The Rise and Fall of Empires: Writings from Augustine, Niebuhr, and Paterson

“It is time for America to hear the truth… Don’t let anyone tell you that God has appointed America as his messianic force, a kind of policeman of the whole world…I can hear God saying to America, “You’re too arrogant! If you don’t change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and give it to a nation that doesn’t even know my name.” – MLK, from a speech delivered in 1967.

American exceptionalism finds its root in corrupted theological doctrine. The conservative Christian Right has been particularly vulnerable to this shallow framework. Not only have Christian churches become ensnared in this tangled web of destructive lies -- arguably, the religious tradition currently seen with the strongest ties to the doctrine of American exceptionalism is Mormonism and its umbrella Latter Day Saints (LDS). Properly educated historians and rational theologians reject these distorted worldviews as nothing more than twisted fiction. Unfortunately, in an era where the ignorant have the biggest mouths, voices of reason are ignored. So, the biggest loud mouth chump of all, Glenn Beck (Mormon/LDSer), as well as Pat Robertson (Christian Right), Rush Limbaugh (big dummy) and other far right-winger morons will continue to possess an outsized influence -- in proportion to their actual numbers -- over significant portions of the American public.

Augustine of Hippo, considered the founding father of Christian theology, down to Reinhold Niebuhr, whom I share the opinion to be the most important Christian thinker of the 20th Century, taught the church a very different worldview than the one we currently hear spouted from the radical right on talk radio, tv, and the pulpit. Among many important things, these two giants of intellectual thought instructed us that all empires rise and fall, and the reasons they rise and the reasons they fall are common and are centrally due to the failings of humans at the seat of privilege –- more specifically, the inability to escape the unquenchable thirst of power, the blindness of pride, and the devouring from greed. Like the empires before it, America has shown its vulnerability to the very same failings.

This blog entry will be different than the others I have written. Today I offer segments from Augustine’s and Niebuhr’s most famous works. I will also provide a section of material from an American founding father William Paterson. These thinkers, writing at critical junctures in world history -- Augustine just after the fall of Rome, Niebuhr in the early 1930s at the height of the Great Depression and at the rise of fascism and communism, and Paterson at the time of the American Revolution -- have important words to share with us in our time of global economic and political crisis. They remind us that this great nation can, and will be brought down to a humbled position just like past empires. When the rule of privileged, ruling classes -- in our case, the executive class of global corporations -- becomes more concerned about self-preservation and private profit than in the general interests of the public good or in the purposes of the commonwealth, the seeds of destruction are sown. With ignorant pride, unbridled power, and ravaging greed, the executive class of our age is on course to lead this nation to the same fate of empires past. Only through repentance -- a complete and total turning away from current wrong doing and ill practices and turning back to a just and equitable path -- can our corporate leadership begin to live up to the great command charged to all by the One God -- YHWH -- the One Who Is -- the I Am -- and that is, to love our neighbor. Otherwise,furious wrath soon follows.

Read, reflect, and come to understanding:

Excerpts from St. Augustine’s “City of God”…

[Reprimanding his country for their arrogance even as the nation faced collapse.] “What insanity is this! This is not error but plain madness. When, by all accounts, nations in the East were bewailing your catastrophe (speaking of Rome’s fall), when the greatest cities in the farthest parts of the earth were keeping days of public grief and mourning, you were asking the way to the theatres… …It was just this corruption, this moral disease, this overthrow of integrity and decency, that the great Scipio dreaded for you, when he stopped the building of theatres, when he saw how easily you could be corrupted and perverted by prosperity… … He did not think that a city is fortunate when its walls are standing, while its morals are in ruins. But the temptations of the wicked demons had more effect on you than the precautions of men endowed with foresight. Thus you refuse to be held responsible for the evil that you do… … Prosperity depraved you; and adversity could not reform you… …You have learned no salutary lesson from calamity; you have become the most wretched, and you have remained the most worthless, of mankind.”

[Summarizing the work of the pagan Roman historian Sallust who wrote on the transition of the early nation from the rule of kings to a republic –- think here of revolution against King George and the establishment of early U.S. and the rapid expansion that ensued] “I will therefore impose restraint on myself, and employ the evidence of Sallust himself, whose praise of the Romans gave rise to this discussion. ‘Justice and morality’, he says, ‘prevailed among them by nature as much as by law.’ He was commending the period after the expulsion of the kings, a period of enormous expansion in an incredibly short space of time. In spite of this, he also admits, at the very beginning of the first book of his History, that even at the time when the government had passed from kings to consuls, after a short interval the injustices of the powerful classes led to a separation between plebs and patres (in other words, elites and working class), and to other disputes in the city. He records the high standard of morality and the degree of concord which marked the history of Rome between the Second Punic War and the last, but he ascribes as the reason for this desirable state of things not the love of justice, but the fear that peace was unreliable while Carthage still stood (essentially, patriotic fervor and the beating of war drums against an outside enemy kept the working class within the nation from an uprising); and that was why Nasica resisted the annihilation of Carthage… …‘After the destruction of Carthage there came the highest pitch of discord, greed, ambition, and all the evils which generally spring up in times of prosperity.’ We infer from this that those evils generally spring up and increase even before such times. Hence he continues with the reason for his statement, “For the injustices of the powerful classes leading to separation between plebs and patres and other disputes, were found in the city right from the beginning: and the rule of equity, justice and restraint after the expulsion, that is, the ejection of the kings lasted only as long as the threat from Tarquim and the critical war with the Etruscans continued.” Thus you observe that Sallust alleges fear to have been responsible for that brief period of ‘the rule of equity, justice and moderation which followed the expulsion, that is the ejection of the kings.” Notice how Sallust proceeds: “After that, the patricians reduced the plebeians to the condition of slavery; they disposed of the lives and persons of the plebs in the manner of kings; they drove men from their lands; and with the rest of the people disenfranchised, they alone wielded supreme power. Oppressed by such harsh treatment, and especially by the load of debt, the plebeians, after enduring the simultaneous burden of tribute and military service in continual wars, at length armed themselves, and took up a position on the Mons Sacer and the Aventine; thus they gained for themselves the tribunes of the plebs and other rights. The Second Punic War (again, the invoking of an outside enemy) brought an end to the strife and rivalry between the two parties.” Here is a picture of the condition of the Romans in so short a time after the expulsion of the kings… …Furthermore, if this is what the period was like, when the Roman state is reported to have been at the height of excellence, what do we suppose is to be said or thought of the period following? For to quote the words of the same historian, “the state of the country gradually changed, from the height of excellence to the depth of depravity.” This is the period, as Sallust relates, following the destruction of Carthage. In Sallust’s history we can read a brief record and description of these times –- how the moral deterioration, which set in during times of prosperity, continued until the Civil Wars. “And from that time,” he says, “the degradation of traditional morality ceased to be a gradual decline and became a torrential downhill rush. The young were so corrupted by luxury and greed that it was justly observed that a generation had arisen which could neither keep its own property or allow others to keep theirs.”… …You see, I am sure, and anyone who pays attention cannot fail to observe…”

[Commenting on the self-interest-driven mindset of the day.] ‘So long as it lasts,’ they say, ‘so long as it enjoys material prosperity, and the glory of victorious war, or, better, the security of peace, why should we worry? What concerns us is that we should get richer all the time, to have enough extravagant spending every day, enough to keep our inferiors in their place. It is all right if the poor serve the rich, so as to get enough to eat and to enjoy a lazy life under their patronage; while the rich make use of the poor to ensure a crowd of hangers-on to minister to their pride; if the people applaud those who supply them with pleasures rather than those who offer salutary advice; if no one imposes disagreeable duties, or forbids perverted delights; if kings are interested not in the morality but the docility of their subjects; if provinces are under rulers who are regarded not as directors of conduct but as controllers of material things and providers of material satisfactions, and are treated with servile fear instead of sincere respect. The laws should punish offences against another’s property, not offences against a man’s own personal character. No one should be brought to trial except for an offence, or threat of offence, against another’s property, house, or person; but anyone should be free to do as he likes about his own, or with his own, or with others, if they consent. There should be a plentiful supply of public prostitutes, for the benefit of all those who prefer them, and especially for those who cannot keep private mistresses. It is a good thing to have imposing houses luxuriously furnished, where lavish banquets can be held… …Anyone who disapproves of this kind of happiness should rank as a public enemy: anyone who attempts to change it or get ride of it should be hustled out of hearing by the freedom-loving majority; he should be kicked out, and removed from the land of the living. We should reckon the true gods to be those who see that the people get this happiness and then preserve it for them.’

[Commenting on the ignorance of his day and the belief that somehow theirs times and their days and their nation were somehow different and set apart from history.] “These illiterates imagine that there is something extraordinary in the mishaps of their own time and that they did not happen in other periods; those who know this idea to be false conceal their knowledge and support this delusion, to make it seem that the rest are justified in their complaints. I was therefore bound to prove that the facts were very different.”

[On empires.] “Is it reasonable, is it sensible, to boast of the extent and grandeur of empire, when you cannot show that men lived in happiness, as they passed their lives amid the horrors of war, amid the shedding of men’s blood –- whether the blood of enemies or fellow-citizens –- under the shadow of fear and amid the terror of ruthless ambition? The only joy to be attained had the fragile brilliance of glass, a joy outweighed by the fear that it may be shattered in a moment.”

[On the rise and fall of Rome.] “Accordingly, if we want a picture of the condition of the commonwealth at that time, and of its previous condition, we may find it in Cato’s judgment, when he says: ‘Do not imagine that it was by force of arms that our ancestors made a great nation out of a small community. If that were true, we should today have a far more glorious nation. In allies, in our own citizens, in armaments, in horses, we have greater resources that they enjoyed. But it was other causes that made them great, causes that with us have ceased to exist –- policy, a mind that is free because not at the mercy of criminal passions. Instead of these we have self-indulgence and greed, public poverty and private opulence. We praise riches: we pursue a course of sloth. No distinction is made between good men and bad: the intrigues of ambition win the prizes due to merit. No wonder, when each of you thinks only of his own private interest, when at home you are slaves to your appetites, and to money and influence in your public life. The consequences is that an attack is being launched on a republic left without defenses.’ These words of Cato, or of Sallust, might lead one to suppose that all the Romans of antiquity, or the majority of them, resembled those of who they speak so highly. That is not so. Otherwise the remarks of the same historian, quoted in my second book, would be untrue. Sallust tells us that the injustices of the powerful classes led to a secession of the plebeians from the patricians, and that from the beginning there were other domestic dissensions, and that the era of just moderation in government lasted after the expulsion of the kings only as long as the threat from Tarquim (outside enemy) remained until the end of the major war against Etruria which Rome had engaged in because of Tarquim. But after that the plebeians were treated like slaves under the rule of the patricians, who handled them with the same violence as the kings, drove them from their lands, and wielded sole power, all others being disenfranchised. These discords, with one side aiming at domination, the other seeking to avoid slavery, were only ended by the Second Punic War, because then once again came the pressure of a serious threat, which checked their restless spirits, and distracted them from these discords by a more urgent anxiety, and recalled them to domestic concord. But it was by a mere handful of men, good men in their way, that the great public interests were managed; and it was thanks to the foresight of those few that those domestic ills were rendered tolerable and alleviated, and thus the country advanced to greatness. Sallust adds that in reading or hearing of the many splendid exploits of the Roman people, in peace and war, on land and sea, he has been interested to observe what was the principal basis for their great achievements. He knew that on many occasions a mere handful of Romans had matched great enemy battalions and that Rome had waged war with scanty resources against opulent kings. And he declares that, after much reflection, he had reached the conclusion that all this success was due to the exceptional qualities of a small minority, and that this minority was responsible for the victory of poverty over riches… ‘But,’ he continues, ‘when luxury and idleness had corrupted the city, then, conversely, the greatness of the country supported the vices of generals and magistrates.’ The virtue of the few, the moral quality of those who stride towards glory, honor, and power by the right path, that is, by virtue itself –- this is what Cato also praises. Hence came the energy at home, which he mentions, that brought riches to the public treasure, while private fortunes remained straightened. He contrasted this with the perverted situation after the moral corruption had set in, when we find the public purse empty and private pockets well-lined.”

[On ignorance and those choosing not to see the truth.] “Stupidity glories in never yielding to the force of truth; that is how it effects the ruin of anyone who is under the dominion of this monstrous moral fault. It is a disease proof against all efforts to treat it, not through any fault in the physician, but because the patient is himself incurable.”

[On why there never really was a Roman commonwealth.] “This brings me to the place where I must fulfill, as briefly and clearly as I may, the promise I gave in the second book. I there promised that I would show that there never was a Roman commonwealth answering to the definitions advanced by Scipio in Cicero’s “On the Republic.” For Scipio gives a brief definition of the state, or commonwealth, as the ‘weal of the people.’ Now if this is a true definition, there never was a Roman commonwealth, because the Roman state was never the ‘weal of the people’, according to Scipio’s definition. For he defined a ‘people’ as a multitude ‘united in association by a common sense of right and a community of interest’. He explains in the discussion what he means by a ‘common sense of right’, showing that a state cannot be maintained without justice, and where there is no true justice there can be no right. For any action according to right is inevitably a just action, while no just action can possibly be according to right. For unjust human institutions are not to be called or supposed to be institutions of right, since even they themselves say that right is what has flowed from the fount of justice; as for the notion of justice commonly put forward by some misguided thinkers, that it is ‘the interest of the strongest’, they hold this to be a false conception. Therefore, where there is no true justice there can be no ‘association of men united by a common sense of right’, and therefore no people answering to the definition of Scipio, or Cicero… …If, therefore, a commonwealth is the ‘weal of the people’, and if a people does not exist where there is no ‘association by a common sense of right’, and there is no right where there is no justice, the irresistible conclusion is that where there is no justice there is no commonwealth.”

Excerpts from Reinhold Niebuhr’s “Moral Man and Immoral Society” –

“Most rational and social justifications of unequal privilege are clearly afterthoughts. The facts are created by the disproportion of power which exists in a given social system. The justifications are usually dictated by the desire of the men of power to hide the nakedness of their greed, and by the inclination of society itself to veil the brutal facts of human life from itself. This is a rather pathetic but understandable inclination; since the facts of man’s collective life easily rob the average individual of confidence in the human enterprise. The inevitable hypocrisy, which is associated with all of the collective activities of the human race, springs chiefly from this source: that individuals have a moral code which makes the actions of collective man an outrage to their conscience. They therefore invent romantic and moral interpretations of the real facts, preferring to obscure rather than reveal the true character of their collective behavior. Sometimes they are as anxious to offer moral justifications for the brutalities from which they suffer as for those which they commit. The fact that the hypocrisy of man’s group behavior, about which we shall have much more to say later, expresses itself not only in terms of self-justification but in terms of moral justification of human behavior in general, symbolizes one of the tragedies of the human spirit: its inability to conform its collective life to its individual ideals. As individuals, men believe that they ought to love and serve each other and establish justice between each other. As racial, economic, and national groups they take for themselves, whatever their power can command.

The disproportion of power in a complex society which began with the transmutation of the pastoral to the agrarian economy, and which destroyed the simple equalitarianism and communism of the hunting and nomadic social organization, has perpetuated social injustice in every form through all the ages. Types of power have changed, and gradations of social inequality have varied, but the essential facts have remained unchanged… …All through history one may observe the tendency of power to destroy its very raison d’etre. It is suffered because it achieves internal unity and creates external defenses for the nation. But it grows to such proportions that it destroys the social peace of the state by the animosities which its exactions arouse, and it enervates the sentiment of patriotism by robbing the common man of the basic privileges which might bind him to this nation… …(quoting Plutarch) “The poor folk go to war, to fight and to die for the delights, riches, and superfluities of others.” In the long run these pretensions are revealed and the sentiment of patriotism is throttled in the breasts of the disinherited.”

[On democracies in general.] “The rise of modern democracy, beginning with the Eighteenth Century, is sometimes supposed to have substituted the consent of the governed for the power of royal families and aristocratic classes as the cohesive force of national society. This judgment is partly true but not nearly as true as the uncritical devotees of modern democracy assume. The doctrine that government exists by the consent of the governed, and the democratic technique by which the suffrage of the governed determines the policy of the state, may actually reduce the coercive factor in national life, and provide for peaceful and gradual methods of resolving conflicting social interests and changing political institutions. But the creeds and institutions of democracy have never become fully divorced from the special interests of the commercial classes who conceived and developed them. It was their interest to destroy political restraint upon economic activity, and they therefore weakened the authority of the state and made it more pliant to their needs. With the increased centralization of economic power in the period of modern industrialism, this development merely means that society as such does not control economic power as much as social well-being requires; and that the economic, rather than the political and military, power has become the significant coercive force of modern society. Either it defies the authority of the state or it bends the institutions of the state to its own purposes. Political power has been made responsible, but economic power has become irresponsible in society. The net result is that political power has been more responsible to economic power. It is, in other words, again the man of power or the dominant class which binds society together, regulates its processes, always paying itself inordinate rewards for its labors. The difference is that owners of factories, rather than owners of land, exert the power, and that it is more purely economic and less military than that which was wielded by the landed aristocrats. Needless to say, it is not completely divorced from military power. It may on occasion appropriate the police and the army of the state to defend its interests against internal and external foes. The military power has become the hired servant and is no longer the progenitor of economic ownership.”

[On the role of ignorance of the masses in perpetuating unjust leadership.] “The stupidity of the average man will permit the oligarch, whether economic or political, to hide his real purposes from the scrutiny of his fellows and to withdraw his activities from effective control… …The ultimate sources of social conflicts and injustices are to be found in the ignorance and selfishness of men… …Thus, for instance, a laissez faire economic theory is maintained in an industrial era through the ignorant belief that the general welfare is best served by place the least possible political restraints upon economic activity. The history of the past hundred years is a refutation of the theory; but it is still maintained, or is dying a too lingering death, particularly in nations as politically incompetent as our own. Its survival is due to the ignorance of those who suffer injustice from the application of this theory to modern industrial life but fail to attribute their difficulties to the social anarchy and political irresponsibility which the theory sanctions. Their ignorance permits the beneficiaries of the present anarchic industrial system to make dishonest use of the wanting prestige of laissez faire economies. The men of power in modern industry would not, of course, capitulate simply because the social philosophy by which they justify their policies had been discredited. When power is robbed of the shining armor of political, moral and philosophical theories, by which it defends itself, it will fight on without armor; but it will be more vulnerable, and the strength of its enemies is increased. When economic power desires to be left alone it uses the philosophy of laissez faire to discourage political restraint upon economic freedom. When it wants to make use of the police power of the state to subdue rebellions and discontent in the ranks of its helots, it justifies the use of political coercion and the resulting suppression of liberties by insisting that peace is more precious than freedom and that its only desire is social peace. A rational analysis of social facts easily punctures this pretension.”

[On the self-deception of the executive class.] “The moral attitudes of dominant and privileged groups are characterized by universal self-deception and hypocrisy. The unconscious and conscious identification of their special interests with general interests and universal values, which we have noted analyzing national attitudes, is equally obvious in the attitude of classes. The reason why privileged classes are more hypocritical than underprivileged ones is that special privilege can be defended in terms of the rational ideal of equal justice only, by proving that it contributes something to the good of the whole. Since inequalities of privilege are greater than could possibly be defended rationally, the intelligence of privileged groups is usually applied to the task of inventing specious proofs for the theory that universal values spring from, and that general interests are served by, the special privileges which they hold. The most common form of hypocrisy among the privileged classes is to assume that their privileges are the just payments with which society rewards useful or meritorious functions… …Dominant groups indulge in other hypocrisies beside the claim of their special intellectual fitness for the powers which they exercise and the privileges which they enjoy. Frequently they justify their advantages by the claim of moral rather than intellectual superiority. Thus the rising middle classes of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries regarded their superior advantages over the world of labor as the just rewards of a diligent and righteous life. The individualism of nineteenth century political economy and the sanctification of the prudential virtues in Puritan Protestantism were used by the middle classes to give themselves as sense of moral superiority over both the leisured classes and the industrial workers. This individualism, and the emphasis upon the virtues of thrift and diligence, allowed them to believe that the poverty of the workers was due to their laziness and their improvidence.”

[On the use of war to maintain privilege.] “So persistent is the cry of peace among the ruling classes and so strong the seeming abhorrence of every form of violence and anarchy that one might imagine them actuated by the purest pacifist principles, were it not for the fact that they betray no pacifist scruples when they consider international affairs. Most insistent upon peace within the nation, they are most easily provoked to join issue in martial combat with other nations. Sometimes specific economic interests prompt their bellicose ardor; at other times they find it convenient to strengthen their rule at home by permitting the fever of war and the resultant hysteria of patriotism to confuse their interests with the general welfare more perfectly than would be possible in a sober nation. More than one ruling caste has saved itself by an opportune war.”

[Little resistance from the weakened.] “All societies of the past perpetrated and perpetuated social injustice without meeting significant resistance from those who were victimized by the social system. There were indeed slave revolts in antiquity and peasant rebellions in the Middle Ages; but there were sporadic and usually ineffectual. They represented the rebellious vehemence of hungry men who lacked a social philosophy to give dignity and sustained force to their efforts, and a political strategy adequate to the problem which they faced… …(but he adds) Who is better able to understand the true character of a civilization than those who suffer most from its limitations? Who is better able to state the social ideal in unqualified terms than those who have experienced the bankruptcy of old social realities in their own lives? Who will have more creative vigor in destroying the old and building the new than those in whose lives hunger, vengeance, and holy dreams have compounded a tempestuous passion?... …The disinherited of every age have dreamt of a just society.”

[Special privilege.] “Special privileges make all men dishonest. The purest conscience and the clearest mind is prostituted by the desire to prove them morally justified.”

[Hunger.] “It may be that workers will not turn revolutionists until their present state of misery can be compared with a previous state of comparative security; but it is equally certain that hunger, and not envy or impatience with injustices, produces revolution.”

……..

The following paragraphs are excerpts from John O’Connor’s biography on William Paterson titled “Lawyer and Statesman (1745-1806). Paterson was a first generation American, born in Ireland. His family was of average means; his father was a tin plate worker. He studied at Princeton, then called the College of New Jersey. He later obtained a law degree. He was a signer of the Constitution, a Supreme Court Justice, an Attorney General of New Jersey, and a U.S. Senator. Paterson also authored “The Growth and Decline of Empires.”

On Paterson’s education at the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University)…

“The dual role of the college – to train social and political leaders as well as clergymen – was expressed in the curriculum. Students were required to study mathematics and science along with the classics and theology. This tendency to merge other disciplines with religion was not unusual. America’s best-known revivalists, Jonathan Edwards and George Whitfield, had both recognized the value of such secular studies, providing, of course, that theology remained supreme. As Douglas Sloan has recently explained, “divinity would not supplant the regular disciplines, such as natural philosophy and political philosophy, but it would determine goals and ensure that such subjects be used in the service of society.” This frame of mind was reinforced as the precepts of the Scottish Enlightenment were institutionalized at Princeton by John Witherspoon, who became president of the college in 1768.”

From Paterson’s “The Growth and Decline of Empires.”…

“The rise and fall of empires compose the most curious and interesting part of history,” Paterson began. Moralists characteristically concentrate on why things fall apart, and Paterson was far more interested in the collapse of empires than he was in their beginnings. Like the writers of ancient Greece and Rome, who dealt in idle fictions and “preposterous fables” about the origins of their own states, writers who described the early history of England through the “traditions of the vulgar, the songs of the druids, the fables of the canonized monks” were unworthy of regard. Every legend, “however groundless, that tended to please national vanity was dwelt upon with rapture,” and even accounts that were at first “founded in truth were so worked up and coloured by the pencil of fiction” that they were now useless to the critical observer. “They may aide the flights of the poet,” Paterson continued, but they “degrade the dignity of the historian; they may decorate the pages of the former, but they debase those of the latter.”

With a characteristic blend of rationalism and Protestantism, Paterson turned to the decline of empires: “Though the existence of a state cannot be prolonged beyond the decree of heaven, yet its dissolution may in general be accounted for by natural means.” Subscribing to the organic theory of politics then in vogue, he explained that the causes of decline were inherent in every state. “Physicians tell us, that from our birth there is some peccant humour in the body, which gradually increases, and at length brings on its dissolution: so in the body politick; the principles of death are interwoven in the very frame and texture of every political establishment.”

Invariably some “dead-doing principle” would creep in without the early symptoms being recognized to secretly debilitate and eventually destroy the government. And still worse, whenever a nation reached its crisis stage, “men of a pestilential turn” always arose to satisfy their own interests and “urge on the ruin” of the nation as a whole: “like vultures they hover, to prey upon and devour it.”

To illustrate his point, Paterson turned to the example of Great Britain and to a defense of the British constitution. In a limited monarchy like that of Great Britain, he explained, the way to keep the internal elements of destruction from taking over was to preserve the balance of the constitution and “not to suffer the smallest encroachment, as it will be an inlet to tyranny.” He attacked in no uncertain terms the “shallow politicians and pretending patriots” who clamored about maintaining “ the balance of power among neighboring and independent states,” but at the same time struggled to destroy the balance within the state for their own objectives. It made no difference to him whether the balance was upset in order to increase the privileges of the king of those of the people, for “the first introduces despotism and the latter anarchy, which generally ends in the tyranny of a single person.” Paterson propounded as eternal truth “that all faction tends to tyranny; history evinces, that, whichsoever party prevail, the people are sure to be oppressed… because every party does more or less take humour, prejudice and passion for principle, and therefore the interest of a party and that of a state is for the most party totally different.”

Totally detestable, then, “were those princes and men, who espouse or create a party in order to disunite the people.” “Princes of this cast” could be found in the experiences of modern nations as well as in the annals of ancient history. They “always have some iniquitous scheme in view: They hope perhaps amidst the shock of contending parties to effect what otherwise they could not.” This is an unmistaken reference to George III and his alleged attempts to buy the support of a party in Parliament and subvert the constitution.

This elucidation of this theme brought Paterson to the body of his address and to the explanation that the first “mark of declension” within a state occurs when “grievances though complained of and abuses through petitioned against, remain unredressed; when public defaulters, though accused, and ministers, though impeached, pass unchastized and even unnoticed.”

A case such as this was an indication that one party had become so powerful that it “may deviate most grossly from the known rule of law, and make the most terrible inroads upon the constitution with impunity.” In the tradition of Whig politics, Paterson saw it as the responsibility of the people to remain extremely vigilant and, by petitioning and using the press or whatever means necessary, “to restrain those in power… and in general make them walk in the track prescribed by law.”
….
In his address, Paterson severely criticized ministers who broke in upon the constitution in even trifling ways “to serve a present expedient, or to supply a present exigency… They do it perhaps to procure ease and quiet from some pressing disturbance, perhaps to rid themselves of an instant perplexity, or to allay the tumult and clamour of a vexatious and unreasonable populace.” But once a decision is make to breach the constitution, “one encroachment naturally leads to another, till at length the civil establishment is wholly overthrown.”

Evil and designing ministers could advance their schemes only if the public let down its guard. Paterson himself underscored this key motion: “Slavery is generally preceded by sleep. All history confirms, that times of imaginary security are commonly times of the greatest danger.” He thought that nations like Britain that “hath freedom to lose” should be especially vigilant, and he seemed to chastise his countrymen who were less concerned about the activities of their king and his ministers as he emphasized the “appearance of fatality when a people are at ease and thoughtless, inattentive to the conduct of their rulers, and sunk, as it were, into languor, and a state of insuperable lethargy.”

Paterson described how “an artful prince, abetted by a set of obsequious dependents, generally prepossesses the people in his favor, and does everything in his power to beguile them into a belief of their security, and indeed fairly to lay them asleep. His first acts of oppression wear the semblance of law; he breaks in upon their privileges little by little, and is extremely cautious to clothe everything he does in the venerable garb of legal authority… Danger is then imminent when the appearance of justice is maintained. The form of law is made use of merely to destroy the substance.”

George III had proudly proclaimed himself a constitutional monarch, but, in Paterson’s eyes, he was notorious for using Parliament to achieve his personal ends.
…
Putting aside constitutional questions, Paterson’s address proceeded to consider several lessons of social and political philosophy that could also help to explain the decline of great nations. Among them were the ill effects of standing armies, the unequal distribution of wealth, the multiplicity of laws, and the domestic effects of foreign wars.

It was a most deadly symptom of decline when “a standing army is kept up in times of profoundest peace.” ….”When the mass of common soldiers are made up of persons of no property, and profligate manners, and abandoned principles; when too they conceive themselves as a distinct body within a state, and look upon the interests of the people as opposed to their own; who can think of so mercenary or graceless crew in any other light than as tools of oppression, and instruments in the hands of the enterprising spirit to work out the ruin of a state?”

Next in his catalogue of “dead-doing principles” Paterson listed an unequal distribution of wealth. “The excessive opulence of some and extreme poverty of others” encouraged “perpetual clamour and discord.”
…
Another token of decline was the “multiplicity of laws… which swelled to an enormous bulk, and multiplied to an almost endless variety have a natural tendency to elude justice, introduce chicanery, and keep up a spirit of contention… When laws are too numerous or complicated, or, if they do not err on this score, too vague and obscure, a spirit of litigation will seize upon every class of people, and render life vexatious and troublesome.”
…
Finally, war could presage the internal degeneracy of the nation in a number of ways. If nations, he wrote, “take up arms (which at times is inevitable) it should be on the best motives, and for the justest cause. For war however successfully carried on insensibly exhausts a nation, and endangers its destruction: war interrupts the course of trade, depopulates the country, relaxes the force of laws, and what is still worse, imperceptibly bring on corruption of manners.”… “A rapid succession of expensive wars, arising chiefly from continental connections, has, within less than a century, begot in the British government a new mischief of a terrible aspect. The national debt, the unhappy consequences of long and chargeable wars, is now swelled to an enormous sum, and must fill every breast with the most alarming apprehensions. Already its effects are severely felt; trade is burdened with heavy imposts, and taxes of every kind surprisingly increase. Look forward and a prospect still more dreadful opens to view.” As Paterson saw it, the debt was too great for there to be any hope of paying it off – national bankruptcy was inevitable. Disgrace, confusion, dissension, and ruin would be the result.
…
The final third of Paterson’s address was devoted to an emotional, sermonlike discourse on “luxury and corruption of manners.” … He then launched into a tirade against the evil effects of luxury. “Luxury effiminates and torments the opulent, and tempts the indigent, who are destitute of the means of pleasure, to acquire them by fraud and violence. Luxury turns the brave to cowards, and the industrious to thieves. Luxury begets profusion, profusion begets want, and want begets venality and dependence. A general depravity of manners is the necessary consequence of unbounded opulence, which poisons every rank in life and generally proves the bane of affluent states. The most chargeable superfluities are considered as the necessaries of life; these grow upon us every hour, and people now-a-days cannot subsist without articles, which a few years ago were wholly unknown.”

Although luxury was “dressed up as a virtue” and given names such as “taste, elegance, politeness, fashion,” Paterson was convinced of its sinfulness (i.e. its characteristic of death and decay). In the tone of an evangelical preacher, he attacked the “contagion” beginning “smooth and flowery,” luxury and voluptuousness lull men so that “nothing is listened to but the music of adulation and the song of pleasure.” Conscience and reflection had been silenced “in the roar of obstreperous jollity.” He could only hope for a rebirth of conscience, which “breaks upon the hour of mirth, dashes the brightest joys with sorrow, and pours poison in the bowl of sensuality.” … Temptations of a luxurious life were what led public officials down the paths of corruption. The “insuperable lethargy” he had noted before could be tied to the “enfeebling lull” of luxury.

“Lo! What splendid edifices, what costly furniture, what magnificent apparel, what voluptuous festivity, what luxurioius banquets! The enfeebling lull of music, sprightly dances, gay gardens, splendid theatres, gilded baths, intoxicating masquerades, luxuriant tables, and public gaming houses are now looked upon as innocent and even necessary gratifications. How often are fortunes dissipated, and health impaired in loose festivity, and luxurious enjoyments?”

“We tread close upon the heels of our brethren in Britain, we imitate them in dress, in manners, in equipage, in riot, in voluptuousness, in every softening pleasure and degrading vice. Infatuated Americans! So swiftly to lay hold of every luxurious habit, and so eagerly to lick up every foreign and pernicious vice. Where now is that simplicity in manners and in dress more enchanting far than the false glitter and borrowed refinements?”
…
There was a likelihood that luxury would breed more luxury, but the most frightening possibility derived from the proposal to establish in the colonies a nobility on the Old World model.
…
“Is not a nation far gone in luxury and on the verge of ruin, when places in Parliament are made merchandise and merely bought and sold, when most things are carried by a bare majority often procured by little arts, when electors give up their dirty souls for pay, and when in short corruption is reduced to a system? Is not a nation far gone in luxury, when crowds of prostitutes set themselves up for sale, when the land swarms with spies and parasites and sychophants, when nothing is sought for but wealth to sate avarice, and titles to sate vanity? Is it not an evident token of degeneracy and mark of declension, when pensions are bestowed undeservedly, and taxes multiplied unnecessarily, merely to keep up a number of obsequious dependents, or a legion of rascally tax-gatherers? When trade is fettered with severe restrictions, when the people groan under an enormous national debt, when selfishness, venality, and licentiousness universally prevail, is not the prospect terrible, has it not an appearance of fatality?”
…
“Let Rome, let Athens, let Sparta speak.”

Peace

Jeremy MacNealy

Where there are "Nurse Logs"...

In loss there can be new life.

The old forests, the dwindling numbers that remain, teach us a valuable lesson. They teach us among many other things, that in the death and decay of a fallen tree, the renewing of the forest ecosystem is made possible. Scientists have conducted many studies on this phenomenon in recent years in an attempt to revitalize woodlands depleted by the logging industry. They found that wood decay, such as down wood, tree stumps, diseased fallen branches, and dead trees, are a necessary component of a healthy forest ecosystem. Wood decay provides to the forest many benefits including moisture, nutrients, an important fungus called mycorrhizae, microbes, what are called “nurse logs” (where next generation of trees enjoy growth), as well as habitats for wildlife and insects. And of course a derivative effect of a healthy forest is the enjoyment it brings to our city-centered lives. One of my pleasures in life is the few opportunities a year that I can get away from the hustle and bustle of concrete existence and immerse myself into one of the great deep green worlds where life springs forth in rich abundance, where air is freshly produced, where my legs receive a good burn on soft ground, and where my mind finds renewed interest around every bend in the trail. Without the decay from dead wood -- and the passing on from old to new -- humanity could not enjoy these grand old forests.

In loss there can be new life.

What we know to be true about the forest ecosystem is not too dissimilar from what we experience in our individual lives, in local communities, and in global systems. Take for example, the capitalist “ego”-system. There is no doubt that in the past couple of decades our local communities have experienced tremendous loss from the mass exodus of the manufacturing base to overseas markets. What has been the loss to our communities is the gain to emerging middle classes in China, India, and Brazil. That is good for them; it is of little use to fault other countries for looking out for their national interests. But the loss of so many good jobs here is finally catching up with us. American households are finding it increasingly difficult to find work that can support a family. As a result, more families than ever are necessarily relying on some form of government support to get them through the hard times. But get them through to what? To what end? In late 2008 and into 2009 when our economy rapidly tanked into a recession, there were some who said that we would quickly see a "v-shaped" recovery. These pundits were either purposely lying to the public, or are complete fools. (By the way, the only v-shaped recovery we have seen is on Wall Street -- and of course there is a reason for that, and it goes to the tune of trillions of dollars in bank bailouts, plus the fact that for years now, corporations have relied on growth in developing markets -- the destination of former American jobs -- to make up for stagnate growth here.) For as many who were calling for a "v-shaped" recovery, many more saw ample evidence to support a view of a prolonged period of economic pain. At the heart of this analysis is the simple reality that when good jobs are lost, they cannot be simply regained on a whim and wish.

In loss there can be new life.

One of the challenges that we will face in this country over the next decade is how we will learn to find new economic life through great job loss. Central to this effort must be a focus on completely revamping our education system from the bottom up. Yeah, we've heard pols talk about this for years, but this has been much more talk than action -- it is now at the point of a national emergency. For as much money we have poured into our industrial military complex since the 1980s, we must now set this nation on a new course and begin investing as much time, effort, and resources into our education system. This investment has the potential to become the "nurse log" of new engines of economic growth in the decades ahead. Biotech, nanotech, alternative energy, "green" production -- these industries and others centered on the math and sciences must be the focus of our national attention.

These efforts will be to no avail, however, if the fruit of such focus is once again sent off to cheap labor markets overseas. Coupled with a new level of investment in education, there must be a serious discussion on the appropriate corporate legal structure for this century and beyond. To this end, increasing shareholder rights, particularly minority-holding shareholder rights will be necessary. Further, increasing stakeholder rights will be necessary (here I am referring to the communities and states that provide tax breaks to corporations, as well as the employees who work for the companies and the consumers who rely on their products). Additionally, how business leaders think and conduct business while leading multi-national corporations, must change. I've mentioned this development before, but finally, some of the leading business schools in the country are beginning to introduce business ethics courses into their curriculum. This effort must expand. It should be a requirement for any business major to learn the history of business and particularly the history of the corporate form, including the development of corporate laws. And it should be a requirement to learn ethical analysis and how to properly navigate corporate laws as it interacts with everyday business. This analysis should be some sort of combination, though not exclusively, of Kant's focus on the protection of the individual with Bentham's emphasis on an efficiency calculus.

Every generation is faced with new decisions and challenges. Our generation must come to grips with the destruction wrought from the greed of our parents. The era of "greed is good" is no more. We must find a sustainable path to business practices, one that seeks to meet the aims of profit and purpose; I have called this purpose-driven profitability. We will need to turn to those communities that are hurting most from the flight of American manufacturing to overseas markets. In the many dying towns that dot the rust belt of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and others, we must find innovative uses of old factories and warehouses now left to decay and rot -- nurse logs can be found here. We must turn to the heart of our American cities, dismantled by white suburban flight and American manufacturing flight, and find a new path of opportunity for our urban poor -- nurse logs can be found here too.

The "two Americas" path our parents have led us on -- one in which the luxury of the executive class continues to come at the cost of a basic humane standard of life for the working class -- is not sustainable. Where are the nurse logs of old capitalism -- those dying remnants of a bygone "ego" system and an outdated way of thinking? Where there are nurse logs, let us use our creative energies and love of our fellow neighbors, to find new growth and new hope and new opportunity -- let us find a new sustainable capitalist system, one that is more equitable and more just and more respectful of the dignity of the human being God created.

Peace, and to a New Hope for the New Year. Cheers!

Jeremy MacNealy

Integrity and its Role in Constructive Combat of Corporate Power by United Citizens

Today I was sworn in as a member of the South Carolina Bar. Tomorrow I will be making an argument before a judge at one of the courts here in the Fifth Judicial Circuit. I am very thankful for the many opportunities I will have to speak on behalf of those, who, like me, were not born into this world with a silver spoon and who, unlike me, face far more difficult conditions, daily, than most of us could understand or appreciate. An overwhelming majority of my clients will be low-income (or no income) African-American men and women. This fact says something about the state of America. For one, it says that the idyllic notion of an “American dream” is much more a fiction and fantasy than anything else. It also says that the notion of “American exceptionalism” will find little support in the annals of history. I can quote you passages from historians writing of the Roman Empire 2000 ago, and you would think those words were written about an American Empire 2000 years later, they are so on point; in the days ahead I will share with you these writings and more -- they say something compelling about the rise and fall of empires, as well as the state of humanity. Finally, the fact that an overwhelming majority of my clients are poor black men and women, says something about the state of American business and of American politics that caters to it. American policy, shaped by business leaders, has supported a maximum profit orientation whereby the procurement of the cheapest labor is the name of the game. As a consequence, factories and manufacturing facilities, once good jobs for the average American household, were sent overseas and leaving behind a huge opportunity vacuum for urban workers here. I have been around inner city neighborhoods much in my adult life, and I can tell you from firsthand observation that such destructive American policies have created communities around this nation that are absolutely explosive. State and federal government can continue seeking funds to expand the prison system in a never-ending attempt to quell the volatile condition of these communities, but this policy is not sustainable. Either we change the way business is done in this nation, or this nation will one day feel the wrath from a people facing no hope, forgotten and left behind by global stock market capitalism.

This leads me to today’s discussion. In the previous entry, the analogy of a sailboat was used to invoke three principles that are necessary to compel a craft, as well as a movement, forward: rational and responsible direction, harnessed and applied power, and structural integrity. Remove any one of these three, and it is impossible to move a craft, or a movement, from point A to point B. (Any number of other entities also require direction, power, and integrity -- a nation, an organization, an institution, a company, a community, for example.) So far, more has been said on what is NOT a responsible and rational course of action, than what is. But in eliminating those options that are fundamentally flawed, a more productive option stands out. A right and responsible course of action in the context of public affairs is one that seeks to lead to a more just, more equitable, more peaceful, more sustainable result. This broad paint stroke requires further defining and sharpening. When the discussion of the short history of the American business corporation is picked back up and brought up to the present, at that time certain specifics will emerge.

As for the role of power, it was pointed out previously that no amount of rational discourse or moral persuasion is capable of wresting power from the grip of an entity enjoying superior power positioning. Groups with superior power only relinquish degrees of power when compelled by some form of force; not necessarily violence, but force nonetheless. This fact does not devalue the importance of rational discourse or ethical debate. Modern history has offered ample examples of how power is amplified and sustained by virtue of it being linked to superior rational and ethical positions; it finds validation when accompanied by rationality and justice. Power lacking justice, morality, and responsibility, is most frequently ferocious, ruthless, and ultimately, deficient and destructive. Power linked with justice on the other hand, has staying power; its acceptance by the people provides power sustainability.

I wish to share a few more thoughts on the subject of integrity in this entry. Of the three, integrity is the most difficult for us to wrap our minds around -- yet it is the most important of the three. Sticking with the analogy of a sailboat, if you’ve ever gone sailing or if you have ever seen one in action or if you can imagine, where are your eyes most frequently drawn? The sails, and what lies ahead on the horizon, right? The human eye is generally drawn to power source, and to direction. Our attention is rarely drawn to the hull of the craft; only if water starts gushing in from below, then most definitely, but otherwise, once we are in the boat and moving, little mind is ever given to the hull. One reason for this of course, is because the hull doesn’t stand out naturally in our view when we have a beautiful sail and gorgeous horizon directly in sight. Who stares at a simple wooden hull when there are so many other more interesting things to look at? Another reason ought to be the fact that we have checked the hull thoroughly before putting the craft into the water. This prior inspection gives us a sense of sureness so that once we step into the boat we feel pretty good that it isn’t going to take on water and sink. While it may be the most overlooked part of the craft while in operation, the hull is the most important part of the boat. Direction can be changed, a power source can be interchanged, but without a structurally sound hull, there is neither harnessed power or progressed direction. I conclude, that a nation, a community, a company, an organization, an institution, or a movement, without structural integrity ceases to be a nation working toward direction, a community moving toward a way, a company progressing toward a goal, an organization striving toward an end, an institution reaching toward an objective, or a movement acting toward a dream. Structural integrity is fundamental and foundational to a sustainable entity; direction may be changed, power sources interchanged, but without integrity neither the latter has effect nor the former attained.

The hull represents the structural integrity of the craft -- without structural integrity, no amount of right direction or applied power matters. But the hull does more than simply hold the rudder and the sail together as part of an integrated operating unit. The shape, size and strength of the hull actually expands the capability of the craft’s direction (i.e. expanding what waters it is capable of traversing) as well as determine how much force it can handle. Can a super-sized mainsail attached to a super-tall mast function on a tiny two-person boat? Even if the large mainsail could be unfurled on such an odd looking craft, the slightest breeze would topple the boat end over end into the water. How much power the craft can handle is directly linked to the size, shape, and strength of the hull. Moreover, the size, shape, and strength of the hull directly dictate how far the craft can be taken, and how efficiently it can get there. Would you take a tiny two-person sail to circumnavigate the globe? The mightiest open seas would swiftly swallow up such a puny craft. Even stout ships have difficulty traversing the open seas, but a weak craft has no chance. I submit, that integrity in life and in movements and in organizations is no different. Not only is integrity necessary to hold things together and link power and direction as part of an operational unit, the extent of structural integrity directly determines how much force it can withstand and how much it can apply, and what direction and how far and how efficiently it can get there. Integrity is foundational and fundamental to life.

But what exactly does integrity mean in the context of a public square dominated by enormous global corporations that possess the controls of government, and where the voice of the citizen is rapidly being drowned out? What exactly does integrity mean in the context where global stock market capitalism has had as one of its key traits the practice of ever expanding the pay differential between the executive class and the working class? What exactly does integrity mean in the context where algorithms and super computers manipulate trading activity, taking advantage of the limitations of average everyday investors such that the market begins resembling more a casino than a trustworthy investment mechanism? What exactly does integrity mean in the context where a marginally successful private owner takes a company public and at the benefit of enormous sums of public equity, becomes an instant billionaire? What exactly does integrity mean in the context of large banking institutions after having made a series of failed bets and facing ultimate collapse, were able to manipulate governments in such a way that trillions of public dollars were used to pay off bad bank debts? What exactly does integrity mean when the same bankers then turnaround and pay themselves the largest bonuses in Wall Street history? What exactly does integrity mean when the same bankers, after having just received massive bailouts to compensate for their massive bonuses, then advise the public that it is time for the general public to accept austerity measures and reduce public services for lower income families? What exactly does integrity mean in the context of corporations being awarded by Wall Street for “gaining efficiencies” because for them it means increased profit margins, when what it frequently means to the rest of us on Main Street is that in the process of gaining efficiencies and expanding profit margins, manufacturing was sent to cheap labor camps in third world countries at the expense of paying workers a fair rate? What exactly does integrity mean in the context of a system fundamentally bent toward maximizing consumption for short-term business growth when in the process valuable resources and ecosystems are brought to the brink of total exhaustion? What exactly does integrity mean in the context of a system that says greed is good when every giant of the intellectual, moral, and religious universe has argued the exact opposite? What exactly does integrity mean in the context of a legal system that equates the corporation with a living, breathing human being? What exactly does integrity mean in the context of corporations flush with tons of cash on the balance sheets, while working families are financially strapped and unemployment is on the rise? What exactly does integrity mean in the context of interest rates being manipulated for the sole purpose of enticing citizens to spend more money instead of saving? What exactly does integrity mean when the net result of artificially low interest rates is increased net wealth for corporations and decreased net wealth for citizens? What exactly does integrity mean in the context of political dialogue owned by corporations, having as its aim to present the most extreme voices and radical candidates on television, resulting in heated but empty rhetoric and ultimate political stalemate such that nothing of actual substance and of real change ever gets accomplished? What exactly does integrity mean in the context of cities filled with urban poor, a people born into an environment of hopelessness, born out of a history of enslavement and disenfranchisement, with little hope of a good education, with little hope of a decent job, with little hope of ownership in affordable housing, with little hope of adequate health and medical care, with little hope of sufficient nourishment? What exactly does integrity mean in the context where war is a profit boon for the corporate dominated military complex? What exactly does integrity mean in the context when an increasing number of the largest global corporations have more financial and political clout than a majority of the world’s nations not to mention its citizens? What exactly does integrity mean when what matters most for global business operating in emerging markets such as China and Vietnam is increasing consumer demand and not citizen rights? What exactly does integrity mean in the context of corporations being afforded critical constitutional protections and yet are incapable of comprehending the price paid for such rights and protections? What exactly does integrity mean in the context of a system where cheap labor has been a steady hallmark -- from the use of slaves, to cheap immigrant labor, to cheap illegal immigrant labor, to cheap third world labor? What exactly does integrity mean in the context of a political system where the floodgates of corporate dollars have now been broken wide open for the purpose of driving up the cost of running for political office such that only those who have a chance at winning are those willing to do the bidding of the corporations, or, those who can afford to spend their on fortunes because they have done the bidding of corporations their entire adult life?

I can go on forever.

Integrity in the context of citizens organizing to counter the power of corporations, means to be made strong by time-tested intellectual, moral, and religious giants of human history and by the testing of the spirit and of character that comes from serving the ends of the poor and powerless. This building-up process that is focused on the rational mind, responsible character, and spiritual force, when used to increase durability and expandability of organized citizens, can harness tremendous power and apply awesome force toward a common good -- to fight for a more equitable pay scale, fight for increased ownership, fight for increased minority-holding shareholder rights, fight for increased consumer protections, fight for the right of workers to organize without reprimand, fight for increasing the voice of living-breathing citizens in the political process and softening the volume of so-called corporate citizens, fight for an adequate safety net for impoverished citizens left out and left behind by capitalism, fight for affordable and adequate health and medical care, fight for proper nourishment, fight for protections of finite resources and eco-systems, fight for equitable pay. Absent this deliberate building-up process, our fight is feeble. Currently, we have no fight. We have no fight because we have no integrity. We have allowed ourselves to be led by mental and moral weaklings and spiritual darlings. We are completely subdued by a TV culture that numbs our senses and dumbs our intellect; we are indeed, brain dead with a TV bullet in the head. We are barely recognizable as human, a notch above the dogs, maybe -- but even a dog knows when an intruder nears the house, and barks like hell.

The moral, intellectual, and spiritual giants of ages past concluded that the good life is that which seeks the right life. To be in the fight, to fight for what is right, for what is just, for what is equitable, for what is sustainable, such a life is the good life. If we are not living for these, if we are not fighting for that which promotes a better life for the weak and powerless, we are not actually living. We gain life only so far as we have lost our life for the sake of those who have not in life. Such is the life guided by what is right, is empowered by what is just, and has the strength to withstand adversity by virtue of integrity.

Intellectual integrity, the art of testing an intellectual position against other positions to determine the superiority of positions, is necessary for strength and sustainability. Through a TV culture, sadly we have lost the art of intellectual discourse and dialogue that is necessary to sharpen and define constructive positions. Somehow, this must be regained if we ever hope as a people to move society toward better policies and practices. Without intellectual discourse, ignorance runs hog wild among political leadership and the voting public making it all too easy for corporations to manipulate voting behavior with self-interested, shallow rhetoric and slogans. The people are angry at what is happening on Wall Street and in Washington… Yeah? So the fuck what. Wall Street and Washington can continue to do what it has been doing -- screwing you -- because they know you will not only take it, oddly and comically, you will fight among each other to protect the status quo of the bend-you-over-screwing. They know this because they know the American people are ignorant. Thus, a way to combat the cycle of the ignorant being led by the ignorant and to stop the screwing, is to increase rationality and intellectual discourse.

If the art of intellectual discourse cannot be regained in this TV culture -- and I do have serious doubts about this possibility -- then it may be necessary for those who have gone through the arduous process of intellectual testing and who seek to engage in constructive policymaking, to resort to the positive use of rhetoric and slogan-making for the purpose of exciting emotions of an impassioned but ignorant public. Can the use of simple rhetoric and catchy slogans be done sufficiently enough to maintain the integrity of the message? Given the complexity of the issues involved and the nuanced responses that are needed to address these, I have my doubts about whether over-simplification for the purpose of slogans is productive. Where ignorance is a wild fire, more is required than catchy slogans and cause-oriented rhetoric -- the spirit of a people must be moved. A moving of the spirit can reshape an attitude and redirect an action like no amount of rational discourse or rhetorical dispatches can.

A proper and productive moving of the spirit involves intellectual discipline and moral and ethical understanding -- but it involves more, including a constructive theological framework and a spiritual compass. Unfortunately, much of the American church, to use it as an example, has become intellectually, morally, and theologically ignorant, all for the sake of a “spiritual” experience; meanwhile, the remainder of the American church, while it may possess the faculties of reason and rationality and understand completely the theological underpinnings of justice, its spiritual impotence make it incapable of actually getting a people on fire for justice. With spiritual impotence dominating on one side and intellectual, moral, and theological ignorance dominating on the other, the American church has simply become a destructive source for those hoping to engage in constructive changemaking. For the church to regain an active and constructive role in bringing positive change, how religious leaders are trained must undergo a complete retooling. In ages past, the great universities provided an education that was not so compartmentalized as it is today. A young student could enter the great universities and expect a well-rounded education that included training in theology, law, and the humanities. Nowadays, some students go into a “bible college” and come out with a kumbaya spiritual tune, all the while lacking any capacity to think critically and rationally on matters of theology and the law. Other students go on to seminary to be trained to think critically and rationally in theology, dusting off the old classics by Luther, Calvin, and Barth, yet lack any practical sense of how things are actually accomplished through the art of politics and the practice of law. A good many other students go into the law and are well versed in statutes and case law and the art of argument and negotiation, but are without the ethical and theological backdrop giving such laws and argument moral and spiritual force. Finally, there are the many students who have no interest in the theologies and philosophies of ages past, nor have any interest in legal processes, and instead seek undergraduate and graduate degrees in business. And these eager students quickly learn that business leaders rise to the highest point of stature in society simply by doing one thing -- making more profit than the next guy. Moreover, they learn that the person who is king in business has the means to both pay off lawmakers and purchase airwaves for the aim of reshaping a mindset of a people through propaganda, redefining what is right and wrong, reinventing what is the good life.

In a society where corporations are kingmakers, it is easy to conclude that theologians or spiritual leaders are now of little effect. When I look across the religious spectrum of America, it is hard to argue with this conclusion. Using just the American church as an example (since I come from the Judeo-Christian tradition and it is one I am most familiar with), I see little difference if any between the ways of the church and the ways of Wall Street or Washington. The prominent preachers parading on TV are nothing more than pimps, pushers, and profiteers. These clowns are totally incapable of providing any spiritual or moral force to the problems of the present age. And what of the theologians? Here, there is a deadly entrenchment in old thought and outdated traditions, creating a stranglehold on America’s greatest divinity schools -- the very training grounds for America’s next generation of religious leaders and thinkers. In the halls of the libraries of these great divinity schools, you can find volumes upon volumes upon volumes of dusty works of old by religious leaders of old, debating the most insignificant details. In these same halls you will struggle to find a single useful volume on a practical, nuts and bolts approach to implementing a new strategic business paradigm that is capable of serving the ends of profit and purpose. Some might spend a couple hours a week in church… at most, while those people and many others spend the vast majority of the rest of their waking hours in the workplace -- it seems then, that if the church is to say anything worthwhile at all it ought to have more than a few words on that other 99% of human life that doesn’t entail singing “Jesus love me” tunes in a crusty old cathedral. Call me crazy.

Each day I walked down the halls of one of the great theological libraries, at Princeton Seminary, these words were always with me: “Hebel hebalim, all these things are hebel.” Hebel being a transliterated Hebrew word, that translated literally means vapor, that we have come to define as vanity… so, vapor of vapors, all these things are the most vaporous, or, vanity of vanities, all these things are most vane. These words from the book of Ecclesiastes were with me as I walked among those dusty volumes because I saw not a living word capable of speaking to the real, nuts and bolts, brick and mortar powers of this age -- the corporate power that dominates the public square. It is indeed hard to argue with the conclusion that the religious community has little value to offer to the problem solving process that we must engage in during this age of crisis.

But then… I am reminded of a Moses who led a politically impotent but spiritually powerful group out from the iron grip of Pharaoh’s mighty army, and I am reminded of a Jesus who declared to the Temple powers that the old ways of doing things are finished, and I am reminded of a Martin Luther who defied a Catholic empire, and I am reminded of a Gandhi who defied an English Empire, and I am reminded of a Malcolm X and a Martin Luther King who defied an American Empire. I know these stories well, and I conclude that those who brush off the spiritual leader or the theologian as no longer having effect, are ignorant of history, and more, ignorant of the way of humanity.

It is clearer than ever that business devoid of an ethical compass cannot be sustained. Responsible citizens united, girded by intellectual and moral integrity and spiritual force, must therefore compel big business with persuasive power to seek a new direction toward the twin aims of public purpose and private profit. Citizens of all stripes will be needed in this process of constructive change-making -- including responsible lawmakers, responsible business women and men, responsible ethical thinkers, and yes, responsible spiritual and theological leaders.

Peace.

Jeremy MacNealy

Citizens United to Create Conflict with Corporate Power for the Purpose of Constructive Change

One purpose for the previous blog entry is to provide a small discussion on a framework (also referred to as a lens, a perspective, a worldview, a thought process) to constructively direct imagination, skills, energies, and passions toward complex, multi-faceted issues facing the public today, particularly, a public square ruled by the global stock market-capitalism. Below, I will argue further that a responsible and rational framework providing a proper sense of direction is one of three central parts required to engage in constructive change-making. Much more will need to be said on this topic of a rational framework providing direction than the blog entry in September; I plan to spend more on this important topic in the near future. Until then, I will just add a few more comments on the framework subject before turning to the second integral part -- the role of power, which will be discussed below. Every age, though different, confronts similar fundamental, foundational issues, generally centered on power dynamics, that if not addressed by the people, remain as a barrier to progress. In our age of a public square dominated by corporate power, the central question is, in what ways can the relationship, the power dynamic, between the global corporation, government, and the people be improved so that a productive, cooperative partnership between the three is forged to tackle critical problems, such as extreme poverty, nuclear proliferation, health and medical care, global financial instability, housing, education, environment, etc?

Given the dominance of the corporation in the public square it has become all too easy to dismiss this task as a fool’s errand. This reality is a major reason why roughly 60% of the electorate has disengaged altogether from the public square. There exists today a deep feeling of marginalization of the individual and of the community in the face of a faceless global capitalist machine. At the early stages of stock market-capitalism in America, the workers could put a face to their nemesis. These were the industrialists or capitalist overlords; they were the Vanderbilts, the Fords, the Rockefellers, the Morgans –- there was at one time a human face to powerful industry. Yes, today there are the Gates, the Buffetts, and the Waltons, but these, as wealthy and as powerful as they may be are now dwarfed by the immense size and complexity of modern day global corporations and the global, and often shadowy, capital markets that provide corporations funding. Today the consumer confronts not so much the industrialist as it does an immense industrial and financial complex. Today it is not so much the face of a Vanderbilt or Ford as it is the power and persuasion of corporate trademarks of a GE or Intel, or Google. Today it is not so much the ego of the capitalist overlord as it is a collection of egos caught up in a complex financial organism that is supported by an equally complex legal mechanism. With the rapid growth of corporations, first across municipalities and then across state lines and finally across nearly every national border, the faces of the early industrialists have been supplanted by corporate symbols. Mirroring the rapid growth of the global corporation, central governments have also dramatically increased in size, partly as a shallow attempt to counter the ever-burgeoning power of big business. In the process of an ever-expanding global capitalist machine and ever-increasing size of government, the voice of the people is drowned out of the public square. In response, an overwhelming majority have adopted unhealthy and unproductive frameworks –- a few were noted in the previous blog… the nostalgic, the amnesiac, the fatalist/defeatist, the utopist, etc. However popular these may currently be on babble radio and bobblehead tv, they are fundamentally incapable of bringing about the kind of constructive change we desperately need.

A very broad stroke was painted of the kind of framework that is needed: an everyday, deliberate, focused working out of complex problems to daily take steps toward a more just, more equitable, more peaceful, more responsible and more sustainable society. Broad strokes -- in the days ahead, I will narrow this framework down to more specifics. For now, I will just note that this framework providing rational and responsible direction is only one of three key parts of what is required to bring positive difference in the affairs of the public. Additionally, while I don’t want to give up the good stuff too early, to keep the reader engaged in this thought process, I will give two examples of why this great task we face together is NOT a fool’s errand –- to the contrary, there is very recent evidence from the affairs of global capitalism that suggests this process of constructive engagement is a realizable goal within the grasp of the community of citizens. First, while it is fundamentally true of organizational dynamics (in this case I am referring to the organization taking shape in the legal entity called the “corporate form”) that self interest is the predominant motivation, if not the sole motivation, there is evidence to suggest that the long-term interests of the corporation can be made to be in alignment with the long-term interests of the communities of citizens; otherwise, if they are not, the corporation’s days are terminally numbered to the days remaining of a livable Earth and viable communities of people that inhabit her -- remember, there can be no future in business if there is no future in Earth. As it is in the DNA of corporations to find ways to grow revenue and profit from one month to the next, from one quarter to the next, from one year to the next, from one 10-year business cycle to the next, so too it is in the long-term interests of global corporations to promote sustainable development to ensure long-term business growth. Put simply, with some prodding from the community of citizens and from government, as well as internal guidance from business leaders, the self-interests of the global corporation can actually be turned to work for the interests of the common good. It is possible for the corporation to make money while making a difference. It is possible to do good while doing good business. It is possible to gain profit share while sharing in a common just purpose. In the days ahead I will offer a myriad of examples of businesses doing this very thing today, albeit in limited scale. The aim is to dramatically expand the scale of these sustainability efforts so that they become the very backbone and fiber of the global business enterprise.

Second, while the common citizen has indeed been marginalized over the past 100 years through the tremendous accumulation of power by the global corporation coupled with the increasing size of governments and bureaucracy, the community of people are far from powerless. Pull up the veil, unplug your ear -- the community of citizens have at their disposal great power. Consider for a moment what a highly organized and concentrated protest with consumer dollars can do to the largest, most dominant corporations in the world –- in a matter of days it can shut down the biggest, baddest businesses on the planet. In every crisis there are lessons to be learned. One of the lessons learned from the credit crisis of 2008 is that this entire global capitalist system can be shut down completely over night if the tap of capital runs dry. At the height of the crisis in 2008, both big banks and big businesses were nearing shut down mode and would have come to an immediate halt if it were not for the federal government unilaterally deciding to commit $1 trillion from the public coffers to keep the capital tap flowing. That was not a one-time crisis; read about the Panic of 1907 -- the similarities are eerie. You see, the system we have constructed is one fundamentally built on trust. Dollars are a symbolic representation of that trust. Good news for citizens hoping to regain some power, “trust” dollars are also the lifeblood of corporations. Without capital, corporations die. When credit dries up (which is basically an extension of present capital for future cash flows), when trust dissipates, big business and big banks can be shut down completely. Imagine the implications then if a segment of the voting consumer decided to vote with their “trust” dollars and pull their “trust” capital out of the largest banks, and imagine if the consumer simultaneously used their “trust” dollars in a targeted, strategic boycott of some of the largest corporations -- the capitalist organism would grind to a halt in a very short period of time. I’m talking within months if not weeks or days. This isn’t fiction, folks, it is a fact of the “trust”-based system we have created. Read the remarks of Warren Buffett at the height of the credit crisis in early October 2008 –- he knew better than anyone that this system was on the verge of being shut down entirely if “trust” was not immediately reinforced; in his words, if the government did not step in immediately, it was back to the “stone age.” When faced with this kind of organized citizen-consumer power, big banks and big business can be forced to the public negotiation table. That is power. Now, this is a nuclear option that the consumer possesses in its arsenal, and I am not here advocating for a DEF CON 5 type of response to big business. I am advocating for measured improvements of the system for the betterment of society as a whole. But at the same time it is important for the citizen-consumer to realize that we do have awesome power in our arsenal -- we can turn the lights out on this machine at any time if we so choose. We give the corporation legal and economic life, and we can take away the corporation’s legal and economic life today if we so choose. That is power. And that power provides positioning at the bargaining table.

This second example leads to me the topic of this blog entry –- the organization and concentration of citizen power to create conflict with corporate power…

Before continuing on with the topic of the short history of the American business corporation, it is useful to have at least a short discussion on other integral parts that are needed in this problem solving process. After completing the previous blog, an analogy came to mind that best captures what it takes to compel a productive public movement capable of shifting the public square from its current deteriorating state into an improved, more responsible position: What makes the sailboat capable of going from one point to another point? Is the craft capable? The voyage will end before it begins if the sailboat isn’t seaworthy.

Like most analogies, they are of limited use, so here I will focus on just three essential elements of a seaworthy sailboat each representing three important qualities of good leadership and of a constructive movement: the rudder, the sail, and the hull. The rudder is part of what provides direction to the craft; the previous blog entry is essentially about framing direction -- directing movement responsibly is critical. All the organization fervor and energy in the world is without proper effect if it is not directed in a responsible, constructive manner.

Next, the sail is part of the power source, that which harnesses power (wind) to compel the craft toward an intended direction; setting a course toward a rational and responsible direction does little good if the boat is incapable of being moved in that direction -- at some point in the process, harnessed power and applied force are necessary. Entities possessing a superior power position will not relinquish an ounce of power by intellectual or moral persuasion alone. Power has to be challenged with power; force with force.

Finally, the hull represents the integrity of the vessel; insuring that it doesn’t sink before it starts, that it doesn’t sink when it starts, and that it doesn’t sink before it has arrived. No amount of right direction and harnessed power can ever deliver the boat to the intended destination if it suffers critical structural failure at any point in the voyage. Integrity is a broader concept than how it is frequently thought of, that is personal integrity. Intellectual integrity, for example, the testing of an intellectual position against other intellectual positions, is important to having a strong, sustained movement. Moral integrity, the testing of an ethical framework against other ethical frameworks, is also important to organizational strength. Personal integrity is also important -- how many leaders in the past 12 years alone have fallen out of favor with the public because of a lack of personal integrity? Spiritual integrity also plays a role -- the story of human history is compelled forward by a deep, spiritual longing for a better day and a better way; one of the mistakes of the communists was the attempt to negate this fact by replacing eschatological stories of religion with an alternative eschatological story of the state. A spiritual, or theological, integrity seeks to be tested against other religious-oriented understandings to insure that it can withstand public scrutiny and critical thought. I will speak much more on the kind of integrity I am speaking of in another blog. I will just add here, that integrity requires continual work much like the hull of a wood sailboat requires continual attendance. The wood hull, particularly for a boat that travels salty seas, must receive constant care. A wood hull that does not receive constant care will rapidly deteriorate to the point of being non-functioning and unsalvageable. The aim with a wood hull is not insuring that it cannot be penetrated by water at all; a wood hull is in fact designed to soak up and allow in a little water. The aim is that it not be inundated by water to the point that the craft is no longer seaworthy. To maintain the integrity of the craft, constant work is required; integrity in life is no different.

It is college football season, my favorite time of the year, so I will provide a comparable analogy from football. A smart playbook, a solid scheme, and a good play caller are necessary to direct actions successfully against an opponent. But a playbook is completely worthless without execution through force, without the organized application of power, from one unit of 11 players against another unit of 11 players. Power in the context of football is the ability to force a team’s will on the opposing team; for victory, one must force will on the other. Connected to power is integrity. Strength to apply power must come from hours and hours of practice and physical training. But integrity in the context of football is more than physical training, it is also about organizational strength, about players playing as a team and having a strong bond. A team can have a superior playbook and superior players but if the integrity of the team is not there, it will not properly execute plays, it will not force will, and it will not win.

There are certain qualities favored over others in the formation of a framework that provides direction: intellectual honesty over mind manipulation, rational discourse over empty rhetoric, truth seeking over propaganda making, due diligence over haphazard expedience, historical integrity over agenda-based revisionism, common good over self interest, sustainability over over-consumption, a responsible working out over do-nothing defeatism, constructive engagement over wishful thinking, selfless sharing over selfish greed, love over hate. But even if a group possesses these and has the moral and intellectual high ground, so what? Can a group with limited power simply rely on rationalizing with another group of superior power with the aim to bring a more balance to power? Will a group with superior power relinquish power to the group with less power because it is morally or intellectually persuaded to do so? History says the answer is clearly no. Injustice, the fruit of imbalances in power, ultimately has to be challenged with power and force. Otherwise, there can be no justice. And without justice, there can be no real peace. I cannot reiterate how fundamental this fact is. Just as a sailboat, regardless of a right direction, cannot reach its destination without the harnessing of power, and just as a football team cannot execute plays without the application of force, so too the organized citizen-consumer and organized citizen-voter cannot redirect the ways of global business without applied, focused power. Ultimately, power must be confronted with power; force must be confronted with force.

The board of directors and executive officers of a corporation may in a limited sense come to the rational conclusion that implementing certain sustainable practices is good for business. There are numerous examples of this in fact -- McDonald’s and sustainable fisheries, Cemex and affordable housing, Shell and alternative energy research and development, Cisco and energy efficiency software. Moreover, whole industries may come to certain rational and responsible conclusions that show both a benefit to the bottom line and a net benefit to society, and act accordingly. But these responses have only been limited so far -- traditionally, these have been mere tokens of goodwill for the purpose of gaining greater goodwill from the consumer. A corporation in competition with other corporations will not make the sacrifice of greater profit share merely because a particular course of action may be the right ethical response; a corporation that does so will ultimately be beaten out by the corporation that does not relinquish profit share by moral persuasion alone. For this reason, it is necessary to engage the practices of global business as a whole, rather than piecemeal. But to do this, foundational, structural, legal issues have to be addressed. Statutory and regulatory effects can only be accomplished by properly motivating the politicians. Self-preservation is the primary interest of politicians. To preserve their positions (as well as line up future token positions) requires money, lots of it -- that’s where corporations come in. Since politicians on both sides of the aisle do the bidding of corporations, finally, the organized citizen must engage global business in its entirety in order to effectuate real change. And to do this, organized, concentrated, sustained power must be used, and likely must be used on a global scale. Big business can only relinquish power when persuaded with overwhelming power; moral and intellectual persuasion simply will not do. Force of some sort must be used to create conflict and to effectuate change. History teaches us this fact over and over again. Without force applied to those who hold superior power, a more balance of power can never be attained. Conflict must be created. This harsh reality does not sit comfortably with some who believe that the most powerful entities can be compelled to right direction with mere moral and intellectual persuasion, who believe that conflict should be avoided at all costs, who believe that the use of power can only culminate in destruction. Those who hold to these positions have a misconceived notion of “peaceful” measures to bring change. Accordingly, their notion of “conflict resolution” is desired over conflict creation, their notion of peace is desired over the use of force, their notion of moral and intellectual high ground is desired over an improved actual, physical high ground. What good is a bad peace when there is such strife and discontentment in impoverished communities? A bad peace is no peace at all. What good is a misconceived moral or intellectual high ground when the disenfranchised are living down in the gutter? A misconceived moral high ground is no moral high ground at all. Bad peace and misconceived moral high grounds are nothing more than pitiful illusions to make those living comfortably in society feel more comfortable about their prestige, place and position.

Conflict creation, the application of force to force, is needed to bring a desired just peace and a better place and position for those who have been left behind by global stock-market capitalism. Here I am not meaning violent conflict. Conflict comes in numerous forms. It comes through a majority vote that outnumbers a minority vote by the slimmest of margins. It comes through organized non-violent sit-in protests. It comes through the concentration and organization of labor. And it comes through the organization of consumer capital in the form of targeted boycotts to manipulate corporate and hence, government, action. In earlier discussions on the history of the business corporation, we saw how the first recorded boycott was used effectively in the 1700s to convince merchant traders to no longer sell sugar produced from slave labor. Fast-forward to the 1990s, Nike came under a similar onslaught by the public for its labor practices in third world countries. The intense public pressure resulted in Nike changing some of its corporate behavior and implementing some sustainability practices. Powerful corporations will only change their ways for the better when faced with powerful, organized citizens.

Many issues were raised in this blog that will need to be fleshed out in much greater detail in the near future. But these words are enough to chew on and think over until then. I want to conclude with a short discussion on time and timing. It is true that there is no better time than now, there is no better place than here, to bring positive change for those people who are left out and left behind by global business. There is no better time than now for justice. This is true. It is also true, as history has shown us time and time again, that it takes a certain level and scale of frustration to compel people to organize for the purposes of effectuating positive change. In the late 1800s with the early beginnings of the concentration of capital, we saw the early concentration of labor as workers were discontented with poor factory conditions, unreasonably long work weeks, and cheap, undercutting pay rates to Chinese rail workers. Before the American worker could be compelled to organize, it took a certain level of frustration on the factory floor. Similarly, the citizen as consumer and as voter and as worker and as shareholder, will only be compelled to become organized for the sake of constructive change when the conditions of the economy have deteriorated to such a level that the only course of action remaining is that leading to conflict with corporate power. As citizens, we have not arrived at that point, yet. Our day and time is still too consumed with television, too consumed with the internet, too consumed with clothing, too consumed with big houses, too consumed with vacation homes, too consumed with working to pay off the other things that consume us to care too much about the deteriorating state of politics and of the public square. At some point that will change -- history reiterates that fact -- but that time is not now. The task thus becomes one of preparation for that day.

Peace

Jeremy MacNealy