A Better Liberalism, Part II

In this second of three related diaries on a better liberalism, I will lay out the way the issue of economic security must be approached. This is not just a proposal to do what is politically expedient, but what is morally required.

***

Liberalism must again prove that it will provide Americans with a truer sense of personal security. This goal is attainable simply by using the canons of distributive justice capitalism; the means society uses to allocate its economic resources in proportion to the individual’s needs. But to be truly effective, this conversation must be framed within the context of satisfying the greater common good through individual contribution, i.e., the responsibility every citizen has for maintaining the American institutions upon which all citizens rely upon for individual self-development.

Distributive justice democratizes capitalism while leaving intact the incentive for meritorious achievement. While recognizing the employer’s right to a just compensation for proper management and economic risk it demands that that the laborer ceases being treated as a commodity but as a dignified individual. It accomplishes this goal not by focusing upon the endless receipt of public assistance, but by emphasizing the dignified compensation for honest labor. Such compensation requires the proportionally just distribution of profits to each individual who contributed to the production of a given item or a provided service. Expanding the distribution of profits extends opportunity to a greater number of individuals by increasing their ability to acquire and own private property. Increasing both private property ownership and its means of acquisition are major steps forward in satisfying the common good goal of self-sufficiency and individual economic security to a greater number of individuals.

Conversely, conservatism as well as its more sinister step-child, neoconservatism, limit overall opportunity. They do so by implementing economic policies that tend to distribute of the lion’s share of profits more on a basis of privilege and power than by any meritorious commutative measure of contribution. That in turn adversely affects the average individual’s ability to acquire property. Rather than recognized as a vital contributor to production, labor is denigrated, often viewed merely as “a cost� of production to be contained. Such attitudes deny economic security to a greater number of Americans because the emphasis of economic priorities is concentrated upon the wealth creation abilities of CEOs and shareholders of large amounts of outstanding stock, the powerful few that have already amassed superfluous assets.

An emphasis on the just distribution of profit clarifies the economic status of all individual agents of wealth creation. Its absence from the dialogue allows for the dissembling of the complete economic state of the nation. For example, business indicators for much of 2005, if left incompletely translated, paint a misleading picture of an all inclusive booming economy. That is because of the disproportionate emphasis placed upon large corporate profits and lack thereof upon individual wages. (i)

Corporate earnings are not the most reliable indicia of overall economic well being. They alone do not account for how equitably profits are being translated into workers’ wages and purchasing power. Such incomplete analysis conveniently overlooks individual standards of living which can actually decrease during times of increased corporate profit. If a highly disproportionate percentage of a given business’s profit goes to either upper management salaries or dividend payments instead of to the individual laborers who significantly contributed to the creation of such profit then poverty can thrive in the midst of wealth. Such distribution defies any equitable notion of commutative justice.

Likewise employment statistics that solely indicate the number of jobs created do not tell a complete story. The overall standard of living will still decrease if an increasing amount of new jobs pay a decreasing amount of wages and benefits. As Gene Sperling observed, “Nearly half of workers displaced between 2001 and 2003 who found new full-time work by February 2004 agreed to take lower pay, according to the Department of Labor's Displaced Worker Survey.� Such reality exposes the fallacy of trickle down economics. Again, distributive justice considerations present a clearer, more accurate economic picture. (ii)

If proof was ever necessary to demonstrate the New Right’s hostility towards distributive justice, the administration of George W. Bush provided it in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. As part of his haltingly slow response, the president suspended the Bacon-Davis Act which mandates that federal contractors pay their workers the prevailing local wage. While suspending this mandate on construction projects in devastated the areas of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi, no similar sacrifice of profit was even asked of either the management or shareholder class of the companies such as Halliburton’s subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown & Root or the Shaw Group who were awarded many of the lucrative no-bid or limited competition reconstruction contracts. Eventually after Representative George Miller (D-Ca.) took up the issue in the House to undo the president’s decision. When it appeared that Miller’s effort was gathering up steam, the White House relented and reinstated Bacon-Davis, effective November 8, 2005.

This is the concept of unilateral self-interest. It is the unifying theme echoed across the broad spectrum of the Right. From Ayn Rand Objectivism to the social conservatism of Focus on the Family and finally to the Straussian fallacies of neoconservatism, the economic ideal of having license to act unrestrained in one’s self-interest is their unifying force. This is the Radical Right’s true definition of “freedom,� an often non-meritorious privilege that they apply more consistently to the rich and powerful.

Liberalism recognizes the need for a certain amount of self-interest behavior. Every individual must have a reasonable amount in order to attain a level of self-sufficiency. Without such a concept there would be no motivation for self-development through earned profit and property acquisition. But liberalism differs because it constantly weighs self-interest behavior against its effect upon the common good. Once the common good of the many is harmed by the unrestrained self-interest actions of the powerful few, self-interest behavior ceases to be a desirable goal. Conservatism, especially the current radical brand often erroneously equates undisciplined economic self-interest with the very notion of “liberty.�

Conservatives and others further Right often cloak this subjective definition of “liberty� within the further disguise of “limited government.� What they truly mean is less government for those who require its protection from powerful groups of individuals whose inflated economic self-interest is often at odds with the common good. While they give the impression that they are seeking less government for all their true goal is to control a less powerful government, less interested in addressing the underlying inequities of society that affect the just distribution of profits within the production entity.

Their economic policies are even elitist in their prescriptions for recession. In times of economic hardship their policies too often tend to first enrich the least vulnerable while forcing those with little or no superfluous income to depend on a “trickling down� effect to kick in before relief is, if ever experienced. That further limits the opportunity for more individuals the ability of property ownership.

But it is the principles of distributive justice, now lying unutilized within the liberal arsenal that effectively responds to this conservative economic dogma. In fact, from FDR’s first term through the 1968 presidential candidacy of Robert F. Kennedy it was the heart and soul of American liberal economic advocacy.

Yet liberals have far too long avoided discussing distributive justice, let alone any attendant notion of commutative principles. But there is nothing to fear from revisiting these forgotten principles. Once liberals resume discussing how the duties and responsibilities owed to society nourish the rights and freedoms we often take for granted, the American people will then understand that liberalism is indeed built upon a firm, moral foundation and not just upon the sandy soil of like-minded causes.

Modern distributive justice was first enunciated by Catholic progressives during the early 1890s and more clearly articulated in The Bishops’ Program of 1919. Led by economist-priest John A. Ryan many in the Church were beginning to embrace the reformist ideas of the protestant Social Gospel movement then being pursued by progressive ministers such as Walter Rauschenbusch. While both schools advocated strict child labor laws, better working conditions for women, at least one day off during the week, and the right of every worker to a living wage, there were differences between the two schools as how to implement societal reform.

The Social Gospel distributive justice movement originally pursued the utopian dream of a classless (actually, middle-class) society on earth, while Catholic distributive justice advocates were more interested in incremental social reform for the working-class, never expecting to solve all of society’s ills in the course of a natural lifetime. This difference in strategies arose out of their respective constituencies. The Social Gospel movement was primarily a Protestant middle-class phenomenon supported by small businessmen and artisans. American Catholicism had a following that was overwhelming working-poor. Thus, Catholic distributive justice adherents were more interested in expediency to raise their congregants’ standard of living either through legislation or labor unions whose membership were largely comprised of urban Catholics. It would however be the labor movement that would prove to be the more effective vehicle for distributive justice advocates. This difference would also play a key role in progressivism’s evolution into modern liberalism.

The proposed adaptation of Ryan’s original formula differs on the concept of “self-development.� Ryan used the term in a purely Thomistic interpretation of Natural Law principles. His understanding of an individual’s “self-development� was according to plan for one’s proper purpose (“telos�) in a universe well ordered by God. We have a more secular view of this concept. Most individuals are born with latent talents and abilities that can be developed into skills which lead to self-sufficiency and even excellence. The element necessary to transform latency into accomplishment is opportunity, something distributive justice is meant to encourage. When more opportunity is made available and then combined with self-motivation the greater potential exists for an individual’s self-development. Either interpretation, however, achieves the same purpose.

Liberalism’s adoption of distributive justice principles is not simply a case of Roman Catholic theology being substituted for secular policies. Instead it is the point where both liberal and certain religious economic thought converges and overlaps. It is recognition through secular democratic processes, of a sound concept designed to further the freedom from both want and fear. It explodes the neoconservative myth advanced by Irving Kristol, Michael Novak and others that modern Christian economic thought detaches wage distribution from business profits. More importantly, it gives liberalism a powerful weapon to challenge the “morality� of the religious of the New Right and its most unchristian belief in unilateral self-interest economics.

This proposal also differs from the original distributive justice advocates on certain personal sphere issues, especially where political hybrids predominate (federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, birth control on military installations, etc.). Instead we advocate a continued adherence to value pluralism. Here republican liberalism (as opposed to individualist or social justice liberalism) is the controlling theory. This disagreement arises because even among those who adhere to natural law principles, there is disagreement on issues of conscience. For example, a Baptist or a Catholic may disagree with a Jew or a Muslim on when human life begins, yet all four religions have natural law influenced beliefs. Where such disagreement occurs it is best for the state not to favor one good faith belief over that of another.

Nor should the minority view of one religious belief should control policy for all when personal abstention from engaging in objected activity is readily available. However on most other issues of basic liberty such as freedom of speech and freedom from involuntary servitude there is overall agreement that these liberties flow from the natural social contract that exists between the state and its citizens. In such matters rights are ends in of themselves. They are inviolable unless there is a state interest so compelling that the common good will become imperiled. This flexible, dualistic form of liberalism allows for the complete self-development of the individual within both the private and public spheres.

The roots of the social justice principles of distributive justice reach back to Aquinas and then to Maimonides and finally to Aristotle. Although not specifically identified as such by Woodrow Wilson, its influence was clearly present in his New Freedom doctrine, which called for society to focus its resources not upon the wealthy, but upon “the man on the make.�

FDR went beyond Wilson by making distributive justice a cornerstone ethic of both the New Deal and his 1944 Economic Bill of Rights. Thus, he was able to effectively address the moral right of laborers to be free from poverty and hunger as well as recognizing the obligations of established wealth to secure these freedoms. FDR was greatly influenced by the liberal economist Monsignor John A. Ryan, who in turn was influenced by the principles of Pope Leo VIII’s 1891 statement Rerum Novarum (“On Capital and Labor�) and forty years later in 1931, Pope Pius XI’s Quadregismo Anno (literally, “Fortieth Year�). These two encyclicals affirmed the goal of owning private property, but clearly outlined the common sense responsibilities that accompany this right.

Ryan’s economic beliefs were reflected in the 1919 document entitled “The Bishops’ Program for Social Reconstruction,� which he drafted for the Administrative Committee of the National Catholic War Council (later, the National Catholic Welfare Council). Their ideas were admittedly “suggested� by a similar plan entitled “Social Reconstruction Program� of the British Labor Party (and written by Fabian Socialist, Sidney Webb), issued a year earlier. Ryan, who was clearly not a socialist, differed from Webb by stating that the ability for laborers to acquire private property would contribute greatly towards the common good by taking poverty related ills off the table. Other programs then recently put forth by Quakers, the American Federation of Labor and a British interfaith consortium also influenced Ryan’s final product.

In many ways The Bishops’ Program was as groundbreaking as it was progressive. It called for decent housing while precipitously demanding, “The State should make comprehensive provision for insurance against illness, invalidity, unemployment, and old age.� It was one of the earliest calls for what would eventually become Social Security.

Of greater importance, however, to Ryan and the bishops was the fair and equitable treatment of the laborer and his right to self-development. This is reflected in Paragraph 37 of Rerum Novarum, the nexus of The Bishops’ Program, “The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government.�

Ryan’s influence on FDR’s economic philosophy was quite apparent. FDR even described Quadregismo Anno during a 1932 campaign appearance as “one of the greatest documents of modern times.� (iii) Twelve years later he would eventually retrace Ryan’s steps almost in verbatim during his 1944 State of the Union Address; a speech that ended with his infamous call for an Economic Bill of Rights. FDR understood, as he clearly stated, "(that) Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry, people who are (and) out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.� Democracy and economic justice are mutually dependent prerequisites for a free society.

But distributive justice is not a one-way street. There is clearly a commutative aspect at its heart. As Ryan wrote in The Bishops’ Plan, “On the other hand, rights imply duties, and the individual is obliged to respect the rights of others, to cultivate self-control, to recognize that labor is the law of life, and that wealth is a trust.� While an employer is obligated to compensate his laborers with a fair wage that affords a dignified standard of living, in turn labor owes the employer its best production effort. This liberal sense of commutative justice is not limited to economic endeavors, but to all social relations within society such as protecting the environment, military service and the benefits provided by government.

FDR as well as Ryan knew that distributive justice was about opportunity, i.e., the right to earn, not about replacing it with a right to endlessly collect public assistance. Liberalism’s adherents must always set economic agendas whose goals are job and wealth creation, not the unmerited distribution of wealth. Anything less only invites resentment from those who play by the rules, contribute, but then are treated ungraciously.

Ryan was an unabashed economic liberal. An ACLU board member from 1915, he was one of the earliest proponents of both a living and a minimum wage. Furthermore he worked with the more socialist leaning Florence Kelley in her struggle to establish minimum wage laws for women. (iv) When the anti-Semitic priest Charles Coughlin exploded in demagogic rages during the 1936 presidential campaign, it was Monsignor Ryan who courageously took him on. But most importantly, Ryan understood that with rights comes a reciprocal responsibility. Without such reciprocity, the common good can never be fully protected and true social justice never achieved.

The need to reemphasize the dignity of well-compensated work over the continuous distribution of dole cannot be overstated. Many of liberalism’s opponents are using racist overtones to kill good programs by erroneously painting them as “hand-outs� to the poor, especially those aimed at minorities. This can be avoided simply by better enunciating liberalism’s goals as rewarding meritorious achievement. Our economic priorities must be about self-sufficiency through justly compensated labor. This shift would make it more difficult for the radical New Right to fight civil rights legislation framed in a desire to put people to work. It would be even more difficult to fight universal healthcare proposals whose aim is to keep individuals healthy and productive citizens better able to contribute to the common good.

In one of the final scenes in the film Amistad, John Quincy Adams is arguing before the Supreme Court. In his closing remarks he calls upon the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, particularly his own father, John Adams for guidance. He concludes by saying, “who we are is who we once were.� It is time for the non-socialist Left to reach the very same conclusion. When contemporary liberalism begins to look to it own founders for guidance, it will then be ready to reassert itself as the mainstream American philosophy. Embracing distributive justice capitalism is the first step in this process of liberalism becoming what it once was, the protector of a common American dream of security built firmly upon a foundation of social justice.

Footnotes:

(i) New York Times op-ed columnist Paul Krugman observed, “Working families have seen little if any progress over the past 30 years. Adjusted for inflation, the income of the median family doubled between 1947 and 1973. But it rose only 22 percent from 1973 to 2003, and much of that gain was the result of wives' entering the paid labor force or working longer hours, not rising wages.� He further noted that, “But the wealthy have done very well indeed. Since 1973 the average income of the top 1 percent of Americans has doubled, and the income of the top 0.1 percent has tripled.� See, “Losing Our Country,� June 10, 2005, Page A 21 Link: http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F20D16F73B5C0C73.... For an independent verification of much of Krugman’s claim, see the U.S. Census Bureau’s calculations for 1967 through 2001. Link: http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/ineqtoc.html. See also, Paul Krugman’s December 5, 2005 New York Times column, “The Joyless Economy;� Link: http://select.nytimes.com/2005/12/05/opinion/05krugman.html

(ii) See-Gene Sperling, “The Early Warning Economy,� Washington Monthly, December 2005. Sperling also noted, “A recent study by Princeton professor Henry Farber found that as a group, these workers faced a 17 percent decline in wages due to displacement, more than double the 7.8 percent decline similar workers experienced between 1997 and 1999. Perhaps even more troubling, as family finances have become more volatile, the median decline in income for families that do fall has increased from about 25 percent in the 1970s to more than 40 percent today, according to research by Yale professor Jacob Hacker and Nigar Nargis of the University of Dhaka.� Page11, Link: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0512.sperling.html

(iii) See-The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt Volume One: The Genesis of the New Deal 1928-1932, (New York: Random House, 1938), 778.

(iv) See- Timothy Michael Dolan, "Some Seed Fell on Good Ground": The Life of Edwin V. O'Hara, (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America, 1992), 29-40.