Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Creating a Moral Economy

By Fred Block, The Nation. Posted March 21, 2006.


To revive progressive ideals, we first need to dispel the empty rhetoric of market fundamentalism.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Fred Block

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

The daily headlines suggest that a toxic combination of arrogance, corruption and incompetence is weakening the Republican Party's hold on national political power. As the Democrats struggle to capitalize on this opportunity, progressives should remember what happens when one side wins an election without defeating the opponent's main ideas.

Back in 1992 Bill Clinton campaigned successfully for president with promises to "put people first" and provide health insurance for all. But he quickly discovered that the ideas that had been dominant during the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush were still hegemonic.

Market fundamentalism -- a dogmatic belief in the power of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" to create prosperity -- survived the Republicans' electoral defeat. Clinton was pressured to put aside many of his campaign promises to conform to this orthodoxy. And when he did defy market fundamentalism by pushing for universal health insurance, he suffered a catastrophic defeat.

Market fundamentalism has ruled the country for close to 25 years. It has produced weak economic performance, corporate crime waves, government corruption and a coarsening of the culture. But the amazing thing is that efforts to hold the market fundamentalists accountable have gained so little traction.

Perhaps the best explanation for this has been offered by former Labor Secretary Robert Reich. In "The Lost Art of Democratic Narrative," published by The New Republic in March 2005, Reich argues that differences over economic policy have been fought out in American politics over the past century by appropriating four specific story lines -- the rot at the top, the mob at the gates, the triumphant individual and the benevolent community. The party that tells these stories most persuasively wins, he observes, and in recent years the prize has gone to the Republicans.

In the 1930s, in contrast, the Democrats were successful in telling people a story in which government action could overcome the rot caused by business greed while also protecting us from the overseas mobs following fascist (and later, communist) leaders. Moreover, government assistance would create a benevolent community that could respond, as FDR said, to the "third of a nation [that was] ill-housed, ill-clad and ill-nourished." Within this community of care, hard work would be rewarded so that individuals could triumph and achieve upward mobility for their families.

According to Reich, the critical turning point came when the Republicans, starting with Reagan, hijacked these same stories and constructed a plot line in which the rot came from liberal elites, with the "Evil Empire" of the Soviets playing the role of the mob at the gates. Triumphant individuals had to be freed from government interference to restore the health of voluntary and faith-based communities. The Republicans have been telling versions of these same stories ever since, with George W. Bush endlessly promising to protect us from the terrorist mobs that have to be resisted overseas.

In both the New Deal and the Republican stories, however, there is a fifth narrative, providing a principle of order that integrates and organizes the four other elements. Starting in the 1930s, the Democrats employed a narrative in which an activist government overcomes the weaknesses of an unregulated market economy to achieve stability and renewed economic growth.

This story would not ordinarily have been an easy sell, but the severity of the Depression made people receptive. Roosevelt and the Democrats seized the opportunity, and the narrative of an activist government reinforced by the New Deal's concrete successes gave credibility to Democratic stories about the rot, the mob and the triumphant individuals living in benevolent communities.

That powerful Democratic narrative dominated U.S. politics for more than 30 years. But the combination of disillusionment over the Vietnam War, the stagflation of the 1970s and growing conflicts over gender, race and the environment began to undermine its effectiveness. As Republicans started to mobilize resentment against Democratic policies, Democratic politicians stopped telling the old stories.

This opened the way for the Republicans to invoke Adam Smith's mysterious mechanism of the "invisible hand" as the critical element that binds the other Republican stories together. Since the market can be relied on to coordinate all economic activity, the triumphant individual can be set free of government restrictions, and liberal elites can be dismantled.


Digg!

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Such movements are put down by force in the US.
Posted by: wli on Mar 21, 2006 1:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The idea that it's difficult to sell this is preposterous. A fair number of people even think the Republicans are going about doing these sorts of things for some reason, likely because they're deceived by propaganda. One need go no further than polls: all sorts of social and economic issues align with the left, even where alignment with the right is professed.

The reason you can't go around proselytizing this stuff to any effect is because if you do the FBI or the Pentagon will assassinate or otherwise neutralize you. Also, the mass media, owned and rigidly controlled by far right-wing Dominionist billionaires, will never allow you to be heard. Dealing with these things sits logically prior to any notion of going about trying to spread a message directly.

The democratic façade is a thoroughly false front. Ideological movements trigger military responses. Plutocratic institutional control is entrenched. These are the facts on the ground that must be adequately dealt with prior to meaningful attempts to utilize such rhetorical flourishes as advocated in this article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The mob at the gates
Posted by: Nheduanna on Mar 21, 2006 5:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the arrogant and comfortably insulated business elite don't find some sort of moral compass, they may find the mob at the gates are not terrorists from offshore, but angry Americans who are sick and tired of working for a non-living wage or who have no job at all because it's been bargained away to someone willing to work longer hours for less money.

How many babies "saved" from abortion will receive a decent education and a job opportunity that doesn't require asking "Do you want fries with that?"

Meanwhile, the poor idiots who drank the corporate kool-aid will use it to wash down their Prozac and live futile, meaningless lives of desperation as they struggle to keep up with the payments on their competitive consumption.

"The pursuit of happiness" has become numbing oneself with drugs and Nintendo. And what happens when a mob of these folks discover that real weapons are more effective than virtual ones and that they can buy them cheaply and legally at WalMart?

It's time to stop, children, what's that sound? Everybody look what's going down...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The mob at the gates Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: The mob at the gates Posted by: outsidea
» RE: The mob at the gates Posted by: Lincoln fan
Adam Smith and Cashocracy
Posted by: BPCBob on Mar 21, 2006 5:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Increasing power requires increasing wisdom and skill relative to the use of power. Increasing power amplifies the effect of human activity. To the extent that human activity is subject to choice, and is amplified by increasing human powers, human choice is having an increasingly significant impact. Our current system seems to be driven by a purpose no more profound than the quest for more.

Human systems are not neutral in their effect of human behavior, but instead they reflect and enforce collective assumptions about reality and human nature. The most powerful human systems in operation today are Capitalism, Democracy, and Religion. The need for a new moral compass is present in all three areas but is most pronounced in the area of Capitalism.

Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations in 1776, creating many of the principals of modern economics and coined a phrase, the invisible hand, that has come to represent the idea that the operation of pure self interest in a market economy is the best way to create the greater good. Mr. Smith was a Scottish moral philosopher who accomplished his life’s work during the industrial revolution before the invention of, the cotton gin, car, and most of the products and services that comprise the modern global economy.

The invisible hand is mentioned once in the Wealth of Nations, when the author wrote, “By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. … By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.”

The last two sentences define the moral core of capitalism on the premise that intentional action to create positive results for society (others outside the self interest of an individual economic actor) in the exchange of goods and services (the economy) is futile. Once intentional creation of the general good is eliminated as a reasonable pursuit we are left with little accountability for the results of our actions outside the limits of our own skin. A resulting moral impotence and deep cynicism has been one of the major results of adopting Mr. Smith’s moral stance for our economic system.

Political Process

With the increasingly effective influence of large concentrators of capital on the political process the counterbalancing effect of government on the amoral economic system has been effectively eliminated, further establishing cynicism as the only “intelligent” attitude to adopt relative to our larger public institutions.

Big money lobbying effectively replaces the one-person-one-vote system, with a one-dollar-one-favor system. As a result, the activities of government are influenced in direct proportion to the distribution of wealth through the population. Democracy based on the individual is replaced by Democracy based on the dollar. A better word for our current system of government would be Cashocracy.

Ronald Regan ushered in the modern Cashocracy when he said, “Government is not the solution, it’s the problem” and began to remake government based on the big business model. Let’s kick off change toward real democracy with a new slogan “We need Democracy, not Cashocracy”. After years of hard work, pushing real reform, our government will function as a one-person-one-vote system. Then we will have a Democracy that is responsive to the intention, choice, and action, of the individual citizen, and we will choose what to make of it from there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Adam Smith and Cashocracy Posted by: Lincoln fan
Amoral leadership = Amoral economy
Posted by: jreinhart1 on Mar 21, 2006 6:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
American GOD = Gold, Oil, Dollars

Is your pension fully funded? Americans would rather dump garbage in their back yard and water and let the government bail out pension funds than keep big corporations and government accountable. Where's the Money???

The Rising Cost to Society - The American Tapeworm

1980’s
Iran Contra: S&L’s & HUD Estimated Losses:
$500 Billion

1990’s
Pension Fund & Stock Market Fraud Estimated Losses:
$8 Trillion

US Department of Defense Missing Money:
$3.3 Trillion

US Department of HUD Missing Money:
$59 Billion

US Modus Operandi since 1947:
1. Economic hit men in other countries.
2. Destabalize countries through division, using death squad if necessary
3. Military force

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Excellent article
Posted by: bettsoff on Mar 21, 2006 7:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why are we teaching kids to share when they're 6 and when they're 16 telling them not to expect anything freely given from anybody? Are we teaching them for their future? Or just lying to them to make ourselves feel better about our selfish ways?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: xcellent article Posted by: daniel1982
Invisible hand fatal flaw and the remedy
Posted by: kiatoa on Mar 21, 2006 8:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My understanding is that economic theory and models are based on some fundamental assumptions. One of which is a free flow of information. No free flow of information and the "optimal solution" promised by the invisible hand etc. will NOT be achieved. But, dig a little deeper and the model has more flaws. My opinion falls into the Henry George camp where, for the most part, you can let the current system stay with one little detail. Shift taxation away from income to land and natural resources. Unfortunately it requires taking a big chunk of time to understand Henry's remedy and most people won't put that time in. If you don't already know it take the course at www.henrygeorge.org. Whether you ultimately agree or not I think the knowlege is useful.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Excellent!
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Mar 21, 2006 9:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only point that I would add to Mr Block"s treatment is that the corporate ideology has not been sold to the people. The corporate establishment has bought both parties' support for this idea by bribery with campaign contributions and million dollar lobbying.

To gain the Democratic self-governance he speaks of we must take control of the platforms of both parties; make both parties responsive to the will of the people. We must make "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" a reality.

We must force a showdown before the election. We must force both parties to choose between the people's votes and the establishments dollars. Now is the time to join The Lincoln Initiative, before the election, now when your vote has power. We are a federation of individuals, each pursuing his own goal. There are no leaders, no registration, no contributions, no meetings and no hassle.
Click on It can be done

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A different view of these trends
Posted by: Bic Pentameter on Mar 21, 2006 11:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
F.D.R. didn't come up with the activist government on his own and it wasn't Reagan that came up with the antithesis.

During the 1890s Alfred Marshall, chair of Economics, Cambridge University, cooked up his concept of externalities, later expounded upon by his protégé and successor, Arthur C. Pigou. Pigou used the term 'social costs' and 1920 published The Economics of Welfare. Socio-economics became popular with intellectuals and academics, and was not yet associated with the welfare check.

In 1960, much to the delight of business, Ronald Coase, London University, published The Problem of Social Costs, which in simplified form became known as the Coase Theorem. He was awarded a Nobel prize for it in 1991. In one of those ironic twists of fate, 1960 was also the year that Kennedy and Nixon had their portentous televised debate.

Marshall and Pigou identified external costs and benefits of business and more particularly, production. Their point was that the costs to society were not and would not be accounted for by those in business unless somehow compelled to do so. Among those costs were public health, housing, pollution, etc. There are also sometimes benefits to society, but they are not so likely to be downplayed. Their proposal was that government should collect taxes and address the problems & the benefits (through subsidies).

Coase correctly noted that government was not particularly efficient in doing things. He incorrectly claimed that market forces would address social costs in a more efficient manner. He didn't bother, though, to assert that business, once freed of most regulation and taxes, should also give up any claims for subsidies. Now introduce televised politics and the costs of getting elected to office and you have the recipe.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Moral Money??? Who're you kidding?
Posted by: chasaturn on Mar 21, 2006 11:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It sure is gonna be fun when the Chinese take over the world. The best part will be when they nationalize all the industries that western capital built for the millions of jobs they sent there. Whee! But remember, Bushco financed the Nazi war machine until the Feds took the bank away from them. Fine upstanding citizens, what? When it comes to money, Dylan was right, Money doesn't talk, it swears.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Noble, but overly optimistic
Posted by: Ellen Remore on Mar 21, 2006 11:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unfortunately, our economic structure is too intricately intertwined with our political structure to effect any real change. In what I believe is a uniquely American phenomenon, corporations and politicians have, over the last several decades, evolved a perniciously symbiotic relationship. Our only real hope is to finally enact meaningful campaign finance reform, and prohibit the practice of legalized bribery, otherwise known as lobbying, for good. Only then can we eliminate the Mephistophilean bargains our politicians strike with the deep pockets of corporations, and perhaps begin to legislate against the "rot at the top."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Noble, but overly optimistic Posted by: Lincoln fan
Good article, echoes Soros a lot
Posted by: mazur on Mar 21, 2006 11:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The issue I have with this is the "listen to the teacher" principle. I feel it is best to replace it with some other principle upholding responsible competition, but this one is certain to create an unhealthy attitude towards any authorities.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great Article -- resonates in Red States
Posted by: SufiLizard on Mar 21, 2006 12:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This really is a great article. It resonates with what I'm hearing early in my campaign for state office. I'm running as a Democrat in an extremely Republican, rural district in Indiana and the points brought up in this article strongly reflect the comments I've heard so far.

Almost every response I've gotten from people begins with, "I normally vote Republican, BUT..."

These are religious, hard-working, rural and small town folks who are fed up with the rot at the top. The cracks in the Republican facade are getting too large to ignore anymore. And I plan to integrate the terms "moral economy," "market fundamentalists," and "rot at the top" into my campaign immediately.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another perspective: Market abolitionism
Posted by: msszczep on Mar 21, 2006 3:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One other perspective which I haven't seen posted, yet is very pertinent to the points raised by this article, that of market abolitionism. After all, markets pit us against one another and in so doing erode the ties that bind us. Markets assume that only the buyer and seller in a transaction matters and that everything else is dismissed as an "externality" which doesn't matter (ask anyone who lost a loved one from second-hand cigarette smoke if externalities don't matter). And the competitive realm of markets have been the spawning grounds for one of the most tyrannical institutions ever created -- the modern-day corporation. (An irony: Milton Friedman published his epic 1962 manifesto on neoliberalism -- entitled "Capitalism and Freedom" no less -- with the idea that markets promote freedom.)

There's the idea of reforming markets, which we may have to follow at least in the short term until efforts to abolish markets can expand, but my fear is that market reform efforts without an eye toward abolitionism would constantly be on the defensive. Thus, we run a serious risk to turn our efforts into the modern-day equivalent of Sisyphus: rolling a boulder uphill only to see the damn thing roll back down.

One of either two responses often arise with regards to the idea of market abolitionism: (1) Howls of accusations, and/or (2) blank stares.

In the case of (1), accusations are hurled like javelins saying that you must, MUST, be a communist, anarchist, godless liberal from Mars, so go back to Baghdad or Cuba or wherever you came from. And the answer I would suggest in response is: fallacy of bifurcation. I have no sympathy for any of the command planning, and was (and am) very glad to see it go. And it's wrong to presume that the main economic models we've had to date (command planning, and markets) are the only think that there could ever be.

Which leads directly to (2): blank stares. What else is there, or could there be, in terms of economic allocation? There's been some exploration of this question in recent years. They could be categorized in three types: market socialism, bioregionalism, and democratic planning.

I myself am siding with the democratic planning camp, and in particular with a variation of democratic planning called participatory economics (online at www.parecon.org). I myself have been working on the matter some with a group I've helped found called the Chicago Area Participatory Economic Society (or CAPES for short, online at chicagoparecon.org). We're giving a talk in Chicago's Pilsen neighborhood tomorrow.

One thought-provoking book that folks can check out which discusses a lot of these points is "Economic Justice and Democracy" by Robin Hahnel. The model of participatory economics is discussed in great detail in "Parecon: Life After Capitalism" by Michael Albert.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wealth accumulates at the top
Posted by: ordaj on Mar 21, 2006 7:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wealth accumulates at the top. Always has and always will. The occasional redistribution maintains equilibrium. This is why the right-wingers rail against "class warfare." They know it's true. It's time again for redistribution of the accumulated wealth. If it doesn't happen, you eventually get a revolution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's the Best Plan I Have Heard in Years
Posted by: Sojourner on Mar 21, 2006 8:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It does not rely on good versus evil, while it respects morality. It does not depend on revealing some sinister alien plot. In other words, it tells a story without hyperactive drama, burdened with spooks and ghosts.

However, I hope it settles somewhere between kindergarten and the four abstract principles that I can't remember at the moment because they're so high-flautin.

I suggest using the image of driving on public roads: don't tail gate, obey the law, watch out for the other guy, etc. Rules of the Road, so to speak. The Repugs drive our government like town drunks. We cannot tolerate that infantile behavior.

Yeah, go for it. The Demos need a new story, and it is right there for the telling.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lost me in the first paragraph...
Posted by: jdwilliams on Mar 21, 2006 10:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"As the Democrats struggle to capitalize on this opportunity"...?

I have yet to see where the Dems have spoken seriously about capitalizing on this opportunity. While I have serious doubts about the viability of a third party in this country, I lament the loss of a loyal opposition in the form of a major second party.

In the olden days (1950s and '60s), the GOP gave a good tussle, even when you knew JFK or LBJ were going to win in a landslide. Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, and even Nelson Rockefeller knew how to put up a fight.

When are the Dems...or the good old moderate Republicans of old, for that matter...going to stand up to the neo-fascisti for whom Bush is a sock puppet?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]