Total Pageviews

Sunday, June 24, 2012

Theodore Roosevelt and Noblesse Oblige (Part One)

(Note: This is the first segment in a three part series introducing readers to the legacy of Theodore Roosevelt (TR), who commands considerable influence over this awe-inspired ordinary citizen.)


Do the citizens of wealth, power and privilege have any public responsibilities to help those who lack such privilege or are less fortunate? Why is there mistrust for the tendencies of the wealthy to form tight, self-protective social cliques? Why are they the more resentful of outside monitoring?

Preserving the benefits of the status quo, balanced against the need for change, even change which is incremental, as opposed to radical, presents one intricate dilemma. In the Revolutionary War fervor, Thomas Jefferson had stated that “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure.” Jefferson believed that constitutions ought to be changed frequently to keep up with the will of the moment, that “no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs to the living generation.” Moreover, Jefferson felt that every constitution and every law, naturally, should expire within approximately 20 years.

Later, however, after his presidential term concluded, a more circumspect Thomas Jefferson had refined his views of change with an eloquence that stands the test of time, without rival:

I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions.  But laws must and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind.  As that becomes more developed, more enlightened as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times.  We might as well require a man to wear the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.


Previously, we saw that it was Thomas Jefferson, who objected to Hamilton’s banking system as flowing from principles adverse to liberty. This was accomplished by creating an influence of the Treasury over members of Congress, inherently susceptible to corruption, and tending to narrow the government into fewer hands and approximate it to a hereditary form. And it was Andrew Jackson, who swore an oath as an obligation of the government to grant no privilege that aids one class over another. Mr. Jackson vowed to act as honest broker between classes, and to protect the weak and defenseless against the abuses of the rich and powerful.

But it was Theodore Roosevelt, who keyed in on the essence of the Jefferson/Jackson lineage, as part of a concept known as noblesse oblige. The term of art is a French phrase literally meaning "nobility obliges." According to this concept, citizens of wealth, power and privilege were balanced by public responsibilities to help those who lack such privilege or are less fortunate. T.R. had been raised in New York City, in a family where the occupation of his Dutch father was listed as an “altruist,” or a “selfless” individual. An altruist had sufficient means, such that he found ways to give away his money for a living.

Although T.R. had come from wealth, there had always been “foreign” elements in him. He had an independent streak, which had never shown much respect for wealth. This streak manifested itself in disturbing differences of will, rather than mere quirks of character, that belied something vaguely traitorous about him. “I find I can work best with those people in whom the money sense is not too highly developed,” he had said. He mistrusted the tendencies of the wealthy to form tight, self-protective social cliques, which, in business, spilled over to combinations in restraint of trade. The tighter each grouping, the more obsessed it became with its own cohesion, and the more resentful of outside monitoring.

(The second segment in our three part series speaks to the great issue which T.R. had identified: to reform the “unnatural alliance of politics and corporations” to enthrone privilege.)


-Michael D'Angelo

Sunday, June 17, 2012

Thomas Jefferson's Personal "Pursuit of Happiness" (Part Two)


(Note: This is the second segment in a two part series.

The first segment set forth Jefferson's desire to create the fertile conditions necessary to attain full, unencumbered intellectual and religious freedom of the mind, unconstrained by previous efforts to set authoritative delineation.  Absent these external influences and thus empowered, the mind would exist in a completely and intellectually free state: to master its environment and attain its natural potentialities.  Central was the belief in the improvability of the human mind and the limitless progress of human knowledge...)


What was the primary road block in Jefferson's view to attain full, unencumbered intellectual and religious freedom of the mind?  Did he attack religion, as many have concluded?  Or were his objections confined to religion's propensity to interpose limitations or assume a political character?  Once rid of these issues, could moral sanction be found elsewhere?  Was expert guidance needed?  Did one timeless example stand out?  And what was its foundation?

It can be fairy assumed that the first major obstacle to the freedom of the mind which he perceived was primarily in the sphere of religion and morality and, specifically, the doctrine of supernatural revelation.  Consequently, events which could not be scientifically proven were to be rejected, Jefferson believing that “No hypothesis ought to be maintained if a single phenomenon stands in direct opposition to it.”  Jefferson learned to apply to the Bible and theology the same tests as to secular history and scientific hypotheses, reasoning as follows:
When I was young I was fond of the speculations which seemed to promise some insight into that hidden country, but observing at length that they left me in the same ignorance in which they had found me, I have for very many years ceased to read or think concerning them, and have reposed my head on that pillow of ignorance which a benevolent Creator has made so soft for us, knowing how much we should be forced to use it.

Thus, Jefferson’s only attack on religion was if it assumed a political character, or because it limited the freedom of the mind, upon which the progress of the human species toward happiness depended.  This helped to explain his well known authorship of the Virginia statute for religious freedom.  This statute served as the basis of the right to free religious expression and the separation of religion (church) from government (state) as embodied subsequently by the 1st amendment to the federal US constitution.

Jefferson even went so far as to complete a favorite pet project, highly controversial today as it was then.  He cut out from the Holy Bible’s New Testament all references to miracles, revelation and the slanted opinions of men, which were written later, and in some case much later.  Left were only the words and teachings of Jesus Christ, Jefferson finding them to be “the purest system of morals ever before preached to man.”  He was fully convinced that the “priests” (Protestant as well as Catholic) had “adulterated and sophisticated” the teachings of Jesus for their own selfish purposes.

After he was able to rid himself of these confounding issues, the next main problem was finding adequate moral sanction elsewhere, subjecting his pursuit of happiness only to two significant exceptions.  First, he found “moral sanction in the monitor within every human breast,” and second, he found them “in the laws of nature.”

He looked first to the writings of classic antiquity, mainly the Greek classics, for a body of ethics.  But, he settled on the basic idea that a special moral sense was to be found within an individual’s own breast in the conscience, as truly a part of man’s nature as his sense of sight or hearing, his arm or his leg.  Jefferson thus concluded that “The great principles of right and wrong are legible to every reader; to pursue them requires not the aid of many counselors.”

But “for ideals of human relationships and universal benevolence, Jefferson looked higher than” both the Greek and Roman classicists.  He perceived in the ethics of Jesus Christ fullness and sublimity on a plane never attained by a classic moralist.  In sum, to one of the most notable champions of freedom and enlightenment in recorded history, happiness was the aim of life, and virtue was its foundation.


-Michael D’Angelo

Sunday, June 10, 2012

Thomas Jefferson's Personal "Pursuit of Happiness" (Part One)

(Note:  This is the first segment in a two part series.

Previous articles have discussed “the pursuit of happiness” from the perspective of the Declaration of Independence, from whence the phrase originated.  Alexander Hamilton, the Founding Father of US capitalism, applied it to an economic plan that would bring physical greatness of dimensions previously unknown.  The thoughts of Thomas Jefferson, the author, were only touched upon briefly.  ...)


How did the author of the Declaration of Independence view his timeless phrase, “the pursuit of happiness” in the context of his own personal life?  Was it merely about a measure of an individual’s money or material wealth or a society’s physical greatness?  Or was it less scientific, guided more by a spiritual component derived from within and the laws of nature?

For the individual, according to Jefferson, the essence removed all arbitrary, artificial or hereditary distinctions, influences or preconceived notions.  The desire was to attain full, unencumbered intellectual and religious freedom of the mind, unconstrained by previous efforts to set authoritative delineation using lenses and filters.  Absent these external influences and thus empowered, the mind would exist in a completely and intellectually free state: to master its environment and attain its natural potentialities.  Central was the belief in the improvability of the human mind and the limitless progress of human knowledge.


On the collective level, Jefferson felt that the happiest society was one where inequalities of condition were not great.  Then-President Jefferson asked what else was needed for the happiness and prosperity of its people:

a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.  This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.


Jefferson believed that the status of aristocracy, based as it was not on merit but inherited privilege, made it doubtful that this class would exercise its public obligation for human progress on its existing foundation.  Consequently, Jefferson’s ideas tried to restore what he called “the natural order of freedom to give talent and virtue, which were scattered through all ranks of society, a chance to rise.”  He described his purposes in terms of “natural philosophy.”  Throughout his life, Jefferson never ceased to believe that men (white men, that is) by right were free in their minds and persons and that human society should guide its steps by the light of reason.

It can be fairy assumed that the first major obstacle to the freedom of the mind which he perceived was primarily in the sphere of religion and morality and, specifically, the doctrine of supernatural revelation.  Consequently, events which could not be scientifically proven were to be rejected, Jefferson believing that  “No hypothesis ought to be maintained if a single phenomenon stands in direct opposition to it."

(Next week's second segment in this two part series analyzes Thomas Jefferson's personal views on religion and morality, where happiness was the aim of life, and virtue was its foundation.)


-Michael D'Angelo

Sunday, June 3, 2012

President Washington's Dilemma, or The Birth of US Capitalism


Capitalism is born and the stage becomes set for an insidious contest among ordinary citizens to accumulate the trappings of material wealth, as a symbol of success and status for other ordinary citizens.
 Does this system facilitate the pursuit of happiness?  Or, was it implemented simply to fulfill a numbers game?  You decide.

President George Washington was faced with quite a dilemma.  The new constitution of 1789 was not intended to embody a particular economic theory.  The difficulty was in weighing the advice of his cabinet members, which was at odds.  On the one side was the financial plan of his Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, and on the other the opposition of his Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson.

Discussed previously and summarized briefly here, Hamilton’s financial plan set forth a banking system structured on the successful British model of capitalism. It specified, among other things, the creation of a central banking system under one supreme National Bank.  This bank was to be in corporation form, chartered under the authority of the new federal government of the US (today seen in the form of the Federal Reserve, headed by Benjamin Bernanke).

Hamilton’s plan conceived a new class of speculative wealth and money-making, endorsed by the full faith and credit of the US government.  Members of Congress, as well as the bankers and speculators, all more or less positioned on the inside, were the earliest plan subscribers and beneficiaries.  By and through its undertaking the new federal government created a system of preference for the so called moneyed class over the remaining classes of society that were not moneyed.

In contrast, Jefferson represented a class of citizens whose prosperity was derived from a farming economy.  As such, he objected strenuously to Hamilton’s plan, since it created an artificial class of wealth with certain inherent privileges to certain of its benefactors, which were not the privileges of all citizens.  As such, it clashed with and violated Jefferson’s ideals, which were in direct conflict.  Specifically, in Jefferson’s opinion, Hamilton’s

system flowed from principles adverse to liberty, and was calculated to undermine and demolish the republic, by creating an influence of his department (i.e.: Treasury, within the executive branch) over members of the legislature (i.e.: Congress).


As Hamilton well knew, the “influence” to which Jefferson was referring, and which Hamilton’s banking system created, was inherently susceptible to corruption, according to the laws of human nature.  In permitting some to hold for life, some hereditary, an influence by patronage or corruption over the popular legislative branch, the free election of the people would be reduced to a minimum.  The government would consequently be narrowed into fewer hands and approximated to a hereditary form.

Economically, according to Jefferson, Hamilton’s plan meant the need for a paradigm shift to restore simple republican principles.  In this context, a traditional, “real” economy had to be restored, where a bushel of wheat was worth whatever a bushel of wheat was worth at the particular time it was brought to market.  This was opposed to a contrived, artificial, futures trading economy of corrupt Wall Street money speculators that Hamilton’s plan created, attracted and nurtured.  Once unleashed, the ominous, dark side of human nature was unfortunately showcased in full display.

And so here was President Washington’s dilemma in full view.  In the end, the president endorsed Hamilton’s plan, based on a balancing of interests.  On the one hand, the idea was that the plan would do the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people (on the “happiness” scale!).  On the other hand, the plan would invariably cause collateral damage to the system, however small it would likely be portrayed.  Yes, in the end it was simply a numbers game.

As early as July 4, 1792, in the time period immediately preceding Washington’s re-election to a second Presidential term, a proponent of Thomas Jefferson published a provocative article.  A set of rules were set forth “‘for changing a limited republican government into an unlimited hereditary one’, the most important of these being to increase the national debt and establish a bank.”  However, by the time he had his turn as chief executive, and with the popular support to do as he wished, Thomas Jefferson performed an interesting about face.  Although he viewed the national bank as both an unnecessary and corruptive influence, he chose to extend its charter, on the evolving theory, simply, that “the ends be legitimate.”

The stage had thus been set, and would be intensified later by the material progress of the Industrial Revolution, for the US to become the greatest and most wealthy goods producing machine in the world.  Well, one where wars would no longer be fought, at least internally, over God, thanks to the 1st Amendment’s expression of freedom of religion.  This was the positive aspect.  We know the negative ramifications. And, consider this inevitable clash: When capitalism is intermingled with the principles of Jefferson’s separation of church and state, the new standard of worship for American society is no longer God, but money.

It certainly turned out to be a wise decision --- for empire.  But reducing the Almighty to secondary status would not be without continuing moral consequences.  For a nation which prided its foundation on Christian principles, was it the right decision?  If as it is argued by many that America has lost its way, is the self-interest component which has become so pronounced the primary culprit?  Is the ordinary citizen “happy” that noble virtues like compassion and mercy yield to organized corruption which expresses the moral sickness of a greedy society?


-Michael D’Angelo