Past Sermons by Rev. George Smith, Retired
Do We Learn From History? Globalism and the
Progressive Era
September 29, 2002
Reading: …in the United States, more than almost
anywhere else in the world, the failure to spot the
connection with human rights is widespread. It is
not only that the commercialist argument (that the
best way to ensure democracy and human rights is via
economic growth) has caused endless debate; it is
that businesses have traditionally seen human rights
concerns to be inimical to theirs. I love The
Economist’s observation, however, that "if dictators
made countries rich, Africa would be an economic
colossus." The truth is that not only can business
be good for human rights, but human rights are good
for business. And for labor. And for any American
who cares about the country’s economic futures.
--William F. Schulz from In Our Own Best Interest
Adam Smith wrote about the rich of his day that
they:
only select from the heap what is most precious and
agreeable. They consume little more than the poor,
and in spite of their natural selfishness and
rapacity, though they mean only... the gratification
of their own vain and insatiable desires, they
[inevitably] divide with the poor the produce of all
their improvements. They are [thus] led by an
invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution
of the necessaries of life [as] ...had the earth
been divided into equal portions (Smith, 1776
I ask the question this morning. Do we learn from
history?
Do we really learn from history? I’m not saying this
as a rhetorical question. I mean this in all of its
depth and practicality. Do we really learn from
history? There is an oft quoted phrase that goes
something like this; those who do not learn from
history are bound to repeat it.
I believe that we are in a time of repetition in the
area of economics and political control. It seems to
me that back in the early 1900’s we learned a
valuable lesson about unfettered capitalism during
the gilded and progressive eras, that it needed
governmental controls to work effectively for all of
society. We learned this but somehow we lost its
importance as we progressed into the later half of
the 20th century and began to loosen such controls.
Let’s begin our exploration of that time period.
After the Civil War, the country moved into a time
of unprecedented economic and technological growth
which laid the ground work for our superiority in
the world. We of course were much favored by
climate, geographical location and size, wealth of
natural resources, and the creativity of our people.
The early Industrialists in this country such as
John D. Rockefeller in oil, Carnegie steel, Swift
meat packing, Eastman film, etc. had amassed great
fortunes at the expense of lesser industrialists and
the working people. Their great wealth then was
exponentially expanded by the manipulation of the
buying and selling of stocks. Such investment
bankers as Charles Schwab and Leland Sanford could
direct the flow of capital through a variety of
schemes to provide themselves and others with
enormous fortunes. As you can see at that time the
industrial fortune was the basis for a much larger
fortune to be made by the manipulation of the
financial system. Sound familiar? We will get to
that later. The capitalists and financiers believed
that besides developing their own fortunes, they
were instrumental in progressing the total US
economy thus affecting positively all within the
system, their money made work possible for many who
would not have a job, conditions were better under
their organization than it had been before, the poor
are always with us, nothing we can really do about
them, salvation will be theirs in heaven, some of us
are blessed by God and others are not, etc.
To counter the unfettered development of this
industrial financial system, there arose individuals
called the progressives such as Henry Lloyd George
(good name there), Edward Bellamey, Thorstein Veblen,
etc. coming out of the urban areas and were the
equivalent of the rural populists. Their support
would come from the small business person,
professionals, and successful middle class
urbanites. They wrote a critique of the industrial
and financial systems. They especially were
concerned with sweat shops, child labor, trusts or
monopolies of businesses, urban political machines,
government ownership of public utilities, women
suffrage, etc. Their basic concern was that
government should be about protecting the weak in
society. To them unfettered capitalism was
antithetical to human rights with all of its
attendant positions.
Their focus was on the here and now. For some it was
to humanize capitalism. For others to develop a
socialist system. They believed that the
concentration of wealth in the hands of the few only
brought misery to the many. The terrible working
conditions as they saw it were the results of the
concentration of economic and political power.
With the collapse of the economy in the early 30’s,
the government stepped in to remedy the problems
that had created the disaster of the great
depression. It seemed that a democratic balance of
power was needed to the economic system. As the
political system needed fetters to balance the
counter veiling forces within it, so it seemed that
the economic system needed the same. No longer would
capitalism be unfettered or at least it seemed so.
This began before the 30’s with the institution of
anti-trust laws under TR, then in the 30’s laws
governing the purchase of stocks on margin, limiting
membership on boards of directors, separating
commercial banking from the investment bankers, and
a variety of other laws that worked to keep at bay
conflicts of interest were made. While capitalism
itself was being fettered, the process for the
development of a social safety net for all in our
country was beginning to be developed at that time.
Where would we be today if we did not have such
programs as medicare, medicade, workers comp, and
unemployment insurance especially during this
current recession. It is possible that we would be
in the same situation as the 1930’s and the great
depression. Through the intervening years the
Government continued to develop the social safety
net, established laws to further enhance civil
rights, and created laws to protect the environment.
These all contributed to the well functioning of a
fettered capitalist society. These programs, there
restrictions, came about because humans were
concerned about other humans. And for some it was a
concern that went beyond their own private
interests. In other words just as we need to place
fetters on the political system in order to preserve
human rights, the same is true for the economic
system. This was the great learning of that period
of history called the progressive era. Greed needs
to be curbed. The economic system needed to be
democratized with its system of checks and balances.
The recent problem is that many of these rules which
fettered capitalism have been eliminated, watered
down by government, or new ways have been developed
to amass fortunes at the expense of the benefit to
all, as examples the S & L scandals of the 80’s, the
recent corruption in big business in terms of the
CEO and other high echelon officers’ scandals of
recent years, conflict of interest and insider
trading.
As you can see we have two problems that face us.
One is the manipulation of the system we operate
under. It is not the system per se, but what we do
with it. And the other is the human problem, greed
and wanting for ourselves without the concern for
the other.
This brings us to the recent concern for
globalization. The problem is well laid out in the
book by Thomas Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive
Tree. I have to thank Don Arquette for bringing my
attention back to one of the main points in this
book, that there is no supra governmental power to
control the global economy except for the WTO which
essentially decides issues just on the basis of
unfettered capitalism which does not take into
account human and environmental affects but
basically how to make the most money in an
unfettered market. How can we as a world reap the
benefits of this free market system while at the
same time balancing it with the need for human
rights, local control, and an equitable distribution
of wealth(not that all would get the same, but a
fairer distribution of wealth.)? The question is
where is the organization that can do the same as
our government did in the 30’s to balance these
issues? Lest you think that the problems of
globalization are not real. Consider the dophin free
issue when selling tuna in the US. The WTO ruled
that this gave an unfair trade advantage to the US.
So no longer could be refuse to allow other tuna
into the US. An important environmental law
abrogated not by us but by this economic
organization. Consider the human tool that is taken
when capitalism is not fettered or democratized. The
sweat shops around the world, child labor, human
repression, lack of adequate medical care especially
for the aides epidemic in Africa.
On the other hand free trade has helped to modify
certain regimes such as North Korea. Recently it
began to make overtures to Japan to atone for the
kidnapping of some of its citizens in the late 50’s
early 60’s. The reason. It wanted to trade more
effectively with Japan. This does have a positive
affect. But we need to learn how to harness it.
Are we going to repeat history? Are we going to have
a world economic collapses because of unfettered
capitalism or are we going to find the way to create
balance between capitalism and human, environmental
needs. Are we doomed to repeat history or can be
find the way out without a disaster?
What is the answer? I believe as always the choice
is ours. It is a choice that can either be made to
enhance just your own private life or one that is
concerned for the welfare of others as well as your
own. It is a matter of working toward a balanced
fettered democratized capitalist system in which all
can share in the wealth. It is a system that looks
to the long term rather than short term gain. It is
a system that takes seriously the environmental
issues and the civil and human rights of all people.
Utopian? Sure! But aspects are doable with
cooperation can be put into effect.
Again we determine our future. Thus we need to take
that seriously and to quit repeating history. |
