Moral Politics in America

The excerpt at the end of this post is from philosopher Massimo Pigliucci. It helps me understand the fundamental moral divide between Republicans and Democrats. They value and pursue different things.

I post this, in part, in response to friends and acquaintances who discourage my tendency to make moral judgments about the two US political parties as they currently exist.

I accept that not all Republicans are selfish, heartless, money-grubbing materialists. And yes, limousine liberals abound among Democrats. Here I’m addressing the overarching principles and worldviews of the two parties as they currently are. I’m setting aside the cronyism of both parties and the dead-end collapse inherent in unrestrained consumer capitalism, for now.

Emphasizing the free, ‘legal’ accumulation of money, economic policies that favor relatively unfettered consumer capitalism, and a preference for a small, weak federal government characterizes the GOP.

Democrats emphasize using governmental means to achieve greater, more equitable wealth distribution in society and more widespread individual and societal wellbeing.

No, the past two and a half centuries of material progress, wealth increase, and the trickle down improvements in society under industrial-consumer capitalism do not prove the moral superiority of the Republican market approach.

Why? Because sustained economic and social progress, most notable during the 20th Century, has been made in the US mostly through the economic controls and protections Democrats, and a small minority of Republicans such as Teddy Roosevelt, have put in place. 

There is no evidence to support the libertarian claim that such controls and checks have kept the US economy and society from even greater flourishing. On the contrary, evidence is plentiful that government intervention has averted economic and social collapse on numerous occasions. The Great Recession of 2008 was the most recent example.

Don’t believe it? Read accounts of the Republicans and Democrats who were in or transitioning out of office at the time. Read anything written by Henry Paulson, GOP outgoing Treasury Secretary in 2007-2008. And consider former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan’s admission that his preferred market-economy approach to managing the US economy was a failure.

“We had some difficult decisions. We did some things that were unpleasant, even to us. But I felt then and looking back at it now, I think we got the big things right and made a big difference. We staved off disaster.”
…
“Many, many Americans were unhappy because they wanted to hear that the people who made the mistakes were being held accountable. But if I had to decide between that and stability, I erred on the side of stability. All Americans would have been hurt if the system had collapsed.”

- Henry Paulson

~ ~ ~

"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms." – Alan Greenspan

I think one of the party’s approach to politics and governance is more moral than the other. That is, one party gives a higher priority to how well and humane we relate to each other, and to all others in the world. That would be the current Democrat Party.

I also think it would be reasonable to consider the Republican approach sociopathic and contrary to the natural sociality of Humankind. That is, maladaptive in the long-term, cultural evolutionary sense because it is a path more likely to lead to economic and social collapse than the Democrat way.

It’s as if the Republicans bought into a narrow notion of the 18th Century Enlightenment notion of liberté, the libertarian part, but passed on the égalité and fraternité ideals. In fact, it would seem they take the liberty part to mean they are free to become as unequal and unfraternal to any degree they would like to be.

In their social Darwinian conquest Republicans seem to see the fellow citizens they have ‘outperformed’ as vanquished inferiors who, because of their deficiencies of intellect and initiative, are rightly and justifiably condemned to second-class or impoverished lives.

All said, Democrats, crony warts and all, get my vote every time. This conclusion would be more defensible if I supported it with more examples, including examples of moral ideas and efforts on both sides. But I think the argument is still supportable based solely on comparing general principles.

At last, here is Massimo’s view* which prompted my takeaway. Though his focus is on individual virtue and morality, his thinking also applies to the worldviews and priorities of the two US political parties.

“The Stoics had no problem whatsoever with the (ideally, moderate) pursuit of pleasure, power, or wealth. Seneca was the second wealthiest person in the empire, and Marcus Aurelius had the power of an emperor. What they did think was that such pursuits ought to be secondary, because they don’t amount to a meaningful life. There are logical and psychological reasons for that. Psychologically speaking, it turns out that material goods don’t actually increase ‘happiness,’ if by this we mean that people find meaning in such goods. On the contrary, plenty a life devoted to the pursuit of pleasure, power and wealth is then regretted on a deathbed, and our consumerist society is one of the emptiest of meaning in the history of humanity.

“Why? Because human beings -- qua living organisms belonging to the species Homo sapiens -- need more than material comfort to live. We need friendship, and love, and being respected by others no matter what our occupation or place in the social ladder. If you think that power and wealth can buy you that, you’ve watched too many bad American movies. And if you think pleasure is all there is, just ask yourself if you wouldn’t prefer to share those pleasures with people you love. If your answer is in the negative, chances are you are a sociopath, that is a malfunctioning human being.”

* - From “Yes, Stoicism Can Make Us ‘Happy’” in Massimo Pigliucci’s Figs in Winter blog. His blog is by subscription only through Patreon at three levels of $1, $3, or $5 per month. Well worth it.