How to Save the World

This blog was started so I could put down my thoughts on Robert Trancinski's "What Went Right" series of articles. I believe I finally understand what he is saying, and the next series of posts will comment on his theory. But first, a summary of my views:

What Went Wrong?:  Starting around the beginning of the 20th century and getting a big push from Woodrow Wilson, America turned away from the Founding Fathers' vision of America and turned toward socialism. Up through the 1970s, America went through three waves of liberalism spearheaded by Wilson, FDR and Johnson. Their policies resulted in a weak America, both economically and morally.

The "Standard" Objectivist View:  Ayn Rand, looking at America from the 1930s (FDR) through the 1960s (LBJ) and 70s (Carter), saw an America on the decline. This decline correlated well with the disintegration of philosophy as a serious subject into irrationalism and subjectivism. Ayn Rand predicted further decline for America based on the trends she observed (up until her death in 1982). Leonard Peikoff and others have continued to promote this view.

What Went Right?:  Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher brought back capitalism in the 1980s. Their stand against communism led to the fall of the Soviet Union and laid bare the stark contrast between the two systems. The fall of communism helped the spread of global capitalism; for example, China moved toward a market economy, and Nelson Mandela, as new president of South Africa in 1992, turned the country toward free markets.

How to Save the World:  Promote capitalism. George Reisman has some good ideas on how to do this.

Starting with Capitalism

A common Objectivist view of history is that philosophy departments set the stage by promoting a certain view of metaphysics which then leads to a view of epistemology, ethics and politics. Ayn Rand's position on these four branches of philosophy is shown below. If this is indeed the process which determines history, then to change a culture we need more philosophy professors who promote objective reality and show how it leads inexorably to an acceptance of 1) reason as our only means of knowledge, 2) egoism—or rational self-interest—as our only guide to living a proper life, and 3) capitalism as the ideal system of government. This model, in fact, has been put into practice by the Ayn Rand Institute. I agree that this is one possible way to change a culture.

On the other hand, what if the process also works in reverse? A key point of Tracinski's "What Went Right" series is that by promoting capitalism, we are also promoting egoism, reason and objective reality, as shown below. It may even be that "Starting with Capitalism" is the more efficient method for changing the course of history.

For most Americans, philosophy is a game played by white-haired professors arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Therefore, making a long argument starting from the axiom "existence exists" is not going to get the attention of most people. Americans are much more interested in how they can improve their lives, for instance by purchasing a new house or car, sending their kids to college, or even training for a new job and starting a new career. All of these things depend on a free market and capitalism. The ability to work harder and smarter and have that result in more money and more opportunities is very real to most Americans—much more real than the question of whether or not reality is objective.

But how does capitalism—a system where people are free to work and trade, and where property is protected by the law—promote the other branches of philosophy? Capitalism certainly promotes egoism because each individual is working for his own sake to improve his life and gain and/or keep his values, such as a fancy new car, a better life for his children, or a more fulfilling career. So capitalism encourages selfishness, but to actually be successful means being productive and that requires using ones brain to understand and manipulate things to make something useful for humans, which is another way of saying "to use reason." Finally, to successfully use reason to make or sell a product useful for humans, one needs to focus on the real world and solve real world problems. Businesses succeed by analyzing their market, planning to fill a niche, and executing on their plans rather than praying for success or endlessly chanting mantras. Capitalism requires egoism, reason and objective reality to the point that it becomes second nature to those who fully embrace it.

Having shown that capitalism promotes the proper views in the other branches of philosophy does not mean that all we need to do is to promote capitalism. The links are implicit but it is easy to get confused, especially when philosophy departments and their minions in the mass media and Hollywood are constantly attacking capitalism, egoism, reason and objective reality with false arguments and confusing rhetoric. There is still a need to explain to Americans who embrace the market economy that capitalism is the unknown ideal, that selfishness is a virtue and that reason is our only means to knowledge (in fact, these are three major books by Ayn Rand—follow the links). But perhaps we should start with capitalism, because the more people who are invested in the market economy, the easier it will be to demonstrate the links to the underlying philosophic principles of egoism, reason and objective reality.

The Fourth Wave of Liberalism

I recently finished Steven Hayward's The Politically Incorrect Guide to The Presidents: From Wilson to Obama. While it wasn't as good as Hayward's The Age of Reagan: 1964-1980, it was still an informative and entertaining read.

Hayward takes the approach of rating the presidents based on their job description, which is basically:

• Preside over the military as commander-in-chief
• Execute the laws passed by congress
• Ensure the laws passed are constitutional (if not, veto them)
• Nominate Supreme Court justices

Furthermore, the President must take this oath of office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Hayward's book is important because it reviews each of the presidents starting with Woodrow Wilson and grades them according to how well the performed the job description and upheld the oath they took when they were sworn in. He starts with Wilson in 1913 because it was Wilson who first significantly expanded the job of president beyond the job description laid out in the Constitution. Before Wilson, presidents performed their duty by commanding the military in times of war (e.g. Lincoln, Madison) or keeping the congress in check by vetoing unconstitutional laws (Hayward gives wonderful examples from Madison, Pierce, Buchanan and Cleveland).

I agreed with most of Hayward's ratings for the early presidents. But for the presidents since Reagan, I thought he had a Republican vs. Democrat bias which wasn't supported by the examples he provided. Since this book was published in the election year of 2012, I believe part of the purpose was to get people to vote against Obama and so the later rankings had a partisan bias. Below are my rankings based on his examples and my own understanding of history.

Presidents ranked according to how much they followed the Constitution in preserving liberty in America, including how much the government interfered with the economy. Arrows show the Four Waves of Liberalism according to Charles Kesler.

Calvin Coolidge deserves an A+ because he worked hard to uphold the Constitution and keep the government out of the people's lives. He understood that America is founded on capitalism, and it is the job of the government to protect Americans so they can be free to produce. He famously said:

"After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world. I am strongly of the opinion that the great majority of our people will always find these are moving impulses of our life."

I believe this is a big part of Tracinski's "What Went Right?" theory of bottom-up, implicit philosophy. If the people are "profoundly concerned" with the process of capitalism, they implicitly need to be concerned with individualism, reason and objective reality, the three underlying philosophical ideas supporting capitalism (more on this in a future post).

Reagan gets an A+ because he took a principled approach to decreasing the size and scope of government. Perhaps the biggest consequence of his principled approach was the fall of communism which, until Obama, deflated the liberal cause and slowed down the advance of the progressive's infringement on our rights.

The four presidents who rate an F in my analysis are also the four presidents who have brought about the Four Waves of Liberalism, according to Charles Kesler. The four waves are, briefly:

1. Woodrow Wilson and the New Freedom: Wilson claimed the Constitution was out-dated and worked to expand the office of the president in violation of the Constitution. He initiated new controls on the economy with the Clayton Anti-Trust Act and the Federal Reserve System.
2. FDR and the New Deal: Roosevelt, following Wilson's lead, went crazy with new expansions of government interference over the economy, including Social Security, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
3. Johnson and the Great Society: Johnson wanted to use the Federal Government to correct all the evils he saw in society, which led to his War on Poverty, included Food Stamps, Medicare/Medicaid, and greatly increased federal funding for education.
4. Obama and Obamacare: Barack Obama and the democratic majorities in the House and Senate rammed through the "Affordable Care Act," better-known as Obamacare, in a strictly partisan vote using back-room deals and threats to get the necessary votes. If Obamacare can be repealed, perhaps that will be the beginning of a trend to repeal the programs in the previous three waves of liberalism.

Overall, Hayward's book is well worth reading, if only to put the current attacks on liberty by the Obama administration into context.  If America can survive the previous attacks from Wilson, FDR and LBJ, we can surely survive Obama.