What Is the Social Safety Net?

(Editor’s note:  This is the third and concluding segment in this three part series introducing readers to the differing governmental responses to the Great Depression.  These responses have come to define and shape the new order of national government as it exists today.  Click here to view the first segment and the second segment.)

Through the decades, some have criticized F.D.R., calling him a socialist and the New Deal socialistic.  But the New Deal’s aim, according to F.D.R., was simply to multiply the number of American shareholders.  "Is this socialistic?" he asked with a hearty laugh.

Through the social safety net that is at the base of the New Deal social order, the ordinary citizen has come to expect an expanded sense of entitlement and support from the government to all its citizens, especially in time of need.  It is help for the vanquished, cementing the social contract between the federal government and its citizens.  Its goal, simply stated, is to make capitalism more humane.

The ordinary citizen hears so much these days about the social safety net.  But have we ever stopped to consider what the social safety net consists of in reality, where the rubber meets the road?  Today, the social safety net is understood to contain four main anti-poverty, risk-managing components:

       ·          1.   Social Security (1935), the ordinary citizen’s basic retirement/disability benefit.  The Social Security Act (SSA) requires the states to set up welfare funds from which money is disbursed to the elderly, poor, unemployed, unmarried mothers with dependent children, and the disabled.  By this law the federal government also effectively encourages the individual states to adopt unemployment insurance plans.  It was labeled a triumph of social legislation.  Subsequently, the Truman administration’s "Fair Deal" domestic program significantly increased the level of benefits under SSA, expanding the retirement portions, and extended coverage to more than 10 million people, including agricultural workers.

SSA’s legislative twin, the 1935 National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), delivers the right of every worker to join a union of his or her own choosing and the corresponding obligation of employers to bargain collectively with that union in good faith.

Federal deposit insurance (FDIC) backing the ordinary citizen’s passbook savings account adds a subtle touch.  Almost incomprehensibly, this basic protection did not exist under the old order, although today it is largely taken for granted.  Another is the GI Bill of Rights.  By this public policy enactment, returning World War II and Korean War veterans through the early 1950s received certain government incentives regarding citizenship, education, housing, seed money for business.  Whole groups of then immigrants were able to obtain housing, education, jobs and provide a better future for their families, while assimilating seamlessly into American society.  It was a win, win situation for American society.

·             2.   SNAP, government assistance for the  poor.  According to Milo Perkins, the program's first administrator, the initial program from 1939-1943 built a practical bridge across the chasm "with farm surpluses on one cliff and under-nourished city folks with outstretched hands on the other."  In 1961, it was renewed and renamed as the Food Stamps Program.  By 1996, the program was replaced with block grants to states.  In 2008, the name was changed to the current Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and funds could also be used to provide recipients with education and training, career pathways and other public benefit programs.  A USDA summary statistical report indicated that almost 47 million people used SNAP in 2012, up from 26 million in 2007, a 177% increase.  That's roughly 15% of the total US population today.

·            3.   Medicare/Medicaid (1965), health care for older Americans and the ordinary citizen in poverty.  The law was enacted as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and corresponding War on Poverty.  In 2006, the Bush/"43" administration added a prescription drug benefit (not without a total sell out: to the pharmaceutical industry which drafted the legislation - and of the American people, as it was "paid for" on the national credit card).

·         4.   Obamacare (2010), basic security in health care for all Americans.  The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, President Obama’s landmark national health care reform, enshrines "the core principle that everybody should have some basic security when it comes to their health care."  The law focuses on reform of the private health insurance market, providing better coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, extending eligibility for coverage of younger Americans on their parents’ plans until the age of 26; improving prescription drug coverage under Medicare and extending the life of the Medicare Trust fund by at least 12 years.

From a historical perspective, the broader context reveals a tumultuous trade off.  On the one hand, Republican administrations of Harding/Coolidge/Hoover (1920s), Eisenhower (1950s) and Bush/"43" (2000s) certainly meant well in the ideological expression of liberty via individual initiative and enterprise.  Yet left strictly to their own devices they would devolve ultimately to a damaging personification of individual excess.  As the pendulum swung back sharply in the other direction, each compensatory social safety net enactment followed.

The Bush/"43" administration, in fact, expended whatever political capital it thought it possessed in an attempt to "privatize" Social Security.  Proponents said that individual citizens could more efficiently manage their benefits and maximize their return on investment than "the government."  But in view of the Great Recession of 2008, an ordinary citizen can only wonder what further economic disaster would have been befallen the nation, had that particular "initiative" succeeded.

Similarly, during the presidential election of 2012, Republicans campaigned on a promise to "privatize" Medicare in what they said was an effort to reduce its costs.  Democrats, however, saw it as a veiled attempt to eliminate the popular program.

With the passage of Obamacare in 2010, as with the enactment of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare in 1965, there is little wonder that the Republican Party’s dominant, conservative right wing base is in a dither about the "liberal" President Obama.  The familiar cry can be heard once again of an impending end to American life as we know it.  Strictly from the lens of the class interest of business, Republicans may be "right" once again.  But, fortunately, government under order of the New Deal is about the larger, class interest of the nation.  For the dispossessed in all their ordinary colors, shapes and sizes, the social safety net in a historical context begins to speak rather well of a democratic society in relation to its citizens.

-Michael D’Angelo

F.D.R., the Dispossessed and the "New Deal" Social Safety Net

(Editor’s note:  This is the second and middle segment in a three part series which began last week under the title of “Herbert Hoover and the Crisis of the Old Order.”  This segment introduces readers to President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal.  To view the first segment, click here.)

Why is a social safety net necessary?  Is there at times a collective revulsion against a competitive system which competes at the expense of human decency?

From the failure of the private sector’s old order and out of its ashes, the 1932 election of Franklin D. Roosevelt to the presidency signified nothing less than a new order.  To be sure, the attraction of Russian communism to the left, and German/Italian fascism to the right, were carefully weighed by Americans but ultimately rejected.  Both are gone, a footnote to the past.  But F.D.R.’s “New Deal” experiment which saved capitalism from itself has survived, now in its 9^th working decade.

Today, some apparently need reminder that we have a social safety net only because the private sector once failed unceremoniously, ceased to operate, then refused to do anything about it.  In 1929, the class interest of business was mistaken for the national interest, resulting in both class and national disaster, which we have come to know as the Great Depression.  It really did happen - to both the vanquished and the dispossessed alike.  But the New Deal changed all that.

It has been proven time and again that the economic system of capitalism is indeed king when it comes to consolidating business systems, increasing productivity, vanquishing competition, establishing and maintaining the victor’s monopoly status.

But there is at times a collective revulsion against a competitive system which competes at the expense of human decency.  In an unregulated system, labor is the first casualty in an economic crisis.  Profits are preserved by cutting costs.  Therefore, the company that works its labor the longest and pays it least gains the greatest competitive advantage.  Cutthroat competition makes the unscrupulous employer the leader in its field.  Think how the Walmart model is (mis)shaping the global economy.  The rest unwittingly follow in a race to the bottom.  It is for others to clean up the mess.  But if others means government, then government means the New Deal.

Perhaps it’s easier to view the Great Depression strictly from the lens of the class interest of business and see in the big picture how that myopic vision leads necessarily down the path to failure.  From this perspective the one and only consideration is profit or private gain.  Neither human welfare in general nor stewardship of the environment is more than a mere balance sheet expense.  The public interest is an annoying distraction.  There is little in the way of a moral compass, such consideration being secondary.

Business leaders seem consistently to miss a critical component.  Today, as was the case in the 1930s, the central idea behind economic expansion is restoring the mass purchasing power of the ordinary citizen, who provides the best and most efficient means, in fact the only realistic means, to jump start the economy.

But the ideology of unregulated capitalism stands opposed, the class interest of business, in turn, foreclosing higher responsibilities to human beings and planet.  This is true in issues ranging from the minimum wage and employer provided health care - to protecting domestic jobs against outsourcing - to safeguarding a worker’s basic retirement benefit - to adhering to the wisdom of progressive income and inheritance tax rates - to stewardship of the environment – to protecting the democratic process at the ballot box through, fair, impartial elections.

The strictly pro-business agenda and the stock arguments behind it have been historically refuted.  For example, the assertion that tax cuts for the wealthy spur job creation is not supported by employment statistics over time.  It simply is not the case, to the chagrin of the sheep who genuflect at the foot of the private sector altar.  But thanks to self-serving, conservative right wing propaganda, these arguments linger with remarkable staying power.  For many, image is reality, and as a result stubborn dogma is propagated through familiar media outlets which are controlled by and for the benefit of the class interest of the profit motive only.

The path for the continuous responsibility of government for human welfare is seemingly barred.  But the ordinary citizen must despair not!  When all appears lost, into this toxic political environment interject F.D.R.’s New Deal, and the social safety net it introduced to American society.

F.D.R. took the oath of office with the simple confession that he did not have ready answers to solve the problems of the Great Depression.  But unlike his predecessor, he vowed that he would at least try to do “something” rather than nothing.  In short, he would improvise, experiment, see how the experiment worked.  And if it didn’t work, he would try something else.  The social experiment would become famous in US History as the “New Deal.”

The constitutional dedication of federal power to the general welfare, or the social safety net as it is better known, began a new phase of national history.  Gradually, the sharpest edges and cruelest effects of capitalism were softened.  The beast of capitalism was tamed, made more humane.  And so capitalism endures, a modified version from that which had existed under the old order to be sure, with modest, sensible regulation of an otherwise harmful concentration of economic power which benefits only the privileged few.  In the class interest of the nation.

(Editor’s note:  The third and concluding segment in this three part series identifies and analyzes what are understood today to be the four main components of the social safety net, as well as the larger consequences for the ordinary citizen.)

-Michael D'Angelo

Herbert Hoover and the Crisis of the Old Order

 (Editor’s note:  This is the first segment in a three part series.)

Some say the best measure of a society’s worth is how it treats its weakest members.  Adversity is revealing...

It’s easier in a sporting event.  Not long after the final seconds tick off the clock, the winning team receives a ticker tape parade through the canyons of --- and keys to --- The City.  The loser, in turn, must accept a bitter pill, the consolation prize of measured reflection.  Where did it all go wrong?  How do we improve our chances of success next time?  In the sports with the good sense to provide a level playing field, a team can and does live to fight another day.  Never is there consideration of whether there will be food enough to eat on the night of defeat.

In a free, democratic society that puts all its eggs in the economic basket of capitalism based on the British model, somehow it’s just not as simple. But the ordinary citizen has come a long way. Trials, tribulations and progress in the pursuit of happiness – real victories - can be quantified with consensus objectivity.

Let’s put economic considerations aside for the moment. It may have cost the nation almost 650,000 lives, but we were finally able to correct the one gaping injustice of our social contract. The simple idea of extending constitutional protection to the black man came to pass. About half a century later, women were granted the full right of participation in the voting booth. In another half century, due process and equal protection of the laws gave these basic civil rights some teeth. Today, we are yet another half century removed.

In economic terms, the Republican administrations of 1920-1932 represented the climax of total cooperation between big business survival of the fittest and laissez-faire government in partnership. A period of unprecedented material prosperity, especially for private business interests, culminated during the 1928 presidential campaign. Then candidate Herbert Hoover had stated that “We in America today are nearer to the final triumph over poverty than ever before in the history of any land” and “given a chance to go forward with the policies of the last eight years, we shall soon with the help of God be in sight of the day when poverty will be banished from this nation.” Stock prices were reaching what had looked like a permanently high plateau.

Upon Mr. Hoover’s election it was being said that national leadership could not be in safer or more expert hands.  Respected economists noted that for the first time in the nation’s history “we have a President who, by technical training, engineering achievement, cabinet experience, and grasp of economic fundamentals, is qualified for business leadership.”  For his part, President Hoover in his March 1929 inaugural address stated that “I have no fears for the future of our country.  It is bright with hope.”

No one, perhaps, was better suited to anticipate catastrophe than President Hoover.  Following a successful entrepreneurial career with an engineering background in the private sector, he served for almost eight years as Secretary of Commerce before ascending to the presidency.  This provided him with a unique opportunity to observe the workings and influence the policies of the American business system.  But seeing all problems from the viewpoint of business, the federal government which he now headed “had mistaken the class interest (of business) for the national interest.  The result was both class and national disaster.”

In late October 1929, a matter of just a few months following President Hoover’s inauguration, the stock market crashed, ushering in the greatest economic downturn in US History.  The Great Depression lasted a full, painful 10 years.  How bad did it get?  One statistic is telling.  The unemployment rate rose from 3% in the first year to 9% to 16% to an astonishing 24% in the fourth and final year of the Hoover presidency.  That’s a lot of vanquished ordinary people.  When asked whether he felt the capacity for human suffering to be without limit, a banker reportedly replied, “I think so.”  Invoking moral justification, many conservatives regarded federal aid to idle workers as spelling the end of the republic.

Consistent with these sentiments, President Hoover reminded the ordinary citizen of what had become the basic philosophy of the Republican Party: The Great Depression was nothing more than a “temporary slump in a fundamentally strong economy” and that government intervention to combat its baneful effects was both “unnecessary and unwise.”  Stubbornly, he refused to act.  Vilified over the years for his failure to act, perhaps rightly so, President Hoover believed that relief should come from the private sector, not the government.

As a result, a capitalist system which denied work or relief to the unemployed millions was increasingly called into critical doubt.  But rugged individualism was dead nonetheless.  Both real estate and farm commodity prices had collapsed.  Banks effectively ceased to operate.  While the heart of industry was only beating faintly, the private sector offered nothing.  It had failed.  The 1932 election would provide a last chance for politics.

(Editor’s note:  The second and middle segment in this three part series introduces readers to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the plight of the vanquished and the creation of a new order, which the ordinary citizen has come to know as F.D.R.'s “New Deal” with its accompanying social safety net.)

-Michael D'Angelo

An Independent Voice

"... swollen fortunes for the few and the triumph in both politics and business of a sordid and selfish materialism." Is that what the promised land of America has become? ...

An independent voice is not charged with engagement in a popularity contest. Since it is not owned, an independent voice has no obligation to maintain neutral positions on important issues for the sake of parity. The charge is to answer the following question: Which is the correct position? Theodore Roosevelt once reflected that

Personally I have not the slightest sympathy with debating contests in which each side is arbitrarily assigned a given proposition and told to maintain it without the least reference to whether those maintaining it believe in it or not.  I know that under our system this is necessary for lawyers, but I emphatically disbelieve in it as regards general discussion of political, social and industrial matters.  What we need is to turn out of our colleges young men with ardent convictions on the side of the right; not young men who can make a good argument for either right or wrong as their interest bids them.  There is no effort to instill sincerity and intensity of conviction.  On the contrary, the net result is to make the contestants feel that their convictions have nothing to do with their arguments. 

Today, many of the positions of one of the two major national political parties are to such an extreme, out of touch with mainstream reality, that moderate voices within the party like Bob Dole and Olympia Snowe say it should “close for repairs.” Can an independent voice be fairly accused of a fatal bias or undue influence in favor of the other party for consistently bringing out the same point?

What does an independent voice sound like? And not sound like?

Take the example of an Exxon executive, dependent upon the company’s fortunes. Would that executive be the optimal source from whom to get an objective handle on the public environmental safety considerations of fracking, absent empirical proof? Or whether Canadian Tar Sands oilfields should be developed for US consumption through the mechanism of the Keystone Pipeline? Take another example of the entrepreneur, who happens to deploy outsourced human labor in far away factories to “make a living” here in the US. Is this the ideal critic of the bottom line performance of the Obama administration's policies on domestic jobs creation? Or the pace of economic recovery, which historically depends upon the mass purchasing power of the ordinary citizen?

Commercial allegiances aside, can a political party influence an independent voice, thus negating it? In answering this question, would it be helpful to know whether the individual behind the voice is employed by or otherwise beholden to party due to considerations of position or patronage?  Would it also be helpful to know whether the party’s influential ideas have been de-commissioned for over a century?

What is the essence of an independent voice? Does it not tow its own direction on the path less traveled? Perhaps the views of a political party which happen to be in alignment merely strengthen the validity of a position taken. And on issue upon issue, if it seems to turn out that way consistently, perhaps it is not an independent voice which is biased but rather the bankruptcy of the other party's views. Do we sometimes mistake the difference?

Where do our beliefs come from? Is the pursuit of happiness genuinely concerned with helping people first? Or does self-government have some other primary calling? Was the ordinary citizen placed upon the earth to collect things and change money? Or to serve?  America cherishes a storied tradition of individual initiative, incentive based. But doesn’t our political creed hold out the promise of such things only in the larger context of a collective social identity - that we are all in this together? How about the psychology of support for the weakest link?

Unbridled selfishness, ambition and greed are necessary ingredients to unlock the fantastic material successes of capitalism.  They also expose the darker side of human nature, personal achievement and private reward notwithstanding. More than a hundred years ago, T.R. understood that the “Material progress and prosperity of a nation are desirable chiefly so long as they lead to the moral and material welfare of all good citizens.”

But what happens when purely business or political decisions clash with considerations of morality? Does business utilize a moral compass? Are the twin pillars of "continuous responsibility of government for human welfare" and stewardship of the environment, especially "efficient use of finite resources and scientific management of renewable ones," merely expenses on a cold financial balance sheet for private gain?

Notions of rugged individualism pretty much went out with the Great Depression of 1929, until President Reagan resurrected that nostalgic notion in the 1980s. But here we are in the 21st century, our national life, T.R. having forewarned, “bringing nothing better than swollen fortunes for the few and the triumph in both politics and business of a sordid and selfish materialism.” It is here that an independent voice cannot forever remain silent.

Weren't material possessions conceived to serve us? Then why does it appear that we are enslaved to them? Are we both daring and foolish enough to consider a more sanguine approach? If in T.R.’s words the “conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress,” then is it yet time for a new epoch in American history?

-Michael D’Angelo

The Hundred Yard Dash

Has the black man caught up?  Consider the metaphor of the hundred yard dash...

White men like me from the south (of Europe, that is) stand accused of breeding a race of human beings decidedly inferior to those from Europe’s western and northern sections. Still, I suppose I’m not completely in tune with the plight of Latinos, African Americans, Asians, the so-called “people of color.” Or women, for that matter.

By way of example, one day an African American student asks me a simple question. “Why is it,” he begins, “that a black person has to be wildly successful, beat insurmountable odds, fly like superman, to become that nationally popular one-in-a-million hip hop artist, before he is able to afford what is to most white people the common luxury to reside in an affluent southern California neighborhood like Beverly Hills? While, for example, his white neighbor on one side just has to be a dentist - his white neighbor on the other side an insurance salesman?” Frankly, I have never looked at it that way before.  But, of course, once I do take the time to think it through from the student’s perspective, I surmise he has a point.

And if those are the odds for the plight of the ordinary black man, then just where does the “lower” class of white men, like me (the ones who are not white Anglo-Saxon protestant), slot in? Many white people today resent the fact that blacks receive at least a perceived, unfair advantage through the mechanism of affirmative action. This controversial program gives a hiring preference based on race, ethnicity or gender over the application of a similarly situated white male citizen. Many white men, especially on the lower rungs, believe that, perhaps, it is time to reverse or undo affirmative action, that enough has been done, that blacks, anyway, have effectively “caught up.”

I pose this question to a professional colleague whose ethnicity is a mix of African American and Asian. He answers without hesitation: “Hell no! The black man is not even close to catching up.” He proceeds to relate a metaphor I’ve not forgotten. A white man and a black man each line up to compete in a hundred yard dash. The white man is fit and all trained up, with state of the art running gear. By contrast, the black man has a pair of lead shackles locked around his bare ankles. The gun goes off. The race starts. The white man zips along smartly, sporting a huge smile. When he gets to about ten yards from the finish line, someone in the crowd has the decency to call for the black man’s shackles finally to be removed. The crowd waits impatiently, wondering why the black man hasn’t caught up, fully recovered in an instant from deep injuries sustained over 350 years of legally sanctioned subordination. He must just be lazy, they conclude.

It is argued that whites typically lack empathy for their black brethren, taking for granted things that do not come as naturally or predictably for blacks. For example, one of my white colleagues is known to speak rather casually about having inherited his father’s successful printing business. Although it is largely due to his efforts that the business has taken off to the next level, he tends to speak as if such businesses commonly grow on trees. After all, it’s just a printing business, right?

Working people are also rather nonchalant about the financial cost and economic drain of social programs for their dispossessed co-workers. Programs such as workers’ compensation to protect the injured and unemployment insurance benefits to protect those who have been the subject of layoffs are routinely criticized. Even successful, self-employed entrepreneurs tend to complain about the social costs of subsidizing the failed business ventures of others in a brutal, survival of the fittest, take no prisoners mentality.

Of course, the situation changes when the working man loses his own job. Then, as the saying goes, it’s not a recession, it’s a depression. Suppose, for example, the self-employed entrepreneur happens to be a GM dealer, whose father ran the business proudly before he did. For years, all the entrepreneur says he wants is the “government” simply to get off his back and stay out of his life. Until, that is, the music stops playing, GM declares bankruptcy on account of decades of incompetent management, and the entrepreneur is finally left without a chair. All of a sudden, the attitude changes, fundamentally. Then the government must step in, naturally, to help him in his time of dire need.

Lastly, I can only chuckle in considering the story of a woman who tells me she has no idea how she is going to pay for her child’s college education. She is therefore going to vote “Democrat” in the next election, as one of the ordinary people to whom the party has strong appeal. The next time I see her, however, her politics have undergone a complete transformation. Now she is preaching how the Republicans must win the next election. “I thought you were going to vote Democrat?” I interject matter-of-factly. She confides that she has been the grateful recipient of a generous bequest from her parents, which covers the child’s education in full. And all of a sudden, everything changes.


-Michael D’Angelo

What Would Washington Do?

What would Washington do? Not Washington, the city. GEORGE Washington --- the man.

If George Washington knew that the richest 400 Americans today possess more wealth than the bottom half (150 million) of the US population combined, what would he do about it? If he knew that the top 1% possess as much wealth as the bottom 39%, would George Washington take note? Would he show even mild concern? And then there is the matter of the $15.5 trillion national debt.

Surely George Washington would know that the ordinary citizen could trace this situation to his very own decision made long ago. President Washington deliberated the proposal of Alexander Hamilton, his Secretary of the Treasury, for the economic system of capitalism on the British model. Against this he weighed the objection of Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State. As was typically the case with Jefferson, his objection to Hamilton’s plan was philosophically based.

Thomas Jefferson saw that Hamilton's plan called for the federal government under the new constitution to create an artificial class of wealth, an “influence” of treasury over the legislative branch, which was inherently susceptible to patronage and corruption. The design was a full fledged system of preference, which flowed from principles adverse to liberty. This would violate the unfettered freedom of the individual to pursue happiness. The author of the document which set forth that “all men are created equal” viewed with consternation a proposed system which would not treat all men equally under the law.

The benefit of hindsight informs the ordinary citizen that George Washington chose to endorse Hamilton’s plan, which would provide the greatest good for the greatest number. But the plan would invariably cause collateral damage, however small it would likely be portrayed. George Washington had known this from the very start.

And so one of the national government's earliest policy decisions has created the system responsible for the growing problem of wealth disparity we are experiencing today, now comprising nearly half the country. So the question is: What would George Washington do? Unfortunately, the question seems to devolve to a smallness debate on the proper size of government.

On the one hand, advocates of big government, so labeled, trace their roots to F.D.R.’s New Deal, a 1930s experiment to offset the economic calamity which was the Great Depression. Capitalism’s private sector had completely derailed, a phenomenon exacerbated by its proponent’s stubborn state of denial. The experiment was a success, restoring the ordinary citizen’s faith in democracy by making capitalism seem more humane. But F.D.R. was a fiscal conservative, too, the idea of a fully engaged, activist government as the great provider not fully maturing until decades later.

On the other hand, proponents of so called small government champion individual initiative and personal responsibility. So determined are they to cut the size of government, their actions are seen by many as reckless. They propose to reduce government revenue by cutting taxes for the affluent, trying to kill the beast by starving it. But they do not propose a corresponding offset in spending. Free of government constraints, the economy grows to make up for the offset, and wealth trickles down to the masses. If only there were some precedent, George Washington could better know if this approach were the holy grail.

So the partisan divide ebbs and flows. Positions become entrenched. The status quo has been set. George Washington was the president who, as he was leaving office, warned of the baneful effect of partisan division, of political parties. But he was the only president who did not have to deal with political parties, as they did not materialize until he had left the scene. So his ability to act was freer, less constrained.

What would George Washington do, absent the constraints of today's competing ideologies, where sideshows tend to swallow substance?  Perhaps, more than 200 years later, George Washington would know intuitively that in order to aim higher, to progress meaningfully from one stage to the next in an upward course for the greater good, it will become necessary to move beyond a traditional analysis affixed to economic cycles of boom and bust, war and peace.

The lens of the ordinary citizen turns to the legislative branch. Its structure has remained largely intact since George Washington’s time. But many would agree it has evolved into a state of dysfunctional chaos. Examples are abundant --- and ominous.

As our democratic system was designed, voters would choose their legislators at the ballot box. But for many years that is no longer the case.  In a legislative tradition known as gerrymandering, self-serving legislators have long chosen their voters by drawing arbitrary, movable lines around voting districts to make them safe from challenge by the other side. Moreover, a legislative seat, once a post of honor, has been transformed into a place of profit. So pressured is a lawmaker from the corruptive effects of special interests for private gain that public service is no longer seen as a selfless commitment to the welfare of others. It is more like a self-centered establishment paradise. The use of one simple technique, the filibuster, transforms the US Senate from a moderating force into an impregnable wall, blocking the rising demand for social justice. And finally, once elected, lawmakers are set up in office for unlimited term or duration, indefinitely, arguably for life.

So where is the incentive in this structural scheme to change for the greater good, even when its need appears so obvious?   Perhaps, George Washington would consider starting there.

-Michael D’Angelo

Morality and Ethics

 Why is it said that the graveyard of politics is littered with principled men? …

Whatever forces may be in play to attempt to change a powerful and hardened status quo are typically compelled to proceed at their own peril.  President Eisenhower had resisted the change in the law integrating the nation's public schools, the 1954 US Supreme Court's landmark unanimous ruling, as not involving a great moral issue.  Sometimes, that is the way the issue of change is ultimately portrayed.  That is, does the particular situation involve a moral issue which is at stake, or not?  If so, typically, change may be more likely to occur than not.  Otherwise, forget about it.  But it is important to take note that the word is often used as a default argument, when one is trying to articulate the need for change.

We ordinary citizens have all heard the expression: “I can’t do that – it’s the principle of the matter!”  As a lawyer who spent a good deal of time in the courtroom arguing contested cases, if I had a dime for every time I had to defend someone’s principles, I’d be a rich man.

When one thinks of morality, one must also think of ethics.  And the definition of ethics must include the idea of obedience to the unenforceable.  Woodrow Wilson, the highly principled man that he was, once said that “there is a higher law than profit” and that people “should be broader-minded to see what was best for America.”

The political process involves compromise.  But the compromise of principle often comes at the expense of conscience.  Sometimes, particularly when the stakes are greatest, the choice is not pleasant.  For these reasons, it is said that the graveyard of politics is littered with principled men.  Who does that leave us with?

A revealing story about ethics involves the somewhat familiar tale of a man who finds a lost wallet on the sidewalk.  Like a majority of ordinary citizens, the man had a good job but had virtually nothing to spare, once all the bills were paid, until the next paycheck.

Picking up the wallet, he put it in his coat and continued on to work, examining its contents as soon as he got there.  At around $600 in cash, he stopped counting.  His first thought was that he had won a mini lottery.  But he quickly dismissed that foolish notion.  The man called the owner to tell him to come by to pick it up.  The owner spoke gruffly, however, unlike what one might expect from a man whose wallet had just been found.

The owner did come by later that afternoon, turning out to be an older, white man with a permanent scowl.  The man handed the owner his wallet, and the owner immediately began counting his money.  Audibly irritated, the man said it was all there.  The owner stopped counting, grudgingly pulled out a $5 bill and handed it toward the man, who refused to accept it, stating that he hoped the owner would return somebody else’s wallet someday.  The owner turned on his heel and stalked away without uttering another word.

The man learns two valuable lessons from that experience.  The first is as familiar as it is simple: Honesty is what you do when no one is looking.  The second is perhaps more important, and more relevant, described as the defining moment in the man’s ethical development: A need, however great it might be, does not convert wrong to right, or bad to good.  The owner’s wallet was not his, no matter how much the man needed the money, or how rude the owner happened to be.  The man later became a member of the highest court in the land, the US Supreme Court.  The Hon. Mr. Justice Clarence Thomas often had occasion to remind himself in years to come that self-interest isn’t a principle --- it’s just self-interest.

One of Clarence Thomas’ heroes, the late Bobby Kennedy, had said that it was really a moral issue, the continued prosecution of the Vietnam War, against the increasingly violent street protests of the younger generation calling for its end.  The truth is that the US had expended more ordnance on the tiny Asian nation of North Vietnam than all the participants in World War II against each other, combined.  This inspired R.F.K. to pose the following question: “If we bomb every square inch of North Vietnam to rubble, then what exactly have we saved it from?”

Bobby Kennedy had been inspired by the message conveyed in Dante’s Inferno: “The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.”  And so, using an argument inspired by morality, he changed his position on the Vietnam War.  Such can be the power of morality to nudge the immovable object.

-Michael D'Angelo

The Senator's Son

What are the ingredients necessary to preserve the American Dream?  Do they include equal access to the American economic opportunity structure?  ...

How does an ordinary citizen become Commissioner of the National Football League?  Does he have to know or be related to Bill Gates?  Or Warren Buffett?  Or the Koch brothers?  Not even a few of us can be fortunate enough to have the opportunity to grow up the privileged child of the rich man.  As a matter of pure numbers, it’s just not reality.  Unfortunately.

And how about the US Senators?  Very few of us are the Senator’s son, either.  Is it any wonder that we seem to know very little of the sons and daughters of our US Senators?  Or of other historically noteworthy citizens?  Perhaps this is because, typically, born with the silver spoon, as the song goes, the house looks like a rummage sale.  That is to say, they don’t amount to much.  Call it human nature.

But a few notable exceptions come to mind in our own lifetime.  Roger Goodell, the current and only 3^rd commissioner in NFL history, is one.  Mr. Goodell has picked up where his predecessor left off, growing rather nicely into the job he landed in 2006, and leading the NFL to new heights of prosperity.  He is the son of Charles Goodell, the late US Senator, R-NY, appointed to his seat by then Gov. Nelson Rockefeller to fill the vacancy upon the assassination of US Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, D-NY in 1968.  Did the connection assist the commissioner in obtaining his first NFL position, an administrative internship in the league offices in 1982?  Did it assist him in being named commissioner?  It certainly couldn’t hurt.

Another is Al Gore, the former two term Vice President to Pres. Bill Clinton and the winner of the consolation prize in the hotly, and legally, contested presidential election of 2000.  Gore’s father had been a US Senator from Tennessee, as was Mr. Gore at one time.  Before beginning his years of public service, however, Mr. Gore served time in Vietnam in 1969, having enlisted in the army.  He reasoned that he did not want someone with fewer options than he to go in his place.  A 1969 graduate of Harvard University, he would become one of only about a dozen of the 1,115 members of his class who went to Vietnam.

Since the election of 2000, Mr. Gore has been involved mostly in environmental causes, founding and serving as the current chair of the Alliance for Climate Protection.  He has also been on a campaign to educate citizens about global warming via a comprehensive slide show that, by his own estimate, he has given more than a thousand times.  The slide show is the subject of the 2006 documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth, winner of an Academy Award in 2007.  He was also the subject of a joint award with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the Nobel Peace Prize, also in 2007.  He has championed the idea of stewardship of the environment as a moral issue, more than anything else.

Yet another is President George H. W. Bush/“41,” who was the son of US Sen. Prescott Bush, R-CT, a Wall Street banker.  That makes Prescott a pretty distinguished fellow.  He was the father of one president, the grandfather of another president (George W. Bush/“43”) and the grandfather of the Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, who many believe is also presidential material.

And although he was not the son of a US Senator, Gen. William T. Sherman had friends in high places looking out for him, too, among the politicians in Washington, D.C.  His brother, John, was a political mover and US Senator from Ohio during the General’s time.  Subsequently, John Sherman would become a future Secretary of State and the primary sponsor of major federal anti-monopoly legislation, which dates back to the 1890s.

Two of our 44 US Presidents were the sons of presidents: John Quincy Adams was the son of John Adams, and the aforementioned Bush/“43” the son of Bush/“41.”  As distinguished was the career of each son of a president, the question for the ordinary citizen remains: Would either have had the remote chance to become President of the United States if his respective father weren’t?

Put another way, who holds the keys to the video room?  Who among us commands access to the American economic opportunity structure?  An ordinary citizen who dismisses these questions would be well served to consider the following proposition.  Understanding this complicated dynamic may provide the essential force in identifying what is necessary to preserve the American Dream.  The stakes cannot be fairly understated.

-Michael D'Angelo

The True Conservative & the Triumph of Conservatism

(Editor’s note: This is the second and concluding segment in a two part series.  The first segment introduced readers to traditional notions of conservatism.)

Does change mean destruction?  What happens when there is no change? …

Against the traditional definition of the term “conservative,” Theodore Roosevelt, however, identified what he referred to as the “true conservative:”

The true friend of property, the true conservative, is he who insists that property shall be the servant and not the master of the commonwealth; who insists that the creature of man’s making shall be the servant and not the master of the man who made it.  The citizens of the United States must effectively control the mighty commercial forces which they have called into being.

There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains.

…

We must have complete and effective publicity (disclosure) of corporate affairs, so that the people may know beyond peradventure whether the corporations obey the law and whether their management entitles them to the confidence of the public.  It is necessary that laws should be passed to prohibit the use of corporate funds directly or indirectly for political purposes; it is still more necessary that such laws should be thoroughly enforced.  Corporate expenditures for political purposes, and especially such expenditures by public-service corporations, have supplied one of the principal sources of corruption on our political affairs.

In the first decade of the 20^th century, a time when 1% of families possessed 7/8 of all wealth, the reform agenda of T.R.’s Republican Party called for efficient government run by competent, able people with a need for expanded government action.  The ground-breaking work of Ida Tarbell, “muckraking” progressive journalist, provided the impetus to take on and ultimately succeed in breaking up the gargantuan oil monopoly, Rockefeller’s Standard Oil.

Utilizing a previously toothless, obscure federal law known as the 1891 Sherman Anti-Trust Act, T.R.’s administration rejected the previous Republican policy of laissez-faire and passive, limited government.  Henceforth, and for the very first time, the government would reject the principles of Social Darwinism and recognize labor (i.e.: the ordinary citizen) as a necessary ingredient, if not equal partner, in its struggle with entrenched businesses (i.e.: ranging from finance to railroads to steel to coal mines).  It was then labeled as the “triumph of conservatism.”

T.R.’s program of reform exemplified an activist government to combat the various ills plaguing society as a result of the Industrial Revolution.  Noteworthy legislative achievements on behalf of the ordinary citizen included the enactment of workers’ compensation, child labor and compulsory education laws, as well as laws to ameliorate excessively long shifts and unsafe work conditions.

In short, T.R. used his presidency to make laws to protect people “on the make” as opposed to those “already made,” in the attempt at “making an Old Party Progressive.”  It was in line with the Jackson-Lincoln view of the presidency: to act when it is your duty to act as the steward of the people, unless explicitly forbidden by the US Constitution.  His program would inspire much of the social agenda of the future New Deal a generation later.

Conservatives, said T.R., “are taught to believe that change means destruction.  They are wrong.  ...  Life means change; where there is no change, death comes.”

If I could ask but one thing of my fellow countrymen, my request would be that, whenever they go in for reform, they remember the two sides, and that they always exact justice from one side as much as from the other.

…

But we must be ready to face temporary disaster, whether or not brought on by those who will war against us to the knife.  Those who oppose reform will do well to remember that ruin in its worst form is inevitable if our national life brings us nothing better than swollen fortunes for the few and the triumph in both politics and business of a sordid and selfish materialism.

These are strong words to ponder, as wealth disparity and concentration in the hands of the few are again acute problems in the second decade of the 21^st century.  But amid society’s growing unrest, there is an enlightened path to follow.  Thanks in no small part to Theodore Roosevelt.

-Michael D’Angelo

Conservatism and the Status Quo

(Editor's note: This is the first segment in a two part series.)

What does it mean to be a conservative? Why must the status quo not be casually discarded?

It is informative to reminisce about the presidential election of 1912, which has come to define the ideologies of the national political parties as presently constituted. The Republican Party preferred to field a losing candidate, rather than gamble on one who would “radicalize” its “traditional” (i.e. – conservative) platform. Better to lose the election, regroup and use the lawful mechanisms available in our democracy to obstruct and wait it out until the next election.  Doesn't this sound all too familiar?  In the 2012 national election the party’s conservative base could not bring itself to go “all in” on the more moderate ideas of its presidential nominee. This ensured President Obama’s re-election to a second term.

The election of 1912 is a case study in how seemingly impossible the task of upsetting the status quo. The Republican nominee, President Taft, the unpopular conservative incumbent, merely tolerated the futile contest, viewing former president Theodore Roosevelt’s break from the Republican Party and third-party Progressive insurgency as a challenge to “the principles of the party … the retention of conservative government and conservative institutions.” Although he doubted even T.R.’s ability to pull off a long shot victory, Mr. Taft knew he was not likely to win that election, either. He didn’t. The national election and the one following would be thrown to Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat.

1912 marked the first use of a phrase that would re-enter the American political vocabulary in criticism to the policies of Republican Party conservatism under the Reagan administration nearly 70 years later. T.R. had remarked at a campaign speech that “The Republican proposal is only to give prosperity to (wealthy industrialists) and then to let it trickle down.”

In the ensuing century, there can be no mistaking that the Republican Party has remained firmly within the control of an entrenched, affluent, conservative, some say reactionary base, squarely in support of the status quo. This is both sweeping as it is powerful.

The ordinary citizen who talks with five people who call themselves a “conservative” these days will surely receive five different definitions of that political term. For example, when I think of conservative, the idea is of small, frugal, debt-free government with the freedom to enjoy individual pursuits without the interference of government. That’s what Jefferson had in mind. It is the kind of conservatism that Republicans have been preaching, but have been remiss in their practice, for at least the past 40 years. The more recent variety would also add a healthy dose of militarism.

So, what is a conservative? According to Wikipedia, conservatism is defined as follows:

A political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society.  Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to the way things were.

A more moderate definition was pronounced upon seasoned reflection late in life by the legendary Coke Stevenson, the 20th century self-made rancher beloved as “Mr. Texas” back home. He put it this way:

A conservative --- he’s one who holds things together.  He shouldn’t fight all progressive movements, but he should be the balance wheel to hold the movement to where it won’t get out of hand.

Proponents point out that conservatism supports the larger, desirable idea of a common culture or identity, who we are as a people. Hard earned and built with the blood and sweat of prior generations, that culture must continue to evolve deliberately, upon consensus. It must not be casually discarded. In its simplest sense, it’s an argument of order and control over chaos. The point certainly has great validity.

Consequently, perhaps, whenever it perceives an opening, the Republican Party has attempted to take measures designed to grind the wheels of progress and change to a halt, preserving the status quo or even rolling it back. Of course, the same argument in reverse can be made against its main targets: T.R.’s activist, Progressivism; F.D.R.’s New Deal; Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and the civil rights movement of the 1960s; affirmative action and a woman’s right to choose, among others. The administration of President Obama and the progressive agenda he seeks to implement also lie directly within its targeted scope.

In fact, given the strength of the status quo’s gravitational pull lined up against him, it is no small wonder that President Obama has been able to make good on any pre-election campaign promises of change. This is especially true in the case of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, the new law commonly known as Obamacare. This major national healthcare reform legislation is a progressive prize of historical magnitude to improve the lot of the ordinary citizen. Its passage had escaped every reform-minded leader who attempted it, dating back to T.R. more than 100 years ago. Somehow, somewhere, T.R. must be smiling down upon us.

(The second and concluding segment in this two part series features T.R.’s views of the "true conservative," the balance of competing forces required to manufacture change and the "triumph of conservatism.")

-Michael D’Angelo