Religious Freedom #2 [essay]

*

**

***

Lately, I started - and did not finish - a thought-piece discussing "religious freedom" in the United States, because one hears in the public discussion fairly often these days the charge - usually made with considerable anger - that religious freedom is currently "under attack."

The claim emerged prominently on the scene in response to a provision of the 2010 federal reform of health insurance, requiring religious institutions - like the Catholic Church - to offer the employees of its social-service agencies and universities health insurance covering such controversial therapies such as birth control.  Although the churches and other such institutions were exempted from this requirement, the other organizations operated by them are not exempt.

In my earlier essay, I reviewed the Constitutional provision for "the free exercise of  religion," pointing out that the individuals employed by these organizations were of course free to exercise their religious conviction that contraceptive is immoral, even if it is covered by their insurance policy, and that those employees whose religious convictions did not prohibit use of birth control methods remained as free to use it as the majority of American women who have it covered by their insurance.

Why, then, I asked, was there so much vitriol in the claims that this provision violates religious freedom?  And I simply couldn't think of an answer to my own question.

2

One reader helped me out by explaining that perhaps a person opposed to contraception, for whatever reason, would resist paying insurance premiums, revenue from which would be used for others using birth control.  "My religious freedom," such an individual might claim, "will be violated if others use, in part, my money to use birth control."

That's the kind of explanation I was looking for, so I appreciate the coaching.  We could imagine that a person fervently condemning contraception of any "unnatural" kind (unlike abstinence) might even be moved to great anger by this impression, even if this individual were to realize that her or his opposition to anyone else's use of legal birth control methods is another matter, properly addressed by efforts to change the law.  Just because we disagree with a law, we do not have a right to ignore it. 

3

Also, the way group insurance works is that every group-member pays the same premium for the same plan, even though the great majority of the conditions covered by the plan are never used by that individual.  Some of my premium, for example, would go to cover the treatment of a person seriously injured in a car accident that killed someone else, which was caused by the survivor's having been drunk at the time.  I do not approve of drunk driving, but a little of the money used to treat this jerk's injuries would come from my premium.


Finally, church-affiliated universities, hospitals and charities would not have to provide or pay for the controversial coverage. Instead, we are told, coverage for birth control could be offered to women directly by their employers’ insurance companies, “with no role for religious employers who oppose contraception.”

Since there is no real issue actually threatening the religious freedom of the religious institutions involved, it is right and proper for all of us to support the freedom to choose contraception of women employees (or students) of the non-church organizations involved.

And anger and vitriol expended in this discussion by true believers is more properly directed at the law making the use of birth control legal.

I'm beginning to think that when people claim they value FREEDOM, they mean  their freedom to prevent other people from doing what they freely choose to do. 

***

**

*

Religious Freedom #1 [essay]

*

**

***

There has been a lot of talk recently, by Catholic leaders and by various Republican politicians, about what has been called "religious freedom."   One politician has also said that he values religious freedom and follows all the (other) values in our country's founding documents.  However, just what is meant by these individuals when they speak of "attacks on religious freedom" is unclear.

1

It is true that many of the original European immigrants to America in the 17th and early 18th centuries came here in search of freedom to worship according to their own creed and their own practices.  The "pilgrims" who came to Plymouth Rock are of course such individuals, and their historic "Mayflower Compact" was the result of negotiations between the Christian sect emigrating from Europe, the Puritans, and those they called "strangers" who did not share their religious convictions.


My own ancestors on my father's side in 1733 came to Georgia along with others from the Palatine region of what is now Germany who were called "Salzburgers,"  Protestants who had been persecuted by warring Catholic and Lutheran forces from both French and Germanic regions during the 100 Years War.  (My own ancestors were apparently pursuing that other goal that drove many Europeans to colonial America: economic advantage.  The "Dariks" found passage along with their highly religious neighbors from the Palatine region to England  first and from there to Savannah.)

2

Also, of course, the very first provision in the Bill of Rights amending the Constitution protects those in the United States from the government's establishment of one particular religion as the official religion of the country, and prohibits Americans from preventing an individual from exercising his or her own preferred religion.  We are guaranteed the right to worship - or not to worship - as we see fit, without hindrance from others.

It seems that this right was considered of vital importance by our founders, not really because they believed every individual should be allowed to worship or not as she or he decided, but because the founders themselves had already chosen a wide variety of different sects to follow: Puritans, Baptists, Anglicans, Catholics, and so on.  No one wanted someone else, even the democratic majority of "someones else," to dictate how they themselves would worship and conduct themselves morally.


The First Amendment, for our founders and for us, would seem to indicate that neither individuals nor groups may impose their religious beliefs and practices on others.  "Freedom of religion," then, essentially means freedom from possible interference in one's individual choice about which religion to follow, if any, and what moral principles to pursue in one's own behavior.

3

The specific cause of the recent claims that "religious freedom" is now "under attack" was apparently the health insurance legislation passed by our representatives in Washington in 2010, which requires all health insurance companies to cover contraceptive procedures and therapies.  Religious organizations like churches are exempt from this requirement, but the insurance policies offered by the universities, social service agencies, and other organizations that are supported and controlled by religious organizations are not exempt.  According to the new law, their employee health insurance policies must cover birth control treatments, .

Now, many - perhaps most - of the employees of these organizations such as a university or a hospital do not share the beliefs of the supporting religious institution.  Even those who do  apparently value their freedom to go against their church's teachings and use birth control anyway.  (98% of American Catholic women do so, as we have learned.)  And of course, no one is required to use birth control just because it is covered by her or his health insurance policy.

4

In America, however, the basic motivation of "religious freedom" has been protection of individuals from enforcement of religious practices on those who do not share the beliefs behind them, from the "strangers" (non-Puritans) on board the Mayflower to the anti-Church of England sentiment behind the first amendment of the U. S. Constitution.


The 2010 law would seem entirely congruent with the traditional meaning of "religious freedom" on this continent.  The individual may not be forced by the government to follow the religious beliefs or practices of soneone else's religion.  So where's the "attack on religious freedom" in the 2010 health care law?


And why all the anger?  The rage over this issue doesn't appear to be mere posturing covering up deeper or darker reasons that the complainants have for opposing President Obama and those who supported the 2010 law.  (It does so for many Obama opponents, it seems.)  This anger seems to be genuine.  Some seem to actually think that the new law imposes on them someone else's religious beliefs and practices, which would be "an attack on their religious freedom."

5

So, the question is, In what way does the new law impose anti-Catholic or anti-Christian beliefs or practices on the Christians in the U. S. of A. today?

[PAUSE.  Resume two weeks later...]

Well, I give up.  I can't answer my own question.  It seems impossible to find a reasonable and logical way to explain how the new law could be considered an infringement on one's right to freedom of worship.

Rather, all the vitriol - other than the made-up rhetoric of those pursuing merely political gain - seems to derive from some people's belief that contraception is so very contrary to their own religious traditions that it should not be permitted for anyone, ever... and should certainly not be facilitated by law or by health insurance.

Maybe someone could speculate why anyone - let alone quite a few people - think this, but that is clearly beyond my own imaginative powers.  What we can observe is that according to the primary law of our nation, The Constitution, it is equally prohibited for a law to impose a core belief on others who do not share it as it is to impose on others a more trivial religious custom (like attending worship services, for example... it would probably be rude to mention divorce right now...).

Am I wrong?  Have I missed something?

***

**

*

A Trip to the Allergist [reminiscence]

*

**

***

1

When I was growing up in Central Texas, I had persistent problems with pollen allergies.  We didn't know what in particular I was allergic to, but it seemed that anytime, any day, my eyes could start itching, or I could start sneezing, or my chest could become congested - having an asthma attack, we said - or I could have to blot my runny nose every couple of minutes.  Mother used to say it was worst when the many wild and domestic cedar bushes in the Hill Country all around my hometown were blooming... but I didn't know any plant bloomed year round!

My sneezing would sometimes get so bad I would injure my neck and shoulder, and for days I'd have "a crick in my neck," sometimes very painfully. 

The pediatrician always prescribed Benedryl, but that made me sleepy.  So I took it only when I was feeling sort of desperate... unless my parents insisted.

I read somewhere that a youngster with a tendency to "hay fever" would outgrow it in her or his early twenties, and that it would return in one's forties or fifties.  And sure enough, when I went north to college at 18, I did notice a remarkable reduction of my usual symptoms.  (I didn't want to think it was really the plants in my hometown that had been giving me such problems, but...) Oh, and headaches too; I didn't mention that my head congestion often gave me headaches, as a kid at home.

2

I wasn't entirely free of pollen allergy symptoms while I was in college, but the episodes did seem to come only during certain seasons.  I read then that some thought allergic reactions were brought on by stress.  It occurred to me that maybe my parents had known this theory too.

In those years I found some over-the-counter medicines that helped.  One had some caffeine in it, which I discovered was a good idea.  I had observed too that having coffee or tea, or a Coke (preferably a Dr. Pepper) would help, sometimes as much as a pill.  I took Chlorotrimeton for a time - prescribed by somebody - and Coricidin D, the one with the caffeine, was my pill of choice.

3

But still, in my - let's say - "early maturity,"  whether I was in the Midwest, Europe, the Northeast, or the West Coast, my allergies were everywhere what I thought of as "under control."  Even when I visited my family in Central Texas, always for only a few days at a time, I didn't ever feel as vulnerable as I'd had to earlier.

Then, five years after our marriage, A----- and I moved from the East Coast to one of the Great Lakes states.  My new job was in a small village, where we built a house and started our family.  The region was fairly swampy, but the village had grown up around one hill in the center.  Two distinctive features of the area were its black squirrels and the grove of oak trees on that central hill, who loved the acorns of course.

Even the logo of my employer was a stylized oak tree.  We were proud of it.  Our weekly newsletter was called "The Oak Leaf."

4

I was 33 when we made that move.  The allergy symptoms returned about at the level I remembered from childhood in Texas.  I thought it was too early for the return onslaught, and I got to know Coricidin D real well... as well as coffee.  But I was uncomfortable most of the time, some days worse than others.  We had a line of big pine trees marking the lot line next to our house, and my wife and I theorized that their blooming - seeing the waves of yellow pollen blowing around - must have been the cause of my discomfort.  This theory seemed to gain strength from my mother's theory about Texas cedar.  Well, pines and cedars are both evergreens, aren't they?

Always alert for new developments regarding allergies, I did know that considerable advances had been made in allergy treatments.  I'd heard about "scratch tests," where the doctors figured out just what it was that provoked the allergic reactions.  At that time, I didn't know what use could be made of this information. 

And of course, we weren't going to move away from our wonderful new house just because of a little discomfort to Daddy, even if testing should confirm our theory about the pines next door.

5

But after three or four years, we decided to look around to see if there was an allergy specialist around.  One way or another, we discovered a certain Dr. Brenneman in another small village about forty-five miles away.

But I was reluctant to call him.  I thought I should wait until there was at least a brief respite in my allergies.  I thought it would screw up the examination and the tests if I was at or near my worst.  The episodes couldn't last forever, could they? But for a long time, I didn't feel any let-up.

Then, finally I was feeling better, so I made an appointment with Dr. Brenneman.  The intake was pretty standard - a lot of paperwork focusing mainly on my allergy history, a quick encounter with a nurse who weighed me, took my temperature and blood pressure, and told me I had done the right thing coming to the renowned Dr B. even if his office was kind of far from my home.

After a while the doctor himself hustled in, his hands full of the pages of history I had carefully written out.  He went through my allergy history of the last year.  He would quietly ask a simple question like "when was your first episode this year?"  When I would say something like "late January or early February," he would seem to pounce and call out something like "January 29?!"

That seemed odd, but the specific dates he attached to my anecdotal memories all seemed credible, so, every time he hollered one out,  I said a simple "Yes."

"March 27?" he'd propose in his aggressive manner.  "Yes," I'd say, quietly.

"June 3?" "Yes."  (And so on.)

We wereviewed almost a whole year that way.  The exchange was challenging, interesting, and laborious.  But I was impressed.  "Boy!," I was thinking, "this man knows, he knows!"  (By the way, in the course of my review, Dr. Brenneman explained away our theory that the pine trees were the source of my problems.  It turns out that any pollen you can see is very unlikely to be breathed in, creating hay fever.  Such pollen is just too heavy, and simply falls to the ground.)

When we got through that part of my interview, the doctor pulled out a little pen light, tilted my head back and looked carefully up each nostril.  He didn't speak during this part.  Then, each ear.  He probably listened to my lungs too, but I don't particularly remember that.

Finally, he looked me in the eye and said, in that somewhat stentorian voice:  "You know you're sick, don't you?"

"Well, no," I said.  "I waited until I was feeling good for a change before coming in."

"You have forgotten what it's like," he said, "to feel good."

6

Well, that seemed credible too, I had to admit to myself.  I waited for more wisdom.

"Here's what we're going to do," Dr. Brenneman announced.  I later learned that he'd published a well-known book on food allergies, but at this time it surprised me when we did not move directly to the famed scratch tests.  "I have tested a special diet," he said, "consisting of a healthy combination of all the nutrients we need, but with only foods to which a tiny minority of people has ever reported allergic reaction."

I was listening, as he took a printed sheet from a little box on the desk.  "You eat nothing - and I mean nothing - but rice and beets for a week...and I guarantee, a guarantee you know, that you will feel like a new man" (emphasis added by him).

I was looking over the printed diet instructions and absorbing what he said.  I would like feeling "like a new man" after all, especially now that I knew I was sick right at the time I thought I was feeling fine.

"Rice and beets," he repeated emphatically. "You can have some tea if you need to, but with your meals you should have only water... Do you think your wife will do this for you?"

Of course, I was sure, if that was what was needed for my health and well-being.  I didn't even wonder right away whether if I did feel like a new man after a week, I'd be eating nothing but rice and beets for my whole remaining life. 

But he evidently anticipated my worrying that.  "Then," he said, "when we know for proof positive," he said, "that your persistent allergies are indeed food-based, we'll start adding back to your diet various other foods, starting with those known to cause allergic reactions - like yours - for lots of people.  That way we can identify the foods you must avoid in order to continue healthy, symptom-free."

I now know that this approach is known as "the elimination diet," at that time the food allergy equivalent to the scratch test for air-born allergens   Anyway, I left Dr. B. vowing to cut out all foods except rice and beets, with an occasional cup of tea in-between meals.  In only a week, maybe I would feel like a new man.

7

Anyway, A----- faithfully fixed me a big plate of rice and beets every evening after a smaller plate of rice and beets at noon.  I can't remember if I skipped breakfast altogether, but that's unlikely.  Guess what I had for breakfast?

After a rather long week of this, I headed back for my follow-up conference with Dr. Brenneman.  I had to break the news to him that I didn't feel any different than I had the week before.  He acknowledged, then, that the source of my problems was not in my diet.  He may have been disappointed; I imagined he was.  But he said, "Now, here's what we will do," and he explained the scratch test routine: 

I could begin immediately in the lab across the lobby, a technician giving me a series of scratches on my back with a tiny drop of serum made from a variety of possible air-born allergies.  In a couple of days, I'd come back, and the technician would check the results.  The allergens I'd reacted to most would be administered later in a line across the back of my shoulder.  I believe he said that they used to test for 60 different alleregens, but that number had been reduced based on experience.

Yes, that turned to be true: I was tested for only 59!  My back was covered with new scratches from collar to belt-line.

A day or so later, when I took off my shirt for the technician, she said, "Oh!" implying that mine were unusual results.  She showed me a printed chart with the 59 scratches and their labels.  I'd had at least a minor response to 48 of them.  She marked them on the chart, then marked them on a chart she would give to Dr. Brenneman, noting by number how mild or how strong the reaction had been to each.

Although some molds, house dust, cat dander, and the like had provoked some reactions, almost all my allergens were various pollens... one of which was oak.  Dr. Brenneman later told me that oak was the only tree that bloomed year-round, at least in that region.

8

He himself was present at my next meeting with the technician.  He wanted to tell me that my reaction to ragweed, in two different species, had been severe enough so that he had decided to dilute the serum a drop of which was to be administered under the skin that day.  I can't remember which subcutaneous doses I was to receive, but it was fewer than a dozen.

Then, I was to return to the main waiting room for 30 minutes or so in order to give enough time for these pricks that afternoon to reveal how much I was allergic to them.  A serum customized just for me would finally be developed.

Perhaps I'd known that I would be cooling my heels for a time.  I had a paperback with me, and the time went by pretty fast.  After 20 minutes, or maybe longer, someone on Dr. Brenneman's staff happened to walk by, nodding to the several folks waiting there.  She paused as I greeted her, and I noticed that her eyes widened a bit.

"How are you feeling?" she asked.  When I said I was all right, her next question was "Can you breathe all right?"  I hadn't noticed any problem except for a slight headache and maybe a little eye strain.  She took my pulse.  She hadn't done this with anyone else, but I didn't know if anyone there had had the same tests as me.  "Now," she said firmly, "you just stay there.  Dr. Brenneman will be right with you."

One of the secretaries came right over to sit across from me.  She said the doctor would be coming soon.

The next thing I knew, Dr. Brenneman was looking up into my eyes.  He spoke gently and slowly.  "Now, here's what we're going to do.  Even though we diluted your serum to half strength, you're having a severe reaction."  He took something from the nurse behind him and looked back into my eyes.

He held up for me to see a huge syringe (I thought) as he said, "I'm going to put some adrenalin now directly into your heart.  That will protect you.  We'll see how you respond to that, and then decide what's next.  Do you understand and consent?"

Directly into my heart, eh?  I said, as cheerfully as I could, "Let's just wait a little while longer, okay?  I'm feeling all right.  Let's just give my body more time to calm down again."

And even though I was clearly causing a major disruption in the staff's normal routine, that's what we did.  I don't think anyone was delegated to sit right with me that whole time, but I presume staff members were keeping an eye on me.  Did I go back to my book?  Probably!

9

I later learned that I was showing symptoms of "anaphylactic shock," when one's neck swells, in the worst scenario growing so swollen that one's breathing is threatened.  I was still feeling pretty good, though, and managed to remain calm.

I don't know how much longer I sat there; I'm sure it was at least another half-hour, at which time the nurse reappeared with a stethoscope and a blood pressure cuff.  She said I looked much better, and I said I'd never felt really bad.  She came back in a few minutes and watched as I stood up.  I walked around a little (probably went to the bathroom).  Following instructions, I set up another appointment in a week or so with the doctor's secretary but was free to go, if I was really feeling okay.

I really was, so I went out to my car and drove the forty-five minutes or so back to the office.  I made it in time for my last scheduled committee meeting that day, which didn't last long.  I thought maybe I should knock off an hour early, said Goodbye to my secretary (who agreed it might be a good idea for me to leave), and went home.

10

Everyone at the doctor's office had been studiously calm.  No one had said anything unusual in my little meeting at work, and my secretary hadn't either.  So it was surprising when I walked in the kitchen door, and A----- flipped out.

"What happened?!" she exclaimed.  When she told me I looked terrible, I looked in the bathroom mirror.  My appearance was in fact considerably altered.  I looked puffy and pale.  My neck, A----- said, was as big as a piano leg.  I went upstairs for a little lie-down.  After supper and a good night's sleep, I was looking - and still feeling - normal again.  But it had been a dramatic experience, to say the least.

At my next appointment, the technician gave me a shot in the thigh consisting of an individualized mix of serum made from several of my worst allergens.  After a half-hour without any drama at all, I was free to go.

Dr. Brenneman said it was fine for the company nurse to administer my shots from then on.  His office would send me the serum whenever I ran out, and I would take it to the nurse for my shot.  This would be weekly for some period of time and then bi-weekly indefinitely.

So I ended up giving myself the shots for six or eight years.  I probably saw Dr. Brenneman at least one more time, but he just said to keep up with the shots.

11

Well, in a year or so - maybe I was by then down to a monthly shot - I noticed I was feeling better for longer periods of time than I had for decades.  By george, this desensitizination treatment was working!

Then, it was time to move on.  The family moved back East.  I had enough serum for a little while, but I began to get a little anxious about whether or not I could continue to get my usual supply from Dr. Brenneman's office.  I must have gotten it all right, but the local pharmacy seemed reluctant to sell me the insulin needles I needed without a prescription.

A----- found me a local allergist.  I explained my situation, but concluded by asking a question that hadni't really occurred to me before.

"How will we know whether the shots have accomplished all they can?"

He replied:  "There's only one way: you would have to stop having them."  He gave me the prescriptions I needed (or he got them from Dr. Brenneman; I don't remember), but I never had them filled. 

How I felt - and continued to feel - was good, better than "all right."  Now, I never even wonder anymore what it felt like - years ago - to be the "old man" I used to be and before I began to feel like a "new man."

*

**

***

Is Freedom More Important than Equality? [essay]

*

**

***

Which do you want more?

1

"Okay now, would you like chocolate? or strawberry?"

"Both!"

This is the conversation one imagines with a four-year-old at an ice-cream stand on a hot summer day.  And rather often in life, it seems that the right answer to "Which one?" is indeed "Both!"  Should a business - for example - do what serves the customer best? or what most rewards the most effective employees?  Well, the boss has to figure out how to do both, of course!  And all too often it's not easy to achieve both.

The even harder fact of life is that very often good objectives - such as, health and happiness, compassion and high standards, the individual and general society, virtue and love, emotion and reason... - very often, a pair of good objectives find themselves in tension with each other.  They are both good; we want...  both!

So how do you decide - if you have to - which is more important?

2

Even in divisive times like today, Americans profess - and seem to actually believe - that the fundamental goals we should all value are equality, life, liberty, and happiness.  Our most revered founding document tells us we should value these, and we don't seem to question its wisdom on this point.  All of us are created equal, and among our inherent rights are the right to live, the right to be free, and the right to seek to achieve happiness or well-being.

But in our public discourse today, two of these do seem to be in tension with each other, or even in opposition to each other: Equality and  Freedom.  We usually refer to both the value of equality of opportunity for all and the value of individual freedom for everyone, or at least every citizen.  Unfortunately, it seems painfully evident that we often have to choose between the two.

3

Freedom and Equality: believe it or not, the way we use these terms in public discourse today, both of these concepts are relative.

Take Freedom first. 

Surely, just about everyone knows the often quoted Supreme Court Justice's saying that we can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded auditorium.  Except for those kinds of freedom guaranteed by the Constitution, one's freedom is limited by the freedom of others and by the need for social order. In general I am not free to harm someone else, I am not free to violate the rights of others, I am not free to break the law, I am not free to steal or destroy someone else's property, and so on and so forth.

In a tyrannical state, the absolute ruler may be absolutely free; she or he can do anything he or she wants. But in a democracy, no one's freedom is absolute.

4

And what about Equality?

"Equal" is a relative term by definition. My height is equal or not equal to yours, and when the Declaration of Independence says that all people are created equal, it means "equal to all other people." That goes without saying, doesn't it?

Even if we were to say, "All of those fence posts are equal" (in height), we would still be using a relative term and would mean "equal to each other."  And if we were to say, "Those posts are absolutely equal," we would be using the word "absolutely" to mean "exactly" or "utterly," since there is no such thing - anywhere - as "absolute equality."

5

We hear a lot about freedom these days from angry people. "I value FREEDOM," one might say proudly or even defiantly, using the term more as a talisman or charm than as a meaningful concept. "Oh," the speaker expects his or her audience to think: "if that person values freedom, he must be a good person since freedom is good."  That speaker is not using the word "freedom" meaningfully but rhetorically, to achieve a certain effect rather than to communicate.

A specific example today would be those claiming that our current health-care law "violates religious freedom," since the law says that church-affiliated universities and social service organizations must continue to offer coverage of birth control drugs in their employee health insurance plans.  When someone says this, knowing that most Americans highly value religious freedom, she or he is not talking about everyone's freedom so much as trying to create the notion, "I'm a good person who values good things."

Someone else might say,"I want my freedom!" or "We have to take back America and restore our Freedom."   Looked at more closely, it becomes clear that this angry person wants to be "free" to decide what everyone, including everyone else, will do. That is true as well of those claiming violations of religious freedom, since they want to impose their religious principles on their, possibly non-religious employees.

Another example is the group calling themselves New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, who have been working to have the law approving same-sex marriage thrown out. This is not really valuing freedom, but valuing one's own freedom to impose his or her will on others.

As a result, whenever a person says "I value FREEDOM," using one phrasing or another, we have to ask ourselves WHOSE freedom is being valued?  Our country's founding documents say we should value everyone's freedom, as we say "liberty for all" when pledging allegiance to our flag.

6

There is ambiguity in the concept of equality, too.

I remember Mr. Johnson, my 11th grade American History teacher, explaining to us that "All men are created equal" does not really mean that everyone is equal - as in of equal ability or equal height or weight - but that we are all born with an equal opportunity to pursue happiness. "All men are created," he said, "with an equal opportunity to prove themselves unequal."

And since it is obvious that we are not all born with equal intelligence, health, emotional sensitivity, or physical strength, what Mr. Johnson said seems a fair way to paraphrase the Declaration of Independence. It's not the person that's equal to all others but the person's opportunity that's equal to the opportunity of all others.

So when people are being careful with their words, they may say that all living Americans have - or should have - freedom of speech and religion, of voting for their government representatives confidentially, and so on. But they do not say we all are - or should be - equal; they say we all have - or should have - equal opportunity.

7

We started by saying that sometimes it seems Freedom and Equality-of-opportunity are in tension with or in opposition to each other. 

"Freedom is power," one often hears, but "power is Freedom" also.  One person may have more power - more economic power, for instance, (meaning more money) or more political power - than another person, and that means having more freedom to do as one chooses than those less powerful.  In other words, the less wealthy and the less politically "connected" have fewer opportunities to succeed than the more wealthy and politically influential.

On the other hand, the original Communists said that everyone should be equal; that is, everyone should receive what they need equitably and contribute as much as possible to the community.  In other words, everyone would be held to an equal standard of work and an equal standard of compensation.  But this situation - if it could ever be achieved - would significantly limit the individual's freedom to undertake personal initiatives; all initiatives would be designed to serve the community, not the individual.

In the capitalist system, of course, we know that limiting one's opportunity to "get ahead" also in practice limits the amount of material progress achieved in the community.  Choosing to expect everyone to meet an equal standard - or to achieve "equality" - would come at the sacrifice of individual freedom.

We in America have learned together that suppressing individuals' freedom in order to achieve equality will not work and inhibits human progress.  Following the assertions of our founding documents, we have also learned that suppressing some people's equality of opportunity in order to enhance the freedom of others is wrong and ineffective.

But we can see that in the practical world, as guides of our actions Freedom and Equality are in tension with each other in real and meaningful ways.

8

"Daddy" at the ice-cream stand could order his four-year-old one small scoop of strawberry and one small scoop of chocolate.  In that case, a little of both alternatives could be achieved.  That might be called a win-win situation in that little case, or it might be called a "compromise."

If "Daddy" were choosing for himself, he might want to consider the historical context.  Maybe, for instance, two days ago he had chocolate ice cream... and maybe the time before that too.  So he might say it's time to have his other favorite and order strawberry.

Politically or socially, these same two approaches should be possible: maybe at one time - such as, for instance, around 1900 (if not in 2012) - we might look around and say that we've been adopting laws and practices favoring higher and higher rewards to those at the wealthy and powerful end of the scale, freeing them to satisfy their every whim, but at the same time tending to overlook the legitimate need of others for more nearly equal opportunities to succeed.  In such a situation, we might want to act in accord with our professed belief that both freedom and equality are important and to shift our focus more toward achieving "equal opportunity for all."

"Daddy's" compromise of ordering one small scoop of chocolate and one of strawberry is another approach to achieving "Both" equal opportunity across society and individual freedom: strive to achieve an appropriate balance between these two conflicting, fundamental American values.

When our laws and practices have created such a high degree of equality among all citizens that the zeal to initiate new ways of doing things is waning, then our nation would be out of balance on the "equal opportunity" side of the spectrum.

And when our laws and practices have created such a high degree of the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few that a high percentage of the public is becoming disengaged from the political process, because of feeling dis-empowered, then our nation would be out of balance on the "freedom" side of the spectrum - at least the freedom of the wealthy few and of the large corporations.

We must ask ourselves today then, as the election season heats up, whether we are in either imbalanced situation.  If we are, we must elect representatives and officials who will help us move back toward balance.

We will not survive as the America we say we want to be if we do not have an appropriate balance for all Americans between equal opportunity and freedom.

*

**

***

To My Grandfolks House We'd Go [reminiscence]

***

**

*

My father had been an orphan since he was 13 years old.  So I had only one set of grandparents, my mother's folks, who lived four or even five hours north of us in the town of Cleburne, Texas.

They sometimes visited us at our home, and even brought my great-aunt - who didn't drive - with them now and then.  But we went to their house more often than they came to us.  Altogether we probably saw them once a year or so, most often with our family doing the driving.

1

We usually went on a fairly small state road that went through Lampasas, Texas, so we thought of that as the Lampasas route.  For some reason, the children liked that way better.  My Dad, though - maybe just for some variety - sometimes directed us through the other route, passing through Waco on a U S highway. 

Whichever route we took, we very seldom stopped along the way.  But there was one real landmark on the Waco route.  The highway actually passed the city center on the East.  At the junction with the Business Route into the city, there was a roundabout, the only one I ever saw until I went to Europe many years later.  We called it "the Waco circle," as just about everyone did.  That could have been because there was a well-known restaurant there called "The Circle."  I'll bet there are even now thousands of us still vertical and compos mentis who remember that diner-type place.

Every time we passed, my Dad would share a memory of an earlier time when he had stopped there at The Circle.  It was more or less halfway between Austin, where he had worked for years at the university, and his hometown of Fort Worth, where he still had friends, including former associates at the Star-Telegram where he'd worked on and off for a number of years.

2

The only thing I can remember about the Lampasas route is that quite close to Austin was a tiny town - just a few buildings strung along the little state highway - called Coxville.  There, somewhat hidden by trees and overgrown bushes was a small, dingy, orangeish building with an old sign on it: "The Coxville Zoo."  It seemed to be open for business despite its rundown appearance.  But even my sister and I never wanted to stop for a visit.

It sure was a landmark, though, and a welcome one too when we were heading back from Cleburne, since it meant we would be home soon.

I think it was on the Waco route, or maybe on an alternate route between Waco and Cleburne, that we sometimes went by a town called Waxahatchie, known in those days for its honey, and another even littler place called Hico.

That's pronounced HIGH - koh.

But whenever he drove us by there, my Dad would holler out: "HIGH-koh, (pause), HEE-koh, (then rapidly) HIGH-koh  HEE-koh  HIGH-koh!"

We thought it was silly for him to say this, everytime we went through... but how silly is it that I remember it now, 60 years later?

3

There was one especially memorable time the four of us piled into our little sedan - a two-door black Ford from about 1947 or '48 - to go to Cleburne for Christmas.  It may have been Christmas or the day before, but there was even a little more than the usual excitement that morning as we hustled our way into our places in the car.  My parents did seem a little more breathless than we usually saw them, if I'm not imagining it.  So we set out on the Waco route.

I may have read my Classics Illustrated or one of my biographies of great Americans as children - like Patrick Henry, Boy Patriot, or Abigail Adams, a Girl of Colonial Days - while my sister looked at her insufferable Photoplay magazine. 

But as we approached the Waco circle, my mother and father had apparently had a private little conversation, with a sad result.  We drove all the way around the circle.

"Hey kids!" Dad called out as we headed now in the opposite direction: "We're going home again just for a few minutes!"

Both my parents seemed upset, an unusual situation for us, so neither I nor my stupid sister even asked why or said anything else.  Oh, maybe one of us asked if we could go to the bathroom.

The point is, as we figured it out in a moment or two more, that we realized that our secret Christmas presents - the ones Santa brings in the night - had not made it to the car that morning in all the rush. 

No, despite its adding four hours or so to our car trip, we didn't complain.

*

**

***

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

***

**

*

1

Senator Eugene McCarthy was a liberal candidate for the presidency running in the primaries against Lyndon Johnson in 1967-68.  His book on what he called “the Conservative Challenge” had been published in 1964 but was reissued in 1968.

Many of his statements about the “challenge” from conservatives and about the current state of affairs turn out to be relevant to conservatives’ values, initiatives, and actions of today.   Many statements about his own time could be made with equal force in our own time.

McCarthy’s “Answer” is divided into several parts.  The first two parts – “The Scales of Economic Justice" and "Of Payrolls and Property" – were the subjects of my first two reports.  This final report deals with the rest.

2

Part III is called “The Responsibilities of Responsible Government.” Reported below, ignoring the original page order, are what seem to me the most interesting statements in this and the concluding parts.  

A general theme is that liberals find government action to be needed and effective in the pursuit of social justice.

“It has been argued that once the federal government moves to meet a particular problem, complete federal control or operation inevitably follows.  The overwhelming weight of evidence in our national history is against this assertion.” [p. 65]

[Social Security] “was violently opposed by conservatives when it was first presented, and it has been fought by them at nearly every stage at which significant improvement or extension has been proposed.” [p. 97]

“…Experience has shown that this [Social Security] program, including nearly all citizens of the United States, has been most effective as a national program.” [p. 66]

[On the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation] “Again experience has proved the inadequacy of the conservative judgment and demonstrated the need for the application of reasoned judgment in developing governmental programs to meet economic and fiscal needs.” [p. 104]

3

Particular social problems of 1964, 1968… and 2012 are then discussed:

“…On November 19, 1945, President Truman requested the enactment of a national health program.” [p. 63]

“There are those who argue that private insurance, together with state aid for the indigent sick, is adequate.  The obvious answer is that, for many, this has not been the case.”[p. 66]

4

“The state as an institution concerned primarily with the temporal good of man has a right and an obligation to set up standards for education, and the right to require its citizens to meet these standards insofar as it is possible to do so.  The standards, of course, must be reasonable and must leave open great areas of freedom for the pursuit of truth and individual fulfillment.” [p. 74]

“The last four Presidents – Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson – have asked for greater federal participation in financing education in the United States.” [p. 71]

“ ‘Education,’ [President Kennedy said in 1963] ‘is the keystone in the arch of freedom and progress.  …For the nation, increasing the quality and availability of education is vital to both our national security and our domestic well-being.’ ” [p. 76]

5

“The consequences of discrimination [in civil rights] are everywhere evident, but most clearly in the case of Negroes.  The median income of Negro families is about 50 percent that of white families.  In 1961 Negroes made up 21 percent of the unemployed, although they made up only 11 percent of the working force. …” [p. 80]

“ ‘A conservative,’ [William Buckley] states… ‘is seldom disposed to use the federal government as a sword of social justice, for the sword is generally two-edged.’” [p. 82]

“Basic to the operation of the legislative branch of the government is … rule by majority vote.  Frustrating the majority by prolonged debate was in no way sustained or supported at the Constitutional Convention. …Since 1917, when the Senate authorized the limitation of debate by two-thirds of those present and voting, closure has been moved 27 times and has failed 22 times.  It has failed every time when it was invoked with reference to civil rights – some 11 times.” [p. 89]

6

“The danger of subordination of individuals or minorities to the will of the majority has been offset primarily by our emphasis on individual rights, our insistence on tolerance of nonconformity, and the support and freedom and measure of authority we give to the government.” [p. 78]

“Alexander Hamilton [wrote] in The Federalist No. 22…: ‘To give a minority a negative upon a majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. … The majority, in order that something might be done, must conform to the views of the minority, and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater…’” [p. 90]

“Free speech and the right to express minority positions is not the same as unlimited speech.” [p. 93]

7

In our own time, conservatives seek to “starve” government in order to prohibit what they see as the liberal inclination to use government as a fundamental tool for pursuing social justice – quality public education, accessible health care, individual civil rights, protection of the average American, and security for the poor and the aging – issues which, my goodness, are the very problems we are trying to deal with today.

*

**

***

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.

* * *

* *

*