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