Harnessing the Properties of Light (Part One)

(Editor’s note:  This is the first segment in a new two part series introducing readers to the US Constitution of 1789.)

How frequent is the observation made that the team which appears to have the superior talent does not win the contest? …

…  Primarily, the loser offers up the excuse that the players simply did not perform up to their capabilities --- as a team should.  Instead of a bus, it is said, they take 25 individual rides to the ballpark.  Typically, in baseball as in representative government, the outcome is fatal to success.

In a democracy which exceeds 300,000,000 people, the objective of keeping the citizens content in the pursuit of happiness requires considerably more expertise.  How does the American government keep the game and its players functioning so smoothly?  How is the officiating kept separate and unbiased in a low key, unassuming manner?  Wasn’t it always this way?

This question suggests the response.  In 1787 the founding fathers were faced with quite a predicament.  Flying under the radar would appear to have been rather impossible then, given the scope and magnitude of the crisis which was upon the young nation and their proposed remedial social science project.  Today, however, this seems lost on the ordinary citizen.  But it is worth remembering.

The young, fledgling democracy was in danger of failing, just 11 years into the experiment.  Under America’s then and first constitution, known as the Articles of Confederation, each state (there were 13 at the time) retained its own individual sovereignty and the corresponding power to veto any law with which it happened to disagree.  Given the diversity of regional and economic interests, this meant that no truly uniform or effective law could reasonably be enacted.  An effective army could not well be raised for national defense, nor taxes either levied or collected to pay for it.  Nor could the commerce of the national economy be effectively regulated.

Unfortunately, the setting did not make provision for a team bus.  Rather, there were to be essentially 13 separate cab rides to the ballpark, and social chaos was the potential imminent consequence.  The experiment in democracy was in acute danger of failure, the patient on life support.  Accordingly, there was an urgent sense to maintain a state of order and control, or as it has been couched in political terms, to preserve internal political stability.

But what if there were too much order and control?  The corresponding fear in that instance was that the mass of ordinary citizens would be left with a one man wrecking ball, serfs to what we otherwise know as a dictator.  The people of France were to learn this lesson painfully, when their popular revolution, corresponding in time more or less with our own American Revolution, degenerated into mob rule and then eventually the dictatorship of Napoleon.  The French Revolution would later conclude with the anomalous result of the near ruin of Europe in continental military conquest and its people subjected to a military tyrant.

Either extreme presented the founding fathers with vexatious concern for the survival and continuation of the great American experiment in democracy.  The situation was analogous to harnessing the desirable properties of light.  On the one hand, the founding fathers viewed the shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation as the futile attempt to illuminate the path with a flashlight which contains failing batteries.  This light simply had neither power nor strength sufficient to provide even minimal let alone adequate illumination.

On the other hand resided the “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times” comparison with the ongoing French Revolution, as described in Charles Dickens’ novel, The Tale of Two Cities.  In that situation, the light of democracy had become so supremely concentrated in strength as to represent the immense power of a pure, unfiltered laser beam.  That is to say, if anyone were to fix a gaze directly into the beam or somehow end up in its path, the result would conceive a wrecking ball of disaster.

(Editor’s note:  The second and concluding segment in this two part series guides readers through the horns of the dilemma to its solution.  What was needed was something in between the two undesirable extremes ...)


-Michael D'Angelo

Andrew Carnegie and the Gospel of Wealth (Part Two)

(Editor’s note:  This is the second and final segment in a two part series, introducing readers to the Industrial Revolution and one of its iconic heroes.  To view the first segment, click here.)

What, if anything, is the duty of the rich man to society, according to one of the most iconic and storied rich men of early industrial America?

While the industrial robber barons of the Gilded Age were said only to flash their great wealth to the masses, Andrew Carnegie, for one, articulated a call for these wealthy business titans of industry to return their wealth to society.  This illustrates Lesson 3 (of 4) of US History.  The king of steel strongly believed that the rich man had not the option, but rather a corresponding duty, to voluntarily return his wealth to society from whence it came.

Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth writings set forth a model of how the wealthy man should conduct his life.  First, the capitalist’s primary goal was to make money.  But he should then live only modestly, so as to bring no undue attention to himself.  Then, since the rich man had figured out how to achieve great wealth in the first place, he alone should choose how to spend that wealth.  Whether on charity, society, science, or any other worthy cause, in his sole discretion, he should accomplish all this before he dies.

According to Carnegie, it would be a curse for a rich man to die with money in the bank, and which the government could then get its hands on by mechanisms such as the inheritance tax.  In the end, if all went according to plan, the rich man who made it would, in turn, give it all away freely, the government involved neither while making the money, nor spending it in the end.

And Carnegie acted.  As part of his considerable financial legacy, Carnegie, the king of steel, donated substantial sums for a pension relief fund to the families of killed and injured workers, based on merit, and not given indiscriminately.  Additionally, he made bequests to build 67 libraries forming the backbone of the venerable New York City public library system and some 1,689 public libraries in the US during his lifetime.  The program was expanded to include church organs.  Lastly, he made a gift to establish the International Court at the Hague, in support of a world court of arbitration, where international disputes could be resolved without resort to war.

As the so-called “Apostle of Peace,” Carnegie has been quoted as saying: “We have abolished the duel.  Let it be our race that truly takes the first step to abolish international dueling.”  And Carnegie (remember, the year was 1910, before the World Wars) had also stated:

The whole matter is so simple  …  Germany, Great Britain and the US coming together (somewhat covertly) to form a joint police force to maintain peace is all that is needed.

But the impact of the Industrial Revolution on American society was not all positive.  Neither were the results all pretty, nor without a heavy price.  Consider that the process generated a sink full of dirty dishes.  The growth of corporations and trusts raised immense amounts of targeted capital but, importantly, decreased social responsibility.  Materialism was pronounced over all other values.  Natural resources were exploited, despoiling the land, to increase profits.  Wealth and industry, over production, people and politics, became overly concentrated.  This, in turn, led to corrupt political machines led by party bosses, the overcrowding of cities, the straining of resources and services.  It also necessitated the combination of diverse cultural groups which were unfamiliar with American city life or each other.

Moreover, American industrial workers faced deteriorating labor conditions.  Women, children and the unskilled immigrant factory worker were exploited, suffering work conditions which could perhaps best be described as unsafe, inhumane and produced substandard products.  Hours were excessive, on a daily and weekly basis.  Wages failed to keep pace with the cost of living.  Still, the abundant supply of cheap, new, unskilled immigrant workers greatly exceeded the supply of new factory jobs in the nation’s big industrial cities.

Workers also faced strong opposition not only from their employers but also the courts.  Government policy and judicial decisions fiercely protected not the industrial worker but the entrepreneurial spirit of American businessmen to lead by way of innovation.  Sweatshop working conditions and stagnant wages stimulated a movement toward the formation of labor unions.  However, attempts at unionization led to violent confrontations between big business and government in tandem against the interests of labor.

One thing was clear: America was making more products than it could consume.  This factor, added to the free-for-all, further stimulated unstable economic cycles of boom and bust that produced unrest on farms.  Due to increasing productivity, farmers faced declining prices for their crops, as well as a diminution of their land, with laws and government interest in protecting neither.  Land foreclosures skyrocketed.

Instability spawned a first of its kind political movement, a populist wing of the Democratic Party traced to the protection of the nation’s agrarian and common man labor interests.  Dramatized by William Jennings Bryan, “The Great Commoner,” “on the wings of a single great speech about a cross of gold,” it rose briefly to political prominence but ultimately failed and was swept away by 1896.

In cities, living conditions degenerated into tenement slums filled with crime and poverty, racism and nativism.  Advances in transportation, specifically the railroad, exacerbated segregated living arrangements for an increasingly diverse cultural society.  And the entire process, given the magnitude and swiftness of the forces of change, fueled a painless escape to drugs.

The ultimate result and impact, it has been said, was a society in chaos, seeking reform.  This was the state of affairs as the American industrial machine rolled into the 20^th century.

-Michael D’Angelo

The Industrial Revolution and the Robber Barons (Part One)

(Editor’s note:  This is the first segment in a two part series, introducing readers to the Industrial Revolution and the underpinnings of modern times.)

What were the key ingredients to "make" America's Industrial Revolution?  What, if any, was the government’s role?  Why were the times seen as a Gilded Age, when style points both in politics and culture triumphed over substance?

In truth, the US was “ready” for the Industrial Revolution long before it actually arrived, but divisiveness on the slavery question held back progress.  Compromise after compromise had put off resolution of the most basic of civil rights issues, until it could be put off no longer.  When the Civil War ended, and the states were reconstructed, the US could return to the matter of industrial progress and prowess at the turn of the 20^th century.

Some say the birth of the Industrial Revolution was a precipitous event, transitioning America from a promised land into a crusader state, to capture and protect the wealth of foreign markets for its own citizens.  In this way America was said to mimic every great empire which had come --- and gone --- before.

The Industrial Revolution was the great free for all, US government “guided” by principles of Social Darwinism.  Basically, it was a game of survival of the fittest, most adaptable, Darwin’s theory of evolution as applied to society.  Those individuals who had figured out how to amass great personal wealth were viewed as being in the best position to make leadership decisions for the good of the masses.

Government’s role was either to support these individuals and their industries or avoid meddlesome interference (laissez-faire acceptance of supply and demand theory).  Industrial ventures operated through large, capital massing business organizations, called “trusts.”  But the relationship of these trusts to their government was to test severely the lawmaker’s role as the impartial umpire in the people’s pursuit of happiness.

The so-called titans of capitalism were bolstered by the collective success of the nation occasioned by explosive economic growth brought on by the Industrial Revolution.  The early capitalists featured names like Rockefeller in the business of oil, Morgan in banking, Carnegie in steel, and Vanderbilt in railroads.  They were firm believers in a free, unregulated market promoted by competition, with a new consumer class, a thriving force in the industrial economy.  With the incentive to reap great profits, these titans consolidated operations into large mega-corporations, streamlined the various systems of production, eliminated redundancies and maximized efficiencies.  While consolidation permitted them to control their industries, a primary goal was still to give the customer the best product at the lowest price.

It is perhaps helpful to think of the process of “making” an Industrial Revolution as similar to baking a wedding cake.  There were several key ingredients.  Among them were natural resources, such as oil, copper, land and water; a capital supply serving as “fertilizer.”  Government support was in the form of protective tariffs for the new, fledgling American industries, the birth of the modern corporation, low interest loans and adherence to the monetary gold standard.  Entrepreneurs took risks, mastered the art of vertical integration, business re-organization, and buying low and selling high.  Technological developments, such as electricity, steel, glass and the internal combustion engine, permitted innovations in rail transit, and the invention of the telephone and canned food.  A work force/consumer class was fueled mostly by an abundant flow of previously uneducated and unskilled laborers comprised mainly of a seismic inflow of new immigrants.  They had migrated to the cities in search of opportunities, filling the abundance of new industrial jobs.

For sure, there were many positives to consider.  In the span of a mere generation, the US became the #1 industrial power in the world, during which time a modern industrial economy emerged.  Skyscrapers were constructed, soon began to overtake the urban landscape, and our modern, industrial, steel and glass cities were born.  Immigrants comprised a new economic unit, a powerhouse called the “middle” class, a new term for the era.  With rising income, industrial workers doubled as what became known as consumers.  Their collective purchasing power permitted them to achieve a raised standard of material existence previously unknown.  It also kept the economy humming.

While the titans of industry were champions of competition, ironically, their goal was to eliminate competition.  Specifically, they sought to accomplish this by creating and then maintaining a hierarchy with themselves at the top.  Many had arrived there through superior intellect or other legitimate means.  But some used questionable or even illegal business practices.  Bribes, kickbacks and other monopolistic trade practices were all utilized to destroy competitors.

The times were regarded in negative terms as the Gilded Age, with great wealth flashed to the masses but accessible only to a precious few.  Those precious few were sometimes referred to not so nicely as robber barons.  Style points both in politics and culture triumphed over substance.  Consider the image of sunglasses attached to a bright, smiling face.

((Editor’s note:  The second and concluding segment in this two part series introduces readers to Andrew Carnegie, the Gospel of Wealth and the third lesson of US History.)

-Michael D'Angelo

The Umpire

Who acts as “Umpire” in the great American experiment in democracy?  How is the umpire protected from big money interests to complete our nation's great unfinished business --- achieving meaningful equality of opportunity?

Thomas Jefferson felt that the happiest society was one where inequalities of condition were not great.  As president, he considered what was needed for the happiness and prosperity of the people.  Jefferson talked about “a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another.”  Further, that government should leave the people “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.”  Are these the government and conditions we are experiencing today?

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, his ideas sought to restore “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.

Today’s news media heaps praise upon America as a land of opportunity.  This praise is earned on merit.  The constitution requires all citizens to be considered equal under the law, that they should be afforded "equal protection of the laws."  But did the founding fathers designate anyone in particular to discharge the responsibility for fair dealing on a level playing field?  In other words, can we identify the Umpire?

Jefferson, for one, argued that it was the legislature, working in unison with the executive, which was best suited to play the unassuming, under-appreciated role of umpire.  On the important condition that proper policy was in place by the combined efforts of this pair, working together, then thereafter,

The path we have to pursue is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature.  A noiseless course, not meddling with the affairs of others, unattractive of notice, is a mark that society is going on in happiness.  If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy.

To this noiseless course approach,

It must be added, however, that unless the President’s mind in a view of everything which is urged for and against (a particular bill) is tolerably clear that it is unauthorized by the Constitution; if the pro and the con hang so even as to balance his judgment, a just respect for the wisdom of the legislature would naturally decide the balance in favor of their opinion.  It is chiefly for cases where they are clearly misled by error, ambition or interest, that the Constitution has placed a check on the negative (i.e.: veto) of the President.

So, it is the legislative branch which serves the role of umpire, calling balls and strikes, fair or foul, letting the citizens “play” and using its authority to maintain a level playing field.  But the ordinary citizen must be mindful that the “science of human nature” will be silently at work in the democratic process.  This involves an expectation of reasonable men acting reasonably in their own best interest.  That is to say, lawmakers face natural corruption by self-interest.

Notorious among the primary, big money, self-interest components of American democracy are the financial interests of capitalism, the resulting onset of political parties, large corporations, labor unions, lobby groups, political action committees, etc.  Importantly, each has evolved only after the constitution was enacted in 1789.  Together they tend to undermine the transparency necessary to understand how and why laws are made --- or not made.

The ordinary citizen may draw certain conclusions when wealth and income disparity are presently at an all time high, and those conclusions are not all positive.  For one, the situation is morally indefensible.  And for another, the legislative branch is inadequately protected from big money interests.  This confounds the quest to complete the great unfinished business of the nation --- achieving meaningful equality of opportunity.

How can the rules of the game be revisited to assist lawmakers with their inherently difficult role of impartial umpire in a level playing field society?  The good news is that sound, practical measures appear to be readily available.  Does the ordinary citizen possess the courage to meet the challenge of our time?

-Michael D’Angelo