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.

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.

            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.

            Schumpeter did not think that capitalism and democracy could exist together on a permanent basis. Like Marx, he did not think that capitalism would last. As Delong explains it, democracy cannot sustain, over a long period, the inequalities created by capitalism because the people will turn against capitalism.[3] Additionally, the social welfare programs which seek to “counter the destructive part of capitalism” could not be maintained “without strangling the sources of rapid growth.”[4] In other word, enterprise could not exist with the safety net. For Schumpeter, democracy, and not the destructive nature of capitalism is the problem. I tend to see Schumpeter as giving a more systematic approach to the Social Darwinism of the industrial era. Growth (the accumulation of wealth) was moving forward and we needed to remove all barriers to this growth, even if such barriers were democracy with it protection of the worker and the poor. This is similar to Social Darwinism, because both viewed the poor as weak elements of society that prevented larger progress. Additionally, both viewed the titans of the industrialized world and the standards of capitalist progress. Schumpeter’s respect for the destructive nature of capitalism is similar to those that are amazed by the machines of war but who fail to notice or reverence the impact upon human life.

            This distrust of democracy led to what Delong calls Schumpeter’s “abysmal” political judgment.[5] He argued that Franklin Roosevelt was a “communist aiming to abolish elections and turn himself into a dictator.”[6] He argued that the Keynesian efforts of the 1930s where “counterproductive and destructive,” even though that was not the actual case.[7] He also argued that a strong Germany in the 1930s would protect Europe from communism and be a “source of peace, order, and strength in Europe.” We are well aware of how that turned out.  Delong’s diagnosis of “abysmal political judgment” might be a bit of an understatement, though this could also be said of others, including both Karl Marx and Milton Friedman. This does not mean that we should reject his economic analysis, but can we really separate the political from the economic? I think what Delong is arguing is that his political writings were not as well developed and therefore should not tarnish his more theoretical and systematic works. Fair enough, but is this an accurate portrayal of Schumpeter’s work? Krugman makes a similar argument about Milton Friedman, but I am not convinced that the same can be said of Schumpeter.[8]

            In Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, a work which Delong includes amongst Schumpeter’s greats, Schumpeter presents his views of economics and politics as being directly related.[9] If Schumpeter is going to be the “most important economist of the 21^st century,” my concern is that he will be the political economist of the 21^st century.[10] I already see in my students and amongst my classmates a disdain with democratic measures that might limit the growth of capitalism. The elitism, rather than the economics, of Schumpeter might turn out to be the dominant view of the 21^st century. For now, I will continue to hope not.

References

Delong, J. B. (2007). Creative destruction’s reconstruction: Joseph schumpeter revisited. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(15), B.8. Online version: http://chronicle.com/cgi2-bin/printable.cgi?article=http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i15/15b00801.htm

Krugman, P. (2007). Who was milton friedman? New York Review of Books, 54(2), 27-30.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1950). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy (3d ed.). New York: Harper.

[2]               Ibid. 2

[3]               Ibid. 3

[4]               Ibid. 3

[5]               Idid. 3

[6]               Ibid. 3

[7]  Ibid. 3

[8] Krugman 2007

[9] Schumpeter 1950

[10] Delong 2007

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.

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.

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]

The failure of the Soviet Union does not necessarily undermine the validity and value of these goals. Some “sustain their commitment to pursuing it, with a fresh view about how and/or where and/or when it is to be achieved.”[4] Yet, others “acknowledge the authority of the original ideal, but they are convinced that it is impossible…, or anyways something they no longer summon the energy to fight for.”[5] Cohen favors pursuing the original ideal, or at least “something like the original ideal.”[6]

Cohen argues that there needs to be socialist engagement with normative political philosophy. Normative political philosophy has engaged in a robust discussion about justice (notably distributive justice), democracy, and equality that dates back to 1971. Yet, socialists were discussing these issues amongst themselves and not addressing the work of Rawls and Nozick. The notable exception would be Michael Walzer, though his strong form of social democratic socialism never seemed to have a strong connection to Marxist socialism. For the most part liberal egalitarians were debating libertarians and communitarians, not socialists. Cohen has taken steps to reverse this trend.

Cohen’s position is a voice of caution as socialists, according to Cohen’s own description, move away from Marxist socialism in favor of some form of market socialism. Cohen himself does concur that socialists should move away from some of the positions traditionally held by Marxists. Particularly, Cohen is critical of the emphasis on economic and political central planning that he feels resulted in undemocratic institutions. This is rooted in Cohen’s contention that socialism is the real democratic alternative to the rather undemocratic Western “democracies.”  Highlighting his turn towards normative political philosophy, Cohen comments that “to the extent that something is democratic, it is good, but it is false that, to the extent that something is planned or controlled, it is good.”[7]

Market socialism, for Cohen, has a number of advantages or strengths. The most notable strength is that it is political most feasible in the contemporary political climate.[8] The reason for this is that market socialism maintains much of what we might call the capitalist market system in place. Business, as one might say, would still be as usual. The difference would be that market social would seek to bring about economic equality through taxation and transfer payments. However, we would still have the market. If we still have the market, we still have the alienation and exploitation. Marx recognized that the problem with capitalism was not just the unequal distribution of wealth, but also, and possibly most importantly, that capitalism strips individuals of their humanity. Does market socialism offer the cure for these ills as well? Cohen is skeptical. He feels that it is the responsibility of philosophers to work out the best ideas. If market socialism is the best conceptions of socialism, then so be it. But would should not just settle for the path of least resistance.

What is Cohen’s prescription for the socialism of the future? Well, he does not offer one in this article, at least not in the form of a political or economic plan. While it would be a mistake for philosophers to give up on socialism because of the collapse of the Soviet Union, it would also be a mistake to claim that one already has the answer without adequate debate and discussion. The mission for Cohen, and me, is to find out what the best argument is for socialism in the 21^st century. So we begin.

[2] Cohen, G.A.  “Is There Still a Case for Socialism?” Social Scientist, Vol. 20, No. 12.  pp. 3-18. 1992

[3] Ibid, 4

[4] Ibid. 4

[5] Ibid. 4

[6] Ibid.4

[7] Ibid. 10

[8] Ibid, 7

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.

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.

The first of these contributions is Marx’s theory of historical materialism which established a framework “for analyzing economic, social, and political changes over long periods of time.” Today, Marx would find that he was correct about the “transitory” nature of capitalism. Yet, he would find that socialism had not replaced mature capitalist political economies, but instead had taken hold in “immature capitalist or even pre-capitalist societies.” The proletariat in advanced industrialized countries have become satisfied with their relative condition and unwilling to challenge exploitation.

In some way, the transitory nature of capitalism is an evolutionary one. I say this because capitalism changes, but it is not replaced. We see this in the way that capitalism adopts government investment and welfare mechanisms to mute the more brutal aspects of free-market capitalism. Yet, the adaptations do not negate poverty, inequality, exploitation, or alienation. All of this is to say that capitalism has evolved rather than be replaced by communism as Marx predicted. Marx may have been right about capitalism (in many ways), but he may have underestimated the extent to which the forces of capitalism seek to maintain capitalism.

The second contribution which Gurley lists is Marx’s conclusion that working class in “bound” to remain in a lower and “impoverished” position in relation to “the growing wealth around it.” Today, Marx would find that the position of the working class has not changed in its relative position to the capitalist classes. While the details surrounding the conditions of the class may appear different, Marx “would see here essentially the same class structure that he left.” Additionally, Marx would find that economists today, like those in his day, continue to ignore his analysis of labor value and exploitation.

Another contribution of Marx was his “economic theory of the state.” Marx felt that the state could do little to “alleviate the commercial crisis of capitalism.” While the state can make temporary effects though fiscal and banking policy, state primarily works to support the capitalist class. Gurley says that Marx would be “surprised” by the government measure used to stabilize the economy. I agree that he might be surprise by the extent to which big government has been mobilized to support capitalism. However, I think that he would see this as proof of his prediction that capitalism is instable. It is so instable that the forces of capitalism require full backing of the state to perpetuate.

Marx also explained how alienated workers continue to support and idealize capitalism. Additionally, those workers who questioned the merits of capitalism where often mislead or “deceived by numerous anarchist, reformist, and bogus socialist movements.” As a result the workers are not only alienated from the means of production and their own humanity, but also from each other. This division of the working class has long diluted the working class as a political force.

Today, Marx would be dismayed by the grasp of nationalism amongst the working class. The working class seems more likely to be patriotic or nationalistic, in an absolute sense, than amongst elites where as sense of cosmopolitanism is more accepted and encourage. Yet this allegiance to nation state, for Marx, is not is the interest of the worker, particularly when the national interest is the basic for denying the working class progress. He would likewise be dismayed “by the continuing debilitating influence of religion on the working class.” Marx was right to say that the working class are too easily pacified in their alienation by religion. As a religious person, I often am shocked (though I tend not to be so shocked anymore) by the amount of religion that is really just an endorsement of the bourgeois way of life.

Needless to say, Marx would be disappointed today if he returned, both with the state of the world and the state of economics. However, given his understanding of the forces of economics he would not be surprised. He may not have predicted that things would turnout as they have, but many of his assumptions were correct, even if the class struggle did not manifest itself as he might have hoped. I think that he would be most discouraged that while the class structure of society is so evident in the capitalist world, it is widely ignored. We continued to move forward as though we are a classless society, when in fact the classes are just moving farther apart before our eyes. Yet, we still do not see it. Gurley concluded by saying that a revived Marx “begin organizing the proletariat.” I wonder if the despair would overwhelm him. It does me when I consider the prospect of an egalitarian society.

Gurley, John G. “Marx’s Contributions and their Relevance Today.” The American Economic Review 74, no. 2, Papers and Proceedings of the Ninety-Sixth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association (1984): 110-115.

            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.

            The matter of being a priest seems to come up most often when he thinks back to those times when he was conflicted about whether to dress as a priest when going to certain events. In his first excursion to Farewell’s country vacation home, his first formal entry into elite literary circles, Sebastian is not sure whether to go as a priest or merely as a friend of Farewell. While he dressed as a priest, he is unsure of his choice. There is little pride in the priesthood and an apparent desire to be a strictly a poet and critic who is part of the literary elite. Being a priest is at times an embarrassment.

            The one time that Sebastian seems actively proud about his role as a priest is when his travel by ship to Europe. The European trip is connected to his Opus Dei membership, and the purpose of the trip is to investigate the preservation of old churches in Europe. While traveling, he leads mass and gives counsel to fellow travelers. Here he is the proud priest because in this setting, being the priest allowed him to be the center of the social attention.

            By portraying Sebastian as somewhat disconnected from his religious role, I interpret this as not an omission by Bolano but as a statement. Those in the Church who sustain the status quo did not do so for theological reasons but because they were more worried about maintaining their place in society. This is why Sebastian trip to Europe is focused on the attempt to protect old church from the damage of pigeon droppings. The concern is not for people, or even theology, but preserving old buildings…no matter the cost.

            I think that it could be said that many of the actions and policies of the Catholic Church where done out of a desire for institutional survival and positioning. This makes them a mysterious and complex player in the South American military regimes of the 1970s and 1980s.

            Knowing beforehand that the main character was a member of Opus Dei, I had expected to find something sensational about such a membership. However, there is no Davinci Code here. For Sebastian, Opus Dei is merely a matter of prestige.

            Yet, it is because of his Opus Dei membership that he is first sent to Europe and then is pushed into lecturing Augusto Pinochet and other military leaders about Karl Marx. He wears the priest garb to these meetings as a means of protecting himself against association with Marxists. He soon finds out that these meetings are being used as propaganda. The regime wants to show that the generals are intellectuals who are also interested in Marx. For the first time, Sebastian  is aware that those in power are using him for political ends. Yet, he is able to move on.

Classics and Politics

            The events surrounding the rise and fall of the Salvador Allende administration in Chile, are one of the things that most interest me about South America. My interest in this issue also led me to seek out this book. However, we learn little more about these events in Bolano’s book because it is of little notice to Sebastian, though it is very much an inconvenience to Farewell whose country cottage is taken by the state.

            As the events of the Allende years play out, Sebastian notes that they occur but with little interest. Instead, he turns to the classics: Aesop, Herodotus,Thucydides, Aristotle, and Plato. Most of all, he is relieved when it is over. My thoughts turned to the Straussians who argue that such classics are all one needs to be educated. The problem with their argument (amongst over things) is that it avoids the actual conditions of the world.  Sebastian similarly ignors the nation around him. No need to read anything that would undermine the social order. For Sebastian, there is a general disinterest in other human beings and their well-being. His own comfort and life-style is all that he worries about and this literature, particularly the classics, helps him maintain that focus.

            While Sebastian’s actions and attitude as disturbing, they are not that much different from intellectual elites of other stripes. Am I responsive to real social problems or am I just off in my own theoretical world?

            The heart of Bolano’s critique of literary elites is the contention that they are aloof and uninterested in the situation of everyday people. This is not because of a political ideology, but because of a twisted and shallow self-interest. As long as they are able to enjoy their cognac and social atmosphere, little else matters. Now many other people may be like this as well, but these intellectuals give the aura of being above such pettiness. They are not.

Maria and her house

            During the Pinochet years, much of Sebastian’s social life centers around the home of Maria Canales. She is a popular socialite and writer. While her writing has been recognized with awards, her status in the eye of Sebastian comes from the way in which she and her house have become the center of the literary scene in Santiago and a refuge from the turmoil of the day. Without saying as much, he is quite smitten with her.

            It turns out that Maria’s North American husband is an official with the defense intelligence agency. He is actively involved in the atrocities of the Pinochet regime. It even turns out that he has been routinely interrogating and torturing political dissenters in their home by day while he joined Maria and her friends at their literary gatherings by night. From their house, prisoners are sent off into the system of political prisoners.

            Maria and her house symbolize the horror that not only took place around them in Chile but the horrors that took place under their very noses. Did they know about it? Well, one drunk guest did claim to have come across a bound person on a metal table while aimlessly wondering through Maria’s house. But it made no sense. Sadly, it turned out to make too much sense.

A Warning

            The literary elites only cared about their lifestyle. Yet, that life was a life which was not far from the atrocities of the Chilean military regime. It took place right below them. Did they not see it or did they choose not to see it?

            Are they to be blamed? They did not torture anyone. But, are they to be blamed? Not in a legal sense, but in a moral sense, they are to be blamed. They lived in a place of horror, but stayed in their place of comfort and pleasure. They did nothing that would threaten their own position, not for any principled reason, just vanity.

            Are we any different? Could not the same be said of intellectual elites everywhere in light of the suffering and human rights violations that take place in our world? Studying these events through fiction, in this case haunting historical literature, allows us to think beyond the specific events of the text and apply the implications of these critiques to our day and time.

            When Farewell, the prominent literary critic of a prior generation died, no one really cared or noticed. Sebastian knows that the same fate awaits him. This is why he cannot sleep. Does the same fate await me?

Bibliography

Bolaño, Roberto, and Chris Andrews. By Night in Chile. New York: New Directions Books, 2003.

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.

            However, Rawls does not ban religion from the public discourse. He makes it very clear that political liberalism has nothing to say about the truthfulness of any religion (though if a religion denies liberty and equality to the point of demanding theocratic rule it is dismissed as unreasonable). Religion can be brought into public discourse following Rawls “proviso,” which allows for one to cite or refer to religion as long as policy is ultimately formed on the basis of public concepts. My commitment to the well-being of the poor can be rooted in a religious belief about the need to provide care with the needy. I can say as much in a public or political forum. Yet, I cannot expect others to accept or support programs for the poor solely based on my belief. I ultimately need to base my argument in the principle of equality or in the need to provide for the general welfare.

            Abraham Lincoln is historically the master of public reason. Early is his career he refuses to make his own religion, and the religion of others, a public political matter. For Lincoln it was not about one’s ability to deliver a religious oration or their church attendance but  instead ones commitment to sound political principles. In his early arguments about slavery, Lincoln makes his argument about slavery using the Declaration of Independence. It is not that slavery is evil (though he seemed to think so) or that is was immoral (though he said it was), but instead it violated a commonly held political principle. Slavery denied the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Slavery systematically maintained that blacks were less than equal. The religious or moral standing of slavery, while obvious to most today, was in dispute in Lincoln’s day. Religion was used to condemn and justify slavery. It was also used to exalt and enslave black men and women. No resolution could be found on religious grounds. While there was disagreement about whether the Declaration applied to slaves, it could not denied that if it did that the practice and institution of slavery violated the principles of the Declaration. His argument clearly scared the South.

            Lincoln, as Arthur Schlesinger points out, did use much religious language in his speeches. It seems that his religious references increased as the war draged on. However, we can see from his use of religion in his Second Inaugural Address (delivered March 4, 1865) that he uses and shows an appreciation of public reason.

            Speaking of the two sides, he calls them parties, involved in the conflict, Lincoln notes that both “read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other.” In acknowledging this, Lincoln is pointing to the need for public reason: We all have conflicting beliefs about the nature of religion and cannot expect others to view religion in the same way. Lincoln finds it “strange” that “any men should dare to ask a just God’s  assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces; but let  us judge not that we be not judged.” He finds it hard to see how the forces of slavery could find divine help in the perpetuation of slavery, but he stops short of condemning their faith. This is consistent with Rawls’ admonition that political liberalism has nothing to say about the truth of religious conviction.

            Given that “the prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered  fully,” it is evident that other grounds are needed for understanding this conflict. Yet, Lincoln does not shy away from invoking faith. He continues by saying that “if God wills that it  continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said `’the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether.”’ It is particularly important that the fate of which Lincoln is speaking of is the fate of the United States of American, both North and South. He is not trying to exalt his side over the other. In essence, he is arguing that both North and South share the same fate.

            While Lincoln draws on religion in a sincere and philosophical way, he closes this inaugural speech with a call for the public idea of social unity. He does this when he gave the charge to “to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan.” More importantly, he calls strongly for social unity when he asks the citizenry to “strive on to finish the work we are in; to do all which  may achieve and cherish a  just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves,  and with all nations.” The desire for a just and peaceful republic is a theme throughout Lincoln’s life. Likewise, the desire for a just stability is the key to understanding the range of John Rawls’ work in political philosophy, including his work on public reason.

            In looking at Rawls’ idea of public reason and the presence of public reason in the thought of Lincoln, I hope that I have shown one way in which Rawls’ admiration of Lincoln is found in his analytical and cumbersome political philosophy. There are many other areas of intersection between Rawls and Lincoln and surely more that could be said about public reason. For the purposes of this post, I will leave those for another day. They thing which personally strikes me with both of these men is their humility. An example of this humility is Lincoln’s desire to move forward with “malice toward none” and “charity for all.” This spirit of forgiveness is a grand example of humility.