Rolling Stone reminds us that one of Donald Trump’s extremist nominees for the Federal Reserve doesn’t think democracy is nearly as important as his opportunity to make a buck:
The recently-surfaced comments from Moore about democracy come from a 2009 documentary, Capitalism: A Love Story, by Michael Moore (no relation). At the time, Stephen Moore was a Wall Street Journal columnist and editorial board member.
“Capitalism is a lot more important than democracy,” Moore said in the documentary. “I’m not even a big believer in democracy. I always say that democracy can be two wolves and a sheep deciding on what to have for dinner. Look, I’m in favor of people having the right to vote and things like that. But there are a lot of countries that have the right to vote that are still poor. Democracy doesn’t always lead to a good economy or even a good political system” [emphasis mine; Peter Wade, “Trump’s Fed Nominee Isn’t a ‘Big Believer in Democracy’,” Rolling Stone, 2019.04.14].
I’m willing to contend that such an open statement of a lack of commitment to democracy disqualifies one from public office as surely as would refusing to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution.
But I’d like to focus on the statement itself and contend that Moore’s statement is not just Constitutionally and morally objectionable but intellectually untenable. One cannot profess commitment to capitalism without professing an equal commitment to democracy.
The core concept of capitalism is that the best way to govern economic affairs is to let the people decide what they will make and what they will buy. The sum of those individual decisions produce the optimal distribution of labor, goods, and wealth. Trusting such decisions to the wisdom of the masses over the decisions of a few economic solons does not always produce the best results (see, for example, my last three blog posts, on commercial radio, concentration of wealth, consolidated farms), but the sins of a system in which every worker, buyer, and entrepreneur has some small say in how the economy works appear to be more bearable than the sins of a system in which Leonid Brezhnev, Donald Trump, or some other senile old dictator calls the shots.
At heart, capitalism affirms the dignity and wisdom of the individual. One cannot affirm that dignity and wisdom in the economic realm but then dismiss those same individuals’ proper and superior role in making decisions in the political realm.
The core concept of democracy is that the best way to govern political affairs is to let people decide on the rules under which they will live. The sum of those individual decisions produces the optimal distribution of liberty and responsibility. Trusting such decisions to the wisdom of the masses over the decisions of a few philosopher kings does not always produce the best results (see, for example, Donald Trump and Marsy’s Law), but the sins of a system in which every citizen has some small say in how the community runs appear to be more bearable than the sins of a system in which Leonid Brezhnev, Donald Trump, or some other senile old dictator calls the shots.
Like capitalism, democracy affirms the dignity and wisdom of the individual. In that fundamental affirmation, democracy can be no more flawed and no less important than capitalism.
Moore thus cannot hold capitalism above democracy. We should not let him try to peddle such an inconsistency from any government office.
Often when you mention the USA as a democracy, some members of the GOP will correct you and say the USA is not a democracy; it’s a republic. They do not see a republic as a representative form of democracy. Rather, it is a device through which the subjects of a government elect their masters.
Their model of governance is corporations, and the majority of corporations are run as feudal estates and structured for that purpose. That’s how and why CEOs get exorbitant remuneration and unlimited power which allows them to make up the rules of operation to meet their ends. They are not necessarily bright or even competent, but they use their power to keep their position as lords of their estates. Which means they are adept at selecting subordinates who strive in obsequiousness in hope that a bit of the wealth and power will rub off on them.
Trump has demonstrated to us what happens when a corporate lord takes over a democracy. Almost every one of Mark Twain’s works is a satire on the disjuncture of people who are feudal remnants confronting democracy. As Whitman said, “the business of democracy is to surmount the gorgeous history of feudalism.” With the election of Donald Trump, we took some giant leaps backward into the antithesis of what the founders proposed. The fact that the master of the White House has so many dedicated adherents groveling before him tells us what the state of democracy is in the USA.
A laissez faire government seems to be the wish of most capitalists as well as libertarians. Most, however, make an exception in cases where free capitalist behavior causes particular types of harm to someone else. Hence virtually no one argues that the government should not intervene to prevent one capitalist from privately murdering or assaulting his competition or customers, despite the fact that a laissez faire freedom to privately inflict harm upon others could be a useful tool in the fight for a greater share of the free market.
So, even in a pure capitalistic system, most seem to believe that government intervention to prevent harm to others is appropriate.
Ranting against “regulations” seems a bit contradictory, however, especially when such regulations are designed to prevent a capitalist from inflicting harm on others. We can all agree that poisoning someone is just as undesirable as shooting someone, yet many capitalists and libertarians tend to argue the government should not intervene to protect the environment from toxic discharges from a factory, but that should be left to the free market. Likewise with other types of harm inflicted on competitors or the public – let the free market punish the perpetrator rather than our government.
If capitalists and libertarians are right on this last argument, then one wonders why the government should intervene to prevent or punish murders and assaults committed to advance business interests or market share.
What say you capitalists and libertarians?
South Dakota’s long haul truckers had a tax day. Seems like No Nothing GNoem and her crooked republican congress pulled the wool over truckers eyes.
“Last month, Dennis Bridges, who runs an accounting firm just north of Atlanta, had to break bad news to a client. Bridges specializes in doing taxes for truck drivers around the country, and this tax season he’s had to tell dozens of truckers that after years of being able to count on receiving tax refunds, that they in fact would owe thousands of dollars. This particular client from New York owed $4,000. It could have been worse: about 20 percent of Bridges’ trucking clients have owed more than $5,000.” Mother Jones April 15, 2019
Lakota and SD political cartoonist Marty Two Bulls vividly illustrates his opinion of the relationship between SD’s government and business.
https://www.gocomics.com/m2bulls/2019/04/14
10 million earning 200k or less have received tax increases this year. Drumpf lies and said everyone got a taxcut and a 4k raise.,
What David wrote.
David, I think what the weisenheimer anti-democracy corporatists mean to say is, “We’re a banana republic, not a democracy.”
But I don’t hear the old RNAD saw in Moore’s statement. He’s really putting down the idea of public participation in politics, even as he praises the idea of public participation in economics. There’s no getting around that contradiction.
BCB is right: while there is room for some necessary minimum of regulation in Libertarianism, most Libertarians I’ve heard making noise tend to lack nuance and propound instead absolutism.
Adam Smith favored all sorts of government action and regulation to ensure capitalism could operate effectively in a healthy, moral society. I maintain that if we trust the masses with economic decisions, we must trust the masses with political decisions about regulation of that economy.
But there’s the thing: Trump and the people he picks aren’t really enunciating a clear political philosophy that can guide us for the ages. They are completely selfish, trying to get what they want and screw the rest of us. Trump and Moore ascribe no dignity or wisdom to the worker, the consumer, or the common person. Trump and Moore want as much money and control as they can accumulate, and they want to erect enormous walls between themselves and anyone else who would dare compete with them for that money and control.
Cory astutely points out a strong philosophical foundation for democracy as the most desirable type of government in a capitalist society:
Just as the “invisible hand” of consumers is revealed by market choices, which under a libertatrian/capitalist philosophy is the proper tool for picking winners and losers in the marketplace, the “invisible hand” of consumers is further revealed in their voting choices for or against representaives to decide what harm or danger threatened by the free market must be curbed, be it murder, assault, or other potential harms.
The CIC-(clown in charge) doesn’t appear to be concerned about murders,assaults and other potential harms as long as they are perpetrated on his idea of enemies to his reign of terror. And then he lies when he gets caught making threats or suggesting violence on his enemies to his crowds of adoring thugs.
What kind of Democracy is that called?
Republican Democracy.
MFI…I met some great 60s musicians awhile back in your neck of the woods, playing around there since then. Wish I could remember their names. My friend just got Lifetime Achievement recognition from SD Rockn Roll Hall of Fame for experience with Fleetwood Mac, Yellow Jackets, Star Trek and a single stage appearance with Paul McCartney (and 100 others:)
There’s a stage play I wasn’t aware of till reading the list list of Times 100 Most Influential People this evening. Lynn Nottage wrote “Sweat,” so aptly titled. Martha Plimpton wrote a couple hundred words about her for Time, and here is part of it:
“She’s the only writer I can think of working now, in any medium, who so understands poor white Americans, with compassion for their terror but no pity for the racial attitudes people end up getting stuck in. It’s been a tremendous privilege to explore this aspect of American life in ‘Sweat’—the play for which she won her second Pulitzer, becoming the only woman ever to have won twice in the drama category.”
We often wonder why around 25% of Americans vote so consistently for candidates whose policies will do them harm. Perhaps Ms. Nottage has more understanding than us?
More details of “Sweat” are here:
https://stageagent.com/shows/play/8865/sweat
The market is not perfect, Debbo. Some people vote for candidates, parties, and policies that do them harm just as some people spend good money on food that will make them unhealthy.
Rousseau acknowledged this apparent fallibility: “…the general will is always right and tends to the public advantage; but it does not follow that the deliberations of the people are always equally correct. Our will is always for our own good, but we do not always see what that is; the people is never corrupted, but it is often deceived, and on such occasions only does it seem to will what is bad.”
Shades here of Churchill: democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. Similarly, capitalism: it’s a crazy way to run a railroad, but with its faith in the people, it generally outperforms the other forms.
Mike, Trump does not trust the “Invisible Hand” of democracy or capitalism. He wants his own hand controlling things and driving more money into his pockets. All other people and considerations are secondary.