Teddy is My Senator, too.

This is Caroline Kennedy’s introduction to Sen. Ted Kennedy at the Democratic Convention. The idea that Kennedy is my senator really struck me. I have lived in conservative states most of my adult life and most of the time since I have been a lefty. So, I have always felt more represented by Kennedy than by those who have officially represented me in Congress.

Once when talking to a student about being a Democrat, that student asked/stated: “But it is not like you are Ted Kennedy Democrat.” I responded: “Well, I am a liberal, so I must be a Ted Kennedy Democrat.” That shock him and in a way it did me. Kennedy was the devil when I was a conservative in my youth. Now, I agree with him on just about every policy issue. Today, I am proud to be a Ted Kennedy Democrat. Teddy is still my Senator, too.

Who is Harry Louis Gates?

We know that he is a Harvard historian (not bad in my book), but I pulled a few youtube clips to give a glimpse of the man. Many are trying to demonize him. Don’t fall for it.

I also found a very interesting clip of Gates discussing his documentary on Lincoln (which is wonderful). However, it will not allow me to embed it. So follow this link.

Schumpeter and the Future?

            Brad Delong argues that while dead almost six decades, Joseph Schumpeter’s economics are to the 21^st century what Keynes was to the 20^th century.[1] This is interesting to me because Schumpeter seemed to me to be very much stuck in past eras, particularly the industrial revolution and the Great Depression. But to view Schumpeter as a figure of the past is to confuse his economics with his politics. Delong admires the economics, while he dismisses the politics.

            For Delong, the primary contribution of Schumpeter was his attempt to put long-term economic growth, emphasizing entrepreneurship and enterprise, at the “top of the discipline’s agenda.”[2] Schumpeter bemoans that the success of capitalism, which is rooted in entrepreneurship, ultimately leads to a bureaucratic society which will stifle, rather than encourage, that very entrepreneurship. These anti-entrepreneurial bureaucracies include both large corporations and government agencies, both of which rely on capitalist success, but neither of which produce the type of enterprise that Schumpeter sees as the heart of capitalism

            I found it interesting that Schumpeter condemned government bureaucracy for undermining entrepreneurial creativity since he is also a fan of capitalist monopolies. Could it not be argued, and is it not now argued by free-market capitalists, that monopolies undermine entrepreneurial activities by squeezing out the smaller and newer innovators from the market. So while Delong thinks that Schumpeter’s focus on entrepreneurship and enterprise might define the next phase of the American and Western economy, Schumpeter might just be a historical footnote to a renewed interest in entrepreneurship and enterprise within the discipline of economics.

Is Greed Good?

This is the topic for the newest Public Square discussion over at Patheos.

I particularly like the article “What Happened to the Common Good?” by some Chris Henrichsen fellow. Check it out.

Honoring the British Resistance

I love Iron Maiden. This song is by far one of their best. However, lately I have been struck by the message of this song, something I missed while listening to Maiden in Junior High (some 20 years ago). It is a tribute to those the took to the air to defend the UK. For too long, England was the only nation fighting the Germans under Hitler. Without their determination and sacrifice, their would not have been a D-Day because Hitler would have already won.

The opening Churchill clip give me chills.

I am busy getting ready to move to Provo, while also finishing my work here in Rexburg. Posts will continue to be rare.

A Socialist Vision for Today

The prospect of socialism is a dim one. The demise of Soviet style socialism/communism was followed by the decline of welfare-liberalism in the west (particularly in the United States and the United Kingdom). We even see the adaptation of market-authoritarianism in China, by this I mean a one-party state with a relatively market-driven economy. While I do not see a connection between the demise of the Soviet Union and the failure to achieve a “Great Society” in the United State (not to say that there is not one), it does seem that ideals of economic egalitarianisms are becoming distant dreams rather than prospects on the horizon.

“The era of capitalist triumphalism is a difficult one for socialists…” says Stephen J. Fortunato, and this is true for all egalitarians.[1] What then are we (those sympathetic to the concerns of socialism) to do? Is socialism dead? Is market capitalism the only answer? Clearly Fortunato, Ollman, and Blackman think that there is a place for socialism despite the apparently justified pessimism about its prospects. The dilemma is that while the need for socialism still exists, many have removed socialism from the table of ideas and classified it as a historical relic which is now outdated and broken. Yet, who decided this? The forces of capitalism have long associated socialism with Stalinism. By doing so they undermined the possibility of an open discussion about how socialism could be applied to the west. With the fall of Soviet Stalinism, came the fall of socialism. Right? Well, I do not think so, though it should be recognized that most Americans are deeply committed to ideological structures that support such views of the state of socialism. The need is for socialists, along with political theorists and political economist in general what is socialism in the 21^st century. How is it different? How is it the same.

Gerald Cohen addressed this question in 1992, when his poised as the title of an article the question: “Is there still a case for socialism?”[2] In this article Cohen argues that the Soviet experiment promised, yet failed to achieve, “instead of class exploitation of capitalism, economic equality; instead of the illusory democracy of class-based bourgeois politics, a real and complete democracy; instead of alienation from one another of economic agents driven by fear and greed, an economy characterized by willing mutual service.”[3]

Tank Man: Our unknown hero

It has been 20 years since the brave protestors at Tiananmen Square were crushed by the Chinese regime. They wanted democracy. Instead the one-party machine swept in with tanks. Not sure if there is much that I can say that will add to their heroism. The images are still so very haunting. For the most part we ignore it. These students are not part of our national interest. The cause of democracy will forever honor them.

Happy Birthday Karl Marx

With Karl Marx’s birthday coming up on Tuesday (he was born on May 5, 1818), I though that I would share some thoughts. Enjoy. Happy Birthday Karl.

In “Marx’s Contributions and their Relevance Today,” John G. Gurley takes an interesting approach to viewing the contemporary economic world through the lens of Marxist analysis. He asks us to consider what Karl Marx himself would say if he were “to rise from the dead and survey our world of theory and practice.” Gurley approaches the question by looking at what he views as the seven major contributions of Marx to economics.

“By Night in Chile”: Reflections on a novel by Roberto Bolano

            By Night in Chile by Roberto Bolano is not so much about Chile and its troubled past, as it is about Chile’s intellectual elite.  While the focus of the stories is on the literary elite of Chile, the message of the book is not just about the intellectual elite of Chile, but intellectual elites in general and their response to the world around them.

            This short book is narrated by Sebastian Urrutia Lacroix, an elderly Catholic priest. Sebastian’s life is presented as the rambling thoughts of an old man who cannot sleep. While his thoughts cover the entirety of his life, these thoughts appear in the narrative as they pop into his mind during the night. Stories from his life interweave with each other throughout the book. This book has two paragraphs with the second paragraph consisting of one line on the last page. While this style takes some getting used to, it does give one the sense of his thoughts and who he is as a character.

The Story

Sebastian is from a poor Chilean family, though he is quite proud of his European roots. He describes practices that are Chilean as lowly and common. He enters the seminary at the age of 15, despite the misgivings of his father. His father appears throughout the night as a shadow in Sebastian’s memories.

In the seminary, Sebastian finds his life’s love. However, it is not a woman, or even the ministry but instead poetry. His poetic pursuits lead him to fall within the sphere of influence of an influential literary critic, Farewell, who encourages Sebastian to venture into literary criticism as a career. While he continues to write and teach poetry, it is a critic that Sebastian becomes a notable member of the literary community of Chile.

While he likes literature, Sebastian is most enamored with the literary life-style. First, he enjoys the status and celebrity that he has enjoyed. Secondly, he enjoys the social life which comes with it. He enjoys the late-night literary discussions, with the accompanying meals and cognac, that he is a regular partaker of.

            Sebastian’s desire for the intellectual life style is one that I am sympathetic with. My master’s advisor was a major political theorist with a budget that allowed him to invite well known scholars to Utah. I would sometimes be invited to attend social gatherings at his house following lectures on campus. Good food and great conversation, the type of conversation that you could only have with a group of people who cared about liberal political philosophy the way that only we did. These events were intoxicating. I also vividly recall the feeling of not being invited. As an ackward outsider who got a taste of these gatherings, I could relate to the young Sebastian.

Religion and Politics

            For a story about a priest, religion does not play a huge role in Sebastian’s life as he reflects upon it. The priesthood was more a path to the comfortable life, which would not have been otherwise possible for a poor Chilean boy. While it is unlikely that this was the reason for entering the seminary, his life as a clergyman is very peripheral as he reminisces about his life.

A Glimpse of Public Reason: Lincoln and Rawls

It is often noted that the late American political philosopher John Rawls had a great admiration for President Abraham Lincoln. While people often express admiration for Lincoln, there are many theoretical similarities between the thought and actions of Lincoln and the grand political philosophy of Rawls. For the purposes of this essay I would like to look at one particular aspect of Rawls’ work in which he can see parallels between his own theory and the thought of Lincoln. The aspect of Rawls’ work of which I speak is the idea of public reason. Below I will summarize the idea of public reason and then look at how public reason plays a role in Lincoln’s thought with particular focus on his second inaugural address.

            The idea of public reason is rooted in Rawls’ later work about political liberalism, which for Rawls focuses on the hope that no matter what our religious or philosophical disposition we can all agree on a conception of justice that can form the basis of democratic legitimacy. Public reason within political liberalism places parameters upon the reasons that public officials can use in forming law and policy. Primarily, public official must appeals to publicly and commonly held ideas and concepts. Examples of such concepts would be the principles of liberty and equality found in the Declaration of Independence or the tenant of the Preamble of the Constitution (i.e. general welfare or common defense). Appeals to such concepts would be reasonable to all even if there is disagreement about the details or content of certain principles.

            On the other hand, public reason limits or rejects arguments rooted solely in religious or philosophical doctrines that cannot be deemed reasonable in a public arena. One cannot support a policy position solely on the assertion that “the Bible says so.” Not only are such arguments tenuous because few policies can clearly be shown to be found in the Bible one way or the other, but such claims are meaningless and unconvincing to those the view the Bible differently or who find no meaning in it at all. According to Rawls, a policy lacks legitimacy if it is rooted in religious doctrine that not all could reasonably accept.