(Past and Present)
In the Old Testament book of Exodus, there is a story about the Israelites being led out of Egyptian bondage toward a promised land where they would live and thrive. But the journey was tough, requiring a comparable devotion to overcome its difficulties.
One day their leader, Moses, went up to the top of a mountain to commune with their god Yahweh. During his lengthy absence, the people grew restless and demanded that another of their leaders, Aaron, create for them a new god. Aaron complied by gathering their gold implements, melting them, and fashioning a calf before which they knelt and worshipped.
Moses returned from his mountain venture, saw what had happened, and, in a rage, destroyed the golden calf and many of those who had desecrated their holy journey. Eventually, the Israelites arrived at their promised land and built a stable nation which, itself, would be absorbed into the Roman empire.
In March of 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt gave his inaugural address as America’s new president. It was just a few years into the Great Depression, one of the most economically threatening events in the nation’s history. He began his speech by indicating that the people had nothing to fear but fear itself. Then he went on to indicate why this was the case – namely, that they knew the cause of the depression and could devise the solutions to restore the economy if they became so committed. In other words, if you know what has induced fear and devise a solution that addresses this knowing, you could overcome the threat. But to do so you needed to lay aside the fear, itself, that would paralyze the energy and commitment required to envision and enact the solution.
Here is what he said in his speech:
- Those responsible for the nation’s economic plight were unscrupulous money-changers – read that as greedy unethical capitalists who cared nothing for anyone else except their own economic well-being.
- The people needed to replace these money-mongering values with the nobility of social values – an affirmation of the citizenry’s worth equality, the goal of the citizenry’s common good, and the citizenry’s personal integrity.
Roosevelt began devising programs that would re-establish this foundation for a democratic economy.
At this present moment in the nation’s history, we face exactly the same threat – unscrupulous money-changers who care nothing for democratic values and whose only concern is using America’s political system for personal profit-making – and who are totally unconcerned for what this might mean economically for the lower classes. They have a god they worship – a golden bull. And the citizenry should rightfully be fearful of how this worship is destroying the nation’s democratic system.
However, as in Roosevelt’s day, we need not succumb to this fear because we know the answer to the ills that confront us. It is the same answer as in his day: A restoration of those values that make democracy a success – an acknowledgement of the citizenry’s equality of worth, working toward their common good, promoted by citizenry integrity – motivated by action that would restore these values as the nation’s social foundation.
We will be voting on a new congress November 8th. If we do not retain our representative democratic edge in both houses, we might lose democracy itself. The issue of choice remains the same as in Roosevelt’s day – the promised land of a social democracy or the economic despotism of the gold bull.
There are two basic kinds of fear – one based on what we don’t know and one based on what we do know. What we face at this moment in our history is what we do know because it is as old as the nation and is the same issue Franklin D. Roosevelt confronted, namely, the conversion of the American Dream into economic goals rather than social relationships. We should be grossly fearful of this threat. And motivated by this fear, we should take the action necessary to overcome its peril – voting into office democrats rather than worshipers of the gold bull.
Robert
mythinglink.com
May it be so.
Just who are these money hangers? Unfortunately it is not so easy to pick them out by party affiliation alone. In my view it is much more complicated. Indeed I contend that all of us capital holders (i.e. homeowners plus…) eat at the same trough as those who, admittedly, have garnered an inordinate larger share by gaming the system by using the rules they helped create. Unfortunately it was a Democrat – Barack Obama who could have changed the course of this recklessness by not allowing the egregious behavior of the bankers so easily off the hook after the financial crisis setting up the path to today as we will all find out in the next few years regardless of which party is in power. And they gave Ben Bernanke a Nobel Prize…the man who did more than any human towards creating thousands of multi billionaires as we spiraled into the most speculative financial bubble of all time. It is complicated.
That said I still agree that, economic issues aside, we should be motivated to elect those individuals who will preserve the basic tenants of our democracy, esteem human rights over corporate rights, defend a women’s right to chose and on and on down the Democratic platform.
Greetings Jim:
Thank you for your reply. I could post a long list of money changers whose actions I believe militate against democracy. I could also compile a list of wealthy capitalists whom I believe contribute to democracy’s success. However, rather than who I will respond to what. I believe every citizen has the right to pursue sufficient wealth to afford a quality lifestyle. My conclusion is that in a democracy capitalism is the only economic system that affords such a pursuit to everyone.
The only forms of government I perceive history has shown are capable of consistently allowing and supporting such a pursuit are socialism and democracy. To do so in a manner that endows the common good as the governments ultimate purpose, there must be regulations that provide boundaries for the function of capitalism. Otherwise, those capitalists whose only ethics are using capitalism to make money will thrive and eventually, through their wealth, exert control over democracy with the purpose in mind of deregulating and converting its structures into a despotism. I see that as our current crisis. These are the money-changers – just another name for geed oriented and self-centered capitalists, sometimes called crony-capitalists. Thus, economic regulations are the prerequisite for the survival of a healthy democracy.
I am a layperson in respect to economics, understanding only the basics of those primary theories that seem to drive nations throughout global history. And I am always open to both changing and expanding my views of reality by those who understand more.
If you have some perspectives that will enlighten us in respect to your remarks about Obama and Bernanke that will effect our nation’s future, I invite you to comment further.
Thank you, again for your contribution to our dialogue.
Robert
This topic brings to mind many tangents I could follow. First, I entirely agree with you that capitalism must be regulated. We have learned this lesson over and over. However over regulation can have many unintended consequences or, better put, regulating the wrong areas of the economy can backfire. An example which I mentioned earlier was the government stepping in to save the misguided bankers during the financial crisis. My reference to Obama and Bernanke were mainly used to make the point that it is not just a party issue. I’m sure they were well intended but they didn’t realize the error of the government over meddling with market forces by “socializing losses” which just invited and ushered in the disastrous economy we have today. In a similar vein the Republicans who are so opposed to immigration have no idea of the unintended consequences of this policy. Today and in the future we will desperately need immigrants to help the economy grow and rebuff inflation. They use this issue to divide us, but at some point it will become clear it was misdirected and damaging. As I said earlier these subjects are so complicated I feel it is important to mindfully seek a wide perspective. I realize this is challenging when faced with easy slogans, sound bites and denial of basic democratic norms which has us on such a treacherous path.