.'  This claim is not supported by the record." [p. 22]

The debt ceiling is certainly a pertinent issue today.

"One of the most serious consequences [of this arbitrary ceiling] is that the ceiling has served as an  excuse, perhaps justified by necessity, for highly questionable budget practices.  [p. 22]

"Actually the debt ceiling is not an instrument for [keeping budgets balanced].  It is ineffective in times of prosperity, when revenue is high, and has a dangerous, arbitrary braking effect during times of recession.  It leads to rigidity in debt management and in thinking with regard to government finance and policy.  One Secretary of the Treasury after another has borne this out in testimony." [p. 25]

These comments all still pertinent to our situation today.  In the remaining four pages...:

"Sumner Slichter, who has a reputation as a somewhat conservative economist wrote..., "Most important of all, people should realize that the alternative to creeping inflation is a fairly substantial amount of unemployment.'"  [p. 26] 

"Is a balanced or an unbalanced budget good or bad?  The answer must be that neither is economically or morally good or bad in itself, but that each budget must be judged in relation to the whole pattern of facts and forces." [p.28] 

"To oversimplify and to misapply slogans is to do a disservice to the whole decision-making process in a democracy." [pp. 28-29] (emphasis added)

Some of these book's comments - including this last one - could be said about any time in any nation's history.

5

The next chapter is called, "The Common Stake."  Let's see what memorable comments we find here:

"'Get the government out of business" is a popular conservative political slogan.  ...The federal government has been actively involved in the business and economic life of the country since the beginning of our nation's existence."  [pp. 29-30]

"The issues of government fiscal policy, of credit and interest rates, rates of economic growth, taxes, tariffs, and of government relation to business remain political issues today... ."  [p. 30]

"Today" could be 2012 too.

"... American business is primarily motivated by search for profit and individual or corporate advancement, and cannot be expected to respond to all of the demands of a social or economic nature... . Government, on the other hand, has primary responsibility for the common good and, therefore, must assert itself when private interests seriously threaten or interfere with the efforts to achieve it."  [p. 30] (emphasis added)

"Regulatory powers serve a number of purposes:  They may protect the public, insure a free competitive economy, or promote business activity."  [p. 30]

"Almost without exception, federal intervention in the economic life of nation has followed abuse of privilege, or neglect or failure on the part of extra-governmental institutions or individuals to meet the needs of the country."  [p. 31]

In 2012 the tension between businesses and public regulation is still, or again, a central issue in our political debates.  The next section recalls the statement in the Introduction: "Liberals [have been accused] of lacking faith - conservatives of having no trust in human reason."  Moving on...

"In political campaigns it is customary for liberals to charge that government has not done enough for the economy, and for conservatives to charge that the government is attempting to do too much."  [p. 32]

"[Liberal] Leon Keyserling ... insists that reasoned judgment be applied to the economy and the business community and to its problems; and that to leave these problems to nature or to the operation of economic laws (which, with some oversimplifications, is called the conservative approach) is to declare for the irrational."  [p. 35]

"Technical processes, which includes business and economic processes, must be directed to human ends." [p. 35] (emphasis added)

"The idea of 'survival of the fittest' does not apply to human society... ." [p. 35]

"...Some of the early and simple rules of competition, which work well when there are many small producers competing in a free and open market, do not work as effectively when great concentration of economic power is involved.  We must acknowledge that with an increase in power there must be corresponding increase in responsible control." [p. 36]

And in 2012 we must acknowledge that power has become more concentrated in larger and larger multi-national business corporations than ever before.  But there has not been "corresponding increase in responsible control" - in fact, to the contrary.

6

Part II is called "Of Payrolls and Poverty."  I will get to its first chapter "The Poor: Their Plight and Rights" in Part Two.

* * *

* *

*

Wise Sayings 12 from Ron Lucius

*

**

***

Enough is enough, all agree.

Too much is too much, most would agree.

So, not enough is not enough, right?

……………………………………………………….................Ron Lucius

*

Good enough is good enough, most would say.

A few say, A better strategy is to believe that "Good enough is not good enough."

……………………………………………………….................Ron Lucius

*

The best is good enough, it seems obvious.

The worst is not good enough, not even just "enough."

Bad is not good enough either.

So, is okay okay?

……………………………………………………….................Ron Lucius

*

Nothing worthwhile is ever -
          perfect,
          completed, or
          easy.


Anything worth doing is always -
          engaging,
          challenging, and
          needed.

……………………………………………………….................Ron Lucius

*

**

***

Reminiscence: Baseball Moments

*

**

***

A recent radio folk music program was built around the theme "Play Ball!" The songs played in that hour were varied, except in quality (they were all great!), but as a group, they reminded me of times in my childhood when baseball was especially important to me.

Although my friends think I'm kidding when I say I am (or was) a champion athlete, it is true that I have vivid memories of athletic moments of fulfillment and achievement in sports.  Yes, even me.  Most of these memories come from childhood, and not all - but most - come from baseball.

1

All through childhood, I lived in the same family home with the same family members.  In that neighborhood, children typically roamed around outside and often played group games together.  Sometimes we threw a football around in the street or in one of our front yards.  Sometimes we even had a game of tackle in the front yard.  I don't have any special, specific memories related to any of these little games.

But there were several other yards not many blocks away where sometimes larger games, involving maybe six or eight of us, would break out from time to time.  I used to roam around a lot in those days, often on my bike (I guess), and I would always join in the games I came across.

One of these larger yards was at the home of a girl in my school class.  Her older brother - a big guy - had shown up a few times to play with the rest of us, and he must have suggested we sometimes use his front yard... which we did from time time, whether H----- was there or not!

Another, which I remember the best, was at my closest childhood friend's house, A----'s backyard.  A---- and I were in the same class, not only the same grade, every year from first grade ... gosh, I think, all the way through sixth grade.  We often worked jointly on school projects.  I remember making crayon drawings together, for instance, which we signed jointly with a pseudonym we made out of a combination of our two names.  In about the fourth grade, our teacher adopted a new teaching technique of making "block assignments" in math and English.  On the first school day of the month, Mrs. V----- would tell us in the afternoon what assignments in our textbooks we would have to complete by the end of the month.  She would set aside a portion of every day, then, when we were expected to work independently on the assignments one by one.

Right away, without talking about it, A---- and I began to race to see who could finish the whole month's assignments first.  After a couple of months, on the second day of the month, when Mrs. V----- said, "Take out your English books and work for 30 minutes on this month's assignments," A---- or I raised his hand and said, "Miz. V, I've finished them all."

That became the routine for a small group of us.  The first time or two it happened, A---- and I were sent to the Principal's office where we helped out by sorting papers, or running the mimeo machine, or something else.  Then, we got shipped up to the library, where there were more little tasks to do than in the office, and eventually - darn it - to just do some free reading, assuming we could stay out of the way of the classes formally sent to the library for teaching or research.

Sometimes, probably late in the month, there was a whole group of us who went to the auditorium where we worked up a little play.  We started a little class newsletter.

Anyway, A---- and I shared a lot of time together in those days.


A----'s house had a bigger backyard than the rest of us had, without any swings or other junk.  It was up a couple of steps from the patio next to the house.  We played football up there, after choosing up sides.  We played catch with a baseball, maybe with as many as four of us, but as we got stronger we couldn't bat without endangering the surrounding houses.

So, we played most of our pick-up neighborhood baseball games in the street.  As a general memory, all those neighborhood games remain among my fondest childhood reminiscences ... but not the source of any special or specific memories.

2

Then, when I was about eight I think, Mother signed me up to play for a little league team, D-------'s Pet Shop.  This was hardball, the best kind.  I remember the first day as Mom took me to the shabby little playground where we were scheduled to practice and play.  It was Texas after all, and the baseball diamond was all just dirt.  I was assigned to play shortstop.

We won just about all our games that season, all pitched by this really big guy named Walter Dollar.  Nobody in our humble league could hit that guy.  As long as our team scored once or twice, we had the win all sewed up.   I think that as a hitter, frankly, I was too shy to really swing.  I got lots of walks, since most of the pitchers couldn't throw strikes even with the most generous of umpires.  I could run pretty well too, and quite often I would come around to score.

In the field, I always tried to look competent and confident.  The Yankee shortstop Phil Rizutto was my hero, and I imitated his bouncing around so it would look as though I could spring quickly to either side (as he proved daily he could actually do).  I kept up the chatter too, as the coach always reminded us: "Come, Dollar. Come on, baby.  Let's go, let's go..."  And I'd rap my fist into my glove from time to time.  But the thing is, our pitcher struck out almost everybody, except for those who managed to hit fly balls to the outfield.  All our best fielders were sent to the outfield.

Then one day, late in the season, in a close game, one kid got lucky and hammered a line drive off Walter straight out toward centerfield.  I was just jumping that way and instinctively reached for the ball whistling past.  I still remember exactly how that line drive felt as it smacked into the sweet spot of my black Phil Rizutto glove.  Everybody on our team cheered.  We had won the game.  "Great catch, 'Byron,'" they said.  Someone clapped me on the back as I modestly trotted in.

3

The next week we learned we had won the league championship, and Walter Dollar and I had been selected for the all-star game.  In a whole season, I'd gotten maybe one or two hits, plus a lot of walks ... but with only a couple of chances, my fielding percentage was 100%.  Anyway, somehow they chose me.

I didn't start the All-Star game (Walter did), but I was sent in after a couple of innings.  I don't remember who won, but we played on a beautiful green lawn with colorful billboard fences - not the rusty old chain-link fence D-----'s Pet Shop had to live with - and even a real grandstand.

I had one chance in the field.  There was a runner coming up from first when the hard grounder came to me.  The Rizutto glove scooped it up.  The second baseman had run over to cover second, which would never have happened on our team.  I tossed him the ball underhand - out one - and he turned and threw it hard, right on the money, to first - double play! 

Another big cheer, this time from the grandstand too.  The second baseman coolly acknowledged me with a nod.

But the still more precious memory came from the plate.  I came up with a runner on first.  I was hoping for a walk but realized that this all-star pitcher could probably throw strikes... maybe like Walter Dollar.  I don't know why - perhaps inspired by the fans or the beautiful ballpark - but I swung hard at the very first pitch, connected squarely, and knocked a clean single over the shortstop's head.  Yes! I got a hit in the All-Star game!

4

Next stop: junior high.  The seventh grade was intimidating for a shy, rather short and tubby youngster.  I knew a lot of people, I suppose, but we were all taking a lot of courses with a different mix of children in each one and of course a lot of different teachers.  Lunchtime was especially scary.  I was still bringing a sandwich from home, but there was no natural fit for me to sit with someone.  So I just wolfed down my peanut-butter, pressed-ham, limp-bacon, or tongue sandwich and got outside as soon as I could.

There was always a pick-up game of softball going on in one corner of the playground.   I didn't know a soul who was playing, but I screwed up my courage and wandered to an empty spot in the outfield, left center.  There was always a different number of various players, and there were no teams.  Instead, the ones out to play first chose whether they would be one of the players waiting around to bat; maybe there was an informal limit of four hitters at a time.  Two of the early-comers got to choose to pitch and catch too.  The rest of the fielders just scattered more or less randomly around.

If a hitter struck out or hit a ground out, then the catcher took his or her place in the batting order and the pitcher went in to catch.  I don't remember how the next pitcher was selected.  It certainly was never going to be me!  Now, if the batter hit a fly ball that somebody caught, then that fielder would take his place right then and hit next.

(By the way, yes girls did sometimes - rarely - play lunchtime softball.)

Well, one day I was hiding way out in my regular spot in left center field.  Somebody hit one high and deep in my general direction.  It seemed like it was never going to come down.  I was - of course - ready to defer to anyone who wanted to yell, "I got it! I got it!"  But no one did.  There was a pretty strong code that you didn't hog someone else's ball, on the ground or in the air.

Anyway, I realized it was up to me.  I saw it all the way; I wasn't particularly nervous; and sure enough at the right time, I reached up and ... Sock! it smacked into my hands, and I got it!

By this time, the other regular players all knew me by sight but they didn't know my name.  But they gave a little cheer anyway, and called out, "Nice catch" and "Way to go" and like that.  Someone said as I threw the ball in toward the pitcher, "You're up!"

I don't know if I took my turn or not that day.  But by the next day, I was looked upon as the guy in the outfield who could catch the long, high ones.  Maybe once a week or so, I'd snare another one.  It came easily.  But by the second time, instead of heading up to bat, I'd point at one of the other guys who seemed to want to, to take my place at bat.  No one seemed to realize I was just chicken.  They treated me as though I was generous.

5

Flash forward to high school:  our church league basketball team even went to the state championships in Dallas my junior year.  I was a defensive and passing guard, not known (if any of us could be said to be "known") for offense... basically my baseball credentials, I guess.  But in our second game, which we lost, I shot five times and scored four times for a new career high.

In the spring that year, I was playing second base in the softball church-league.  Someone older than I, or at least better, was already shortstop.  (I kept my Rizutto glove.)  Our great rivals were the perennial champions form First ________ Church downtown.  They had the great keystone combination of Ronnie Cartlege and John Bohn.  Yes, Bohn and Cartlege!

I don't think I made many errors; I'd probably remember that.  And I must have even been okay at bat, and I was still fast on the base paths.  Stealing second was easier in that league than in little league because many church-league catchers couldn't catch a pitch and then haul back and throw accurately to second without bouncing the ball at least once.  And when they did, there was a good chance the second baseman and shortstop would compete either to catch the ball and tag the runner, or - just as likely - defer to the other player... in which case the throw would dribble out into centerfield.

I was a big threat to steal second when I did manage to get on...  But I wouldn't dare try it against the fabled Bohn and Cartlege.  Well, the memorable moment came in a game against First ________, with our team in the field.  Either Ronnie (whom I knew slightly even though he was a year ahead of me at school) or John came up to bat.  I was doing my dancing around and keeping the chatter going.

The hitter got to first either with a single to the outfield or with a walk (rare in church league, the fellowship leaders being the umpires).  Ronnie was one of the fastest kids in the league, but our catcher Bob was just about the best catcher in the whole league.  He was built like Yogi Berra no less.  And besides that, our shortstop and I knew that when the batter hit right-handed, the second baseman covered the bag in case of a steal.

Sure enough, the runner took off.  I danced over to second.  Bob threw a perfect hard one, a real clothes-line.  It socked into my glove, and Ronnie or John slid right into my tag.  Wow!  Cheers for that one too.

In the car on the way home, Bob the catcher said quietly to me, "I didn't know if you could catch it, 'Byron.'"  But I did.

6

Those are my most special baseball moments from childhood.  I had many somewhat more routine ones.  I listened to many big league games on the radio, for instance.  Also, during various family vacations, when my Dad would go to a professional conference and take the rest of us along, I got to go to games with the Chicago Cubs (with U of Texas grad Randy Jackson), the St. Louis Browns (with a giant and a dwarf), and one play-off in Ebbetts Field between the Dodgers and the Giants. 

Also, a sportswriter for the local newspaper rather often took me out to a minor league ballpark, Disch Field, to keep the scorecard for him at Austin Pioneer games.  On the nights when they were out of town, I sometimes listened to them on the radio; it took me a couple of years to realize that the crowd noise was always the same and that the clacking in the background was a teletype machine.  The announcer was in reality in an Austin studio reading the play-by-play via teletype and trying to maintain the illusion that he was at the game.

Those are great baseball memories too, but did not bring any really special moments.

*

**


***

Wise Sayings 11 from Ron Lucius

***

**

*

Do less, better.

……………………………………………………….................Ron Lucius

*

Work hard
and _________________ (fill in the blank)
     a. Do it right
     b. Complete your work
     c. Have a good time
     d. All of the above

……………………………………………………….................Ron Lucius

*

In times of challenge, take the hopeful view but proceed with grim determination.

……………………………………………………….................Ron Lucius

*

**

***

Can Moral Statements Be True? Part Two [essay]

*

**

***

As I wrote Part One of this thought piece, it began to dawn on me that what I was doing was looking for moral standards to guide my own behavior.

I tried several approaches to answering this question: Can moral statements be true (or false, for that matter)? I concluded that one cannot corroborate or contradict statements like these:

• Profiting from the suffering of others is wrong
• Telling the truth is right
• Treating others fairly is moral
• Failing to abide by agreements you have voluntarily made is immoral
• Kindness to others is good
• Greed is bad
• You should not take credit for the accomplishments of others
• You should take responsibility for your own actions

and so on, and so forth.

Facts are not enough alone to prove whether or not such moral statements are true or false.

6

Now here's another approach: What if all the world's religions, at all times throughout human history, agreed that a certain behavior is good and its opposite is bad? If all religious traditions were in favor of this good behavior and opposed to its opposite, wouldn't such enduring and extensive accord be a sufficient basis for saying this behavior is good in fact and its opposite bad?

Well...No. That would be like saying, All believers in an almighty and all-knowing deity have agreed about that God's moral standards, so therefore moral statements deriving from these standards are "true." But - for one thing -  we know there are people who do not believe in any supernatural being. Can we truly say that atheists - by definition - are immoral?

One would think we cannot. The most one could credibly claim is that all atheists are spiritually deficient, not morally flawed; that is, their beliefs may be lacking, by definition, but their behavior might still be moral, which is a social and behavioral concept rather than an intellectual or spiritual one.

It is correct that some people (including even, we have to note, some believers) behave as if they did not hold themselves to any moral standard, implying that for them, no morality exists at all. If atheists were logically consistent, would they all be amoral in this way?

In other words, is this a true statement: "It is immoral (or amoral) not to worship God"?

I don't see how we can reasonably hold this position. One could, for instance, rigorously follow a "moral code" just because he or she thinks that's the right thing to do, even though nothing in the world around us and nothing supernatural makes its moral statements true.

Claiming that a statement deriving from a moral standard accepted by all religions is true, would not be unlike saying that in this state or that state, a certain behavior is legal. Being legal, though, as we know, is not the same thing as being moral. The mere fact that a majority of all the world's people, throughout all history, may have thought it moral or immoral to do a particular thing is no guarantee that this claim is not mistaken: truth is not determined by a vote, even if the vote is unanimous. (Wide agreement would make a moral principle important, but not "true.")

7

Maybe it's worth pointing out that there are facts that are relevant to moral statements. People living in a society where individuals routinely act unselfishly might be shown to be less inclined toward political upheaval than others, for example, or to feel more loyal to their employers, or even to live longer. Any of those matters of fact, if they should exist, would show us that unselfishness was beneficial to society in certain measurable ways. But they would not make the statement "Selfishness is bad" true, only useful.

Some say - as another example - that it is immoral to bring into the world an infant when it is virtually certain that the mother cannot provide for the child's well-being. In such an instance, the facts demonstrating this high probability are relevant to the moral question of artificial birth control. But they don't prove that "Birth control is good" is a true (or a false) statement - not good or bad, only rational.

Although facts are or may be relevant to moral issues, that is, they are not determinative in themselves of "moral truth."

8

So, then: expressions about right and wrong can be neither corroborated nor contradicted by facts, and there is no independent or absolute moral standard that can be used to prove the truth or falsity of a moral claim.

When we say -

• Torture is wrong, or
• Having sex with someone else's spouse is immoral, or
• Treating people badly just because they are different from you is wrong, or
• Showing respect for other people even when they disagree with you is good, or
• Justice is better than revenge -

when we make such claims, we are saying that we like or don't like the matters identified; we admire justice and showing respect even for those who disagree with us, and we deplore revenge and adultery. Statements about what a person's moral judgements are may be true or false, but it would not be "true or false" to say that seeking revenge - for example - is immoral, only that the individual thinks so.

But that seems disappointing, doesn't it? We don't feel it is enough to say, "I admire unselfishness and I despise greed," or "I would not harm others if I could avoid it and I will always tell the truth." (Why should someone else care what our moral principles are anyway, anymore than our preferences in pop music or classical literature?)

Saying merely, "I believe all people should be treated fairly" or "I despise those who exploit the ill fortune of others" - seems to reduce important moral statements to the level of "I like broccoli" and "Opera bores me." I can make the claim, "It is immoral to want for myself something I deny to someone else," but in doing so I am only expressing an opinion, rather than accurately describing the world ... and this seems less momentous.

It just seems these days that expressing an opinion is less significant than explaining what is or is not factual. What I think, we seem to feel, is less compelling than what I know. My personal values are considered less consequential than my understanding of people and things outside myself. 

Moral values cannot be proven either true nor false, which makes them seem trivial.

9

Now, to recall the sage observation of that preacher in my sixth grade class, is there any kind of "truth" we can credibly claim for moral statements?   Dr. Smith - I assume - was speaking of the Bible's truth as being sometimes and in some ways that kind of truth one finds in myths, which to many of us do seem to accurately describe human nature and human hopes and dreams, truths - that is - which correspond to such a comprehensive reality that to limit their reference to mere matters of easily observable facts would be to miss their point and misunderstand them.

Because of the complexity and comprehensiveness of their reference, statements of this kind of "truth" may not be subject to corroboration or contradiction but may still be considered true or false.  Might we find a truth or falsity of a similar kind in moral statements?

And if so, would morality seem more important to us? Well, since we in our times don't respect mythology very much - even sometimes using the term "myth" to mean "lies" - this approach seems interesting (since moral claims, like myths, refer comprehensively to all people at all times) but not the compelling solution we are looking for.

10

We can make true (or false) claims about moral statements, like these -

• Treating others fairly is beneficial to all society, or
• If everyone sought to profit from the suffering of others, many would be harmed, or
• Pursuit of riches is not deeply satisfying long-term, or
• Torture does not reliably produce accurate testimony, or
• It is unwise to think you are more important than others.

These are complex and comprehensive statements - about wisdom, happiness, what benefits society, and such - and it is conceivable that enough experience or observation or historical research would prove or tend to prove their truth or falsity.

But is it right to be efficient, humble, happy, or socially beneficial?  How could we know, for sure? 

11

Let's get back to moral statements, not statements about the efficiency or practical value of certain behaviors but moral statements like these:

• Punishing an individual for the wrong-doing of his or her ancestors is wrong, or
• Honoring the individual who behaves morally even in trying circumstances is good, or
• It is bad for a society to deny equal opportunity to every one of its members, or
• It is right for political leaders to work together to promote the general welfare,

and so on -

Rather than seeking to show how these and other similar moral values are based on divine authority, or widespread agreement, or on reality itself, why can't a person just be satisfied by convincing himself or herself that X is right and Y is wrong, or that A is good and B is bad, or one should do this and should not do that? 

It is true there will be differences of opinion about such statements; so for us to live productively and amicably together, we need to find ways we can use to show why or why not to accept the value of guiding our behavior by one or by groups of such moral statements. 

In other words, the greater good for all will be achieved more readily the higher the degree to which all of us are willing to guide our behavior on the basis of the principle that Treating others as we would want them to treat us is good, and Behaving selfishly is bad, and It is immoral to profit from the suffering of others, and It is moral to take responsibility for one's own actions (and so on).  The more we can approach agreement on what is moral and what is not - not on the basis of claimed divine authority, not on a claim that one value is true and another is false, and not primarily on the basis of practical utility - but simply because we think it is right. The sooner we reach that point, the better for us all.

What can be brought to a discussion about whether or not is it right to seek to deny to someone else what you wish to have yourself (for example)?  How could we explain why we think greed is immoral and lying is bad? And so on.  What's relevant?

12

The relevant facts about the moral guide - when it is possible to learn them - are worth knowing, although they will not prove the validity or invalidity of the moral statement.  For instance, whether we consider capital punishment morally tolerable or morally repugnant, we should be interested to learn whether having execution as a possible judicial sentence does or does not tend to deter murderers from their heinous crimes. 

Maybe we would learn conclusively that capital punishment does work as a deterrent.   Maybe we would learn than it does not serve as a deterrent.  But, either way, such a fact would be worth considering in forming our moral judgement.

Another thing to be brought to the discussion about a moral issue - I'm tempted to think the most important thing - is the question of consistency with our other moral principles. 

Complex moral questions often involve prioritizing what's at stake in a certain situation.  Maintaining public safety, for example, is a good thing, even though it's good for practical rather than essentially moral reasons; but is it a high enough value to justify killing someone, as in capital punishment, when respecting others' right to live is an elemental moral value?  Is the virtue of punishing someone in proportion to her or his crime high enough to justify execution?  Regardless of what we eventually decide, these are issues that should be weighed for consistency in our value system.  Finally, let's say we know for sure it is good and moral to treat others as we would want to be treated ourselves, so can I honestly say that if I had betrayed my country, I would want to be executed for my treason?  If my morality were logically consistent, I would.

13

We can't know what's right and wrong from studying only the relevant facts.  We can't know for sure from learning the moral codes that have traditionally been accepted by others.  We might know the probable practical benefits and drawbacks from various feelings and behaviors from our own experience, our own observation, and our own reasoning.  But even all of these together (and other steps others may propose) will not guarantee that X is right and Y is wrong.  We have to decide that for ourselves, understanding that we would want others to make their own decisions.

And unlike my freshman classmate, we should always be aware that our moral decisions are not trivial (or "arbitrary"), despite their coming essentially from within, like our taste in pop music.

We cannot consider moral statements true, or false.  But we make moral choices all the time, daily and long-term.  Why, then, don't I adopt a strategy?  Why don"t I behave as though I knew the moral truths I need in order to live responsibly?

So, here's what I'm going to do.  From this point on, I will -

• Set a higher standard for myself than I would judge others by
• Treat others as I want others to treat me
• Judge my actions and those of others on moral values consistent with my other moral values
• Seek peace and prosperity, equal opportunity, liberty and justice for all
• Respect others' opinions even when I disagree with them
• Avoid any attempt to impose on others my values or my world view
• Not deny to others things I want for myself
• Tell the truth (except in those few instances when to do so would be contrary to other essential values)
• Work against any attempt to profit from the suffering of others
• Take responsibility for my actions
• Do what I say I will do, or explain why
• Not treat those different from me as though, by being different, they were inferior
• Support political leaders who believe they should work together with others to serve the general social good, and
• Add to this list, never considering it complete or finished.

***

**

*

Can Moral Statements Be True? Part One [essay]

*

**

***

What does it tell us about our culture that facts we can know by experience and experimentation mean more to us than morality?  I'm afraid we care more about being correct than about being right...

1

I remember in sixth grade in Texas, when Mrs. Davis and the other sixth grade teacher invited a well-known Baptist, hellfire-and-brimstone preacher to talk with both the two classes in that grade sitting all together in one room. (It was a little crowded.)  This was during the 1953-54 year, if I'm counting correctly.

Frankly, I don't remember what Dr. Blake Smith said to us in his formal presentation, though it must have included references to the Bible. But I remember his follow-up question-and-answer period very well.

We all thought of a certain Richard as the smartest kid we knew.  So it wasn't surprising when, being invited to ask questions, without hesitation Richard raised his hand. 

He asked Dr. Smith, "How do I know the Bible is true?"

Even at that time that seemed an odd, but enormous question.  From our perspective today, it seems like it would have been a dangerous one too, or at least a volatile issue.

But this fiery Baptist preacher gave an excellent answer:

"It depends," he said, "on what you mean by 'true'."  And he went on to say some things about various meanings of "truth," which I found pretty interesting to think about. 

I could be kidding myself from this almost-60 year distance, but I think Dr. Smith did say that all statements in the Bible might not have been "true" the way a statement like "In the summer Texas is hot" is true. But the statements in the Bible were true, he said, in one or more other ways.

In this piece, I'm definitely not interested in the Bible but in what it means to say X or Y is right or wrong (or good or bad).  Can such a statement be true?  That would seem to be an important question.

2

And, by the way, here's another relevant memory:

...In my college freshman literature class (in the Midwest) was a guy who always wore rumpled camouflage pants - with all those pockets on the legs - with a dark-colored tee shirt and a heavy, old green jacket.  He had long, straggly hair and usually hadn't recently shaved. 

We often  had the opportunity to discuss the deep moral issues great literature raises.  Our instructor was well known for two things: he was hard to please, and - a Classics professor by training - he taught by the Socratic method, asking leading questions as a way to help us reach what he considered the correct conclusions.  He did that brilliantly.

Dr. Hornsby also made sure everyone in class participated, calling on specific individuals to answer his questions, whether a hand was raised or not.  (By the way, after I spoke on occasion, he looked me over sadly and said, "Mr. 'Derrick,' that will not do," shaking his head.)

All of us in the class got used to the fact that when called upon, this scraggly-haired guy (who reminded us regularly that he was an atheist and a Marxist) started every answer he gave to the instructor's questions the same way.  He invariably said: "Well, you know, you have to make an arbitrary value judgement..."

He was evidently in the process of internalizing the notion that no moral statement is based on fact.  Morality has to be invented by the individual from whole cloth.  Then, she or he will be really and personally responsible for living up to the standards thus arbitrarily created. 

I later learned to recognize this as an "Existential" position.  It is plausible, we should acknowledge, even though this fellow himself may have been a primarily comic figure.

3

So, the question is:  Can a moral statement be true?  When we say, for instance, "Profiting from the suffering of others is immoral," is our statement true-or-false... or something else?

Or was my classmate in 1960 correct to say that this kind of statement - like "One person should not seek to impose her or his values on others" - is based solely on the will of the individual who chooses to base her or his behavior on it?

4

It seems clear that none of the following moral statements can be proven false or true by scientific investigation:

• Profiting from the suffering of others is immoral
• One person should not seek to impose his or her values on others
• Treating others as you would want others to treat you is good
• Failing to abide by agreements you have made voluntarily is bad
• Providing for your family is the right thing to do
• Stealing someone else's property is wrong

...and so on, and so forth.

In other words, factual evidence does not exist to prove whether some action or intention or policy is moral or immoral, good or bad, right or wrong.  We can discover whether or not an action is or is not legal, but can we prove by investigation whether the law in question is or is not moral?  Until 1865, for example, slavery was legal in some of the United States, but most of us would say it was never moral, right?

We can also discover from evidence whether an action is efficient or inefficient, practical or impractical, hard or easy, satisfying or unfulfilling, even wise or unwise... but not whether it is right or wrong.

So, if by "true" we mean a statement can be proven or disproven by study of the facts, then moral statements - about what we should or should not do, or what is good or bad - cannot be "true."

 5

I suppose that if we had a "true" moral standard to which one action or another could be reliably compared, then maybe we might come up with moral statements that are themselves true.

Here are several other moral statements:

• To kill is forbidden
• To commit adultery is prohibited
• Taking for yourself another persons' property is taboo
• Lying about another person's actions is proscribed

These forbidden actions are stated, of course, in the well-known Judeao-Christian "Ten Commandments."  They are said to have come directly from an almighty God.  If such divine laws are sure to be "true," then a moral statement derived from them - such as, "To frame someone else for a crime you committed yourself is immoral" - would also be "true," wouldn't it?  If the moral standard were true, the laws or rules derived from it would also be true...

But, well, then, we have to admit that there are other people who believe in a different almighty God (or Gods), whose so-called true standards (or commandments) might be different from these.  If a statement is true, it cannot be contradicted by another "true statement," can it?  No.  So such moral standards themselves are no "truer" than the kind of everyday moral statements we started with, like these -

• Failing to abide by agreements you have made voluntarily is immoral
• Treating others fairly is moral
• Telling the truth is right
• Profiting from the suffering of others is wrong
• Kindness to others is good
• Greed is bad
• You should not take credit for the accomplishments of others
• You should take responsibility for your own actions

...and so on, and so forth.

6 (to be continued)

We'll continue this thought process in Part Two...

***

**

*

Either/Or Thinkers [essay]

* 

**

***

"One and One Makes Nothing: Dualism Equals Nihilism"

Some personal reflections:

1

When a guy walks down the narrow hall looking for a public restroom and sees two doors facing one another in a small alcove, one of which is marked "Women," he goes through the other door. He doesn't look to see if that door is marked "Men." It's the only remaining option.

(I presume it would be comparable for a woman, but from experience alone I can't be sure.)

Some people in our world - evidently a lot of them - see all of life that way.

For such people, there are only two possibilities. Everything either is or is not something or other; everything either has or does not have Quality X or Quality Y. While I myself am not, I believe, this kind of dualistic thinker, I respect them. I have a growing respect for their numbers. And I think I even understand where they're coming from.

2

Even dualistic thinkers do in fact recognize that some qualities exist in degrees, falling at some point between the one extreme and the other. A person is not necessarily tall or short, for instance; she or he may be "average" (probably meaning, the same height as "me"). The sky may be cloudy or clear, or it may be be partly cloudy; everybody knows that.

Despite the over-used metaphor often applied to dualistic people - namely, "For them, everything is either black or white" - they in fact do recognize that in questions of color, there are shades of gray: dark, light, or "medium" gray, perhaps even finer distinctions ("medium-dark"? "grayish"?). And in relation to skin color - or rather race - the folks I am describing do most often recognize, in our times, that one is not simply white or non-white; one may also be mixed race, even mixed-race in varying degrees. (I myself am apparently something like 0.15% Native American, for instance.)

But for most things, these many friends, family members, co-workers, neighbors, political leaders and followers, voters and non-voters... all these dualistic thinkers see things as either this or that:

• You are either my friend or my enemy.
• You're either with me or against me.
• One's answer to a question is either correct or incorrect.
• You are either a person of principle, or you sometimes change your mind even on important issues
• The bathroom light is either on or off.
• You either win or you lose.
• What you say is either true or false, and what you think is either right or wrong.
• You either succeed or you fail.
• You believe, or you are a non-believer.
• You fight or you flee.

 (And so on.)

3

And about moral distinctions in particular, these dualistic-minded folks are peculiarly definitive in applying the "either-this-or-that" method to their daily lives.

 In life, they find either:

   1. truth or lies (usually found in "packs"),

  2. justice or injustice,

  3. patriotism or treason,

  4. dignity or humiliation,

  5. honor or dishonor, and

  6. people who are either:

      a. loyal or disloyal,

      b. free or enslaved,

      c. moral or immoral,

      d. right or wrong,

      e. good or bad.

As surely as we know that the sky might be partly cloudy, everybody also knows that our world is decidedly not simply good. It must necessarily be bad, then, right?

So - in their heart of hearts, dualistics know that:

• Life is basically simple, either one thing or its opposite.
• Everybody is probably your enemy.
• Although some things may seem okay, they are probably really inadequate
• The powerful are out to get you. 
• Most people are losers, "lazy good-for-nothings."
• Big words and long sentences are intended to hide the simple truth,
• Everybody lies and swindles and cheats.
• Although what you do, most of the time, is good, what most other people do, most of the time, is bad.
• You have to keep your guard up
• It's - as we say - "Every man for himself."

4

Okay.  So -

If you're surrounded by enemies, you doubt anyone's apparently good intentions.

If  everyone's a crook, you have to get your own as fast as you can.

If most people are losers, you have to be better than anyone else you see.

If everyone lies, you must question what anyone tells you.

If everyone cheats, the rules don't matter.

If the powerful are out to put you under their control, you must stand up to them and fight for your freedom and dignity.

If you can't depend on anyone or anything, you must vigorously protect yourself with an iron discipline.

5

As the result of perceiving the world this way, the either-or-way, these many people - rich and poor, southern and northern and western and eastern, educated and uneducated, urban and rural, sophosticated and rough-and-ready, upper class and working class - these dualistic thinkers throughout their whole lives are:

• persistent and consistent,
• independent,
• impatient with complex questions or explanations,
• unforgiving and uncompromising,
• angry,
• courageous,
• defensive,
• focused on the present, rather than on historical trends or future probabilities,
• passionate,
• suspicious,
• combative or aggressive,
• fierce,
• proud,
• intolerant of uncertainty and opposing opinions,
• fearful,
• prone to violence,
• lonely or "loner-ly."

As they see it and live it, the world is hostile, undependable, immoral, and seductive. They may recognize that it shouldn't and probably needn't be that way, but they know it is.

So - as they see it, a person should consider himself or herself morally superior to the world around her or him, but powerless to fundamentally change things. Such a person can never be satisfied or relax and must be ever-vigilant against the immorality of other people and the uncertainties of an evil world.

*

**

***