New Project: Chapter 25
Milton Friedman, the godfather of neoliberal capitalism and the economist most responsible for a “Shock and Awe” policy that devastated Latin America in the 1970s and 1980s (and is, in part, why Venezuela’s economy is collapsing today) said, “Because profit making is the essence of democracy, any government that pursues anti-market policies is being antidemocratic, no matter how much informed popular support they might enjoy. Therefore it is best to restrict governments to the job of protecting private property and enforcing contracts, and to limit political debate to minor issues.” His theories are why we are in a manufactured culture war and why Supreme Court rulings like Citizens United are possible.
While his declaration may feel perverse, it is rooted in the convictions of our founding fathers, those same fathers who framed our constitution and set up a construct that doomed the vast majority of the American population to a life of struggle, inequality, and discontent.
In spite of lofty ideals espoused by our Declaration of Independence and constitution, the game was rigged before it began. Adam Smith, author of The Wealth of Nations, arguably influenced James Madison, the “Father of the constitution.”
Smith was the first economist to suggest that the wealth of nations is measured not by how much gold and silver a nation possesses, but by its commerce and productivity (known today as Gross Domestic Product, or GDP). Although he favored division of labor and specialization because they increased productivity, he also foresaw the end of democracy “if manufacturing aristocracy should escape its confines.”
Smith’s prediction has come to pass because, as Chomsky says, “what is right for the people of the world will only by the remotest accident conform to the plans of the ‘principal architects’ of policy.” These architects, historical and contemporary, have absolutely zero reason to change policy to benefit anyone other than themselves. They never have, and the way our democracy was envisioned and enacted has ensured a continuation of oppression. The top tier of wealthily people is vested only in accumulating more wealth.
Our equality, as put forth by the constitution, is an illusion designed to keep us from revolt. It gives us a modicum of power (the vote) and the American Dream (the hype) to keep the vast majority of us under control. If, as Chomsky says, government depends on control of opinion, then it is no wonder Donald Trump ascended to the Presidency. With fake news and a multi-million dollar Facebook strategy, complete with dark advertising designed to target individuals based on their personal proclivities, Trump controlled opinion.
Mass media, even “mainstream liberal media” fed into the Trump phenomenon, giving him unlimited headlines and a narrative that underscored a systemic conviction that Hillary Clinton was flawed.
Who isn’t flawed? Certainly Donald Trump is flawed, but as a nation we didn’t care. His flaws were palatable. Hers weren’t. One of Adam Smith’s most popular quotes is, “Virtue is to be more feared than vice, because its excesses are not subject to the regulation of conscience.”
As a woman, Clinton was required to be the epitome of female virtue – a moral compass, a pure being. Consequently her qualifications and experience were unimportant. Our collective focus was on her “likeability” and we crucified her because virtue, contrary to common belief, is the exclusive province of men. Cultural standards dictate that likeable women can’t behave like them. Trump understood this and exploited virtue to his benefit.
The root of virtue is strength, masculinity, virility. It is supposed to be a particular moral excellence, but it is also valor, potency, and capacity to act. For women, however, the dictionary says virtue resides in virginity alone. How could we elect a virtuous woman? A woman who has known the thrill or tedium of a lover’s bed cannot be virtuous. A virtuous man, however, earns his masculinity by his capacity to act, by his potency, virility, and valor. The double standard is breathtaking. If a woman is to be a woman, she cannot be virtuous because virtue (beyond virginity) is how we define what it means to be a man.
Men do the dirty work – the backroom deal that’s ethically questionable, the physical violence that’s sometimes necessary, the sacrifice of self and soul for the sake of sustenance and comfort – that a woman, if her virtue is to remain intact, is incapable of doing.
Like neoliberal free market economy, a virtuous woman will redeem a man and cement his masculinity by allowing him to do what he must to achieve a desired outcome. The market will, according to Friedman and Smith, render “immoral” actions virtuous in the long run. The un-virtuous will fail. Those who succeed are rendered virtuous by the outcome they achieve. More is better.
But is it? Smith was right in declaring virtue more dangerous than vice. Precisely because it is not regulated by conscience, virtue is runaway capitalism. It is excess. It is the capacity to act in any way necessary to prove virility and potency as long as the actions occur under the guise of morality.
Morality, however, is fickle – always dependent on current cultural climate. Today’s morals have little in common with those of prior generations with one exception: Wealth and power are achieved by morally deserving men or by loose, immoral women.
The double bind insists that virtuous women are feminine (caring, nurturing, kind, and spiritual) from birth and men must consistently earn their masculinity. This conviction is a trap because no woman is truly “virtuous” and no man can be virtuous enough.
James Madison, warning about apathy toward government, said, “I go on this great republican principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom. Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks – no form of government can render us secure.”
Madison, of course, was speaking to moral virtue. He was also speaking to the very qualities that have defined American men for more than two hundred years. He spoke to the rugged individual, the man who was not afraid to challenge England to further his own prospects, the man willing to die for liberty and property, the man who was not a “Macaroni,” but one who pulled himself up by the bootstraps and made something of himself. His call for a new nation challenged the masculinity of the King’s subjects and basically cried, “Man up” to the men who would form that new nation. Like Madison, Trump promised to “man up” and called his constituency to do the same. Using morality common to certain portions of the population, he acknowledged their impotency, stoked their virility, and promised change.
“Man up,” however, is a terrible call to action. It excuses egregious, dangerous behavior, making men less than human and women merely artifact.
If we have been willing to fight for freedom before, are we not willing now? Our past battles were for someone else’s profit. Bloodshed on fields foreign and domestic never benefited the working classes. We rallied to a cry that was never ours. Freedom is easy for the Trumps of the world. It’s not so easy for the rest of us, but we can achieve it if we refuse to comply with their opinion. We control our own stories. We write the narrative. We understand the only thing we control is what we give. What are we giving when we nod our head in agreement with public conviction? What are we giving when we beg for a raise? What are we giving when we drop our prices to compete with a corporate conglomerate that kills small business and takes our money out of state?
Economic independence looks different for everybody. Some can get by with less and be happier for it. Some can open a business. There’s no right way to achieve it, but it’s possible to free ourselves a little at a time from those who would enslave us.
Recently, in response to a conservative boycott of a large department store, liberal friends rallied. Because this corporation stood up for liberal values and refused to conform to gender stereotypes, we’re all supposed to shop there. This is crazy. If we’re going to be free, we have to stop being manipulated by corporate propaganda. The rallying cry should be shop locally. It should demand that local businesses stock products that do not have a negative environmental impact or support slave labor in third world countries. It should be a cry to consume less and pay for quality over quantity.
As a small business owner, it would seem I’m rallying against my own interests, but I’m not. Chomsky says, “The social inequality generated by neoliberal policies undermines any effort to realize the legal equality necessary to make democracy credible.” He also says, “Instead of citizens [neoliberal policy] produces consumers. Instead of communities, it produces shopping malls. The net result is an atomized society of disengaged individuals who feel demoralized and socially powerless.”
If we are to be economically independent, we need vibrant communities vested in local business to secure the resiliency of our all our people – not just the most marginalized. The negative effects of income inequality are well documented. So are the benefits of strong communities.
That’s where we have to start. Social media has helped us to create online communities with like-minded people, but it minimizes real, human interaction and isolates us in the process.
Most people are fundamentally good. We have more in common than that which divides us. Politics, as manipulated by those who would have us war against each other, be damned. It’s our neighborhoods and communities that matter.
