I was seduced twenty-five years ago. It didn’t take long. From Monday 19 October to Friday 30 October, it took just 12 days to win me over. I was in Wye Woods, Maryland, and I was ready and willing, ‘hot to trot’! In case you’re already wondering, my wife was with me, and my seducer was a fragile 66-year-old man.[i] Ready and willing? I was ready to go back to where I had been in 1965, and more than willing to do it again. I was taking part in one of The Aspen Institute’s Executive Seminars.
Alright, that was a bit silly. I am referring to the time when I rediscovered the insights that come from reading great writers and the power of learning through moderated discussion. Today, reflecting on the silver anniversary of that seminar, I was reminded of Jim O’Toole, one of the regular moderators at The Aspen Institute, and his paper on ‘The Four Poles of the Good Society’ (later published as one of the chapters in his book ‘The Executive’s Compass’)[ii]. As a way of helping participants in the Institute’s Executive Seminar, it made a simple but telling point: good societies aren’t one thing or another, they are always a compromise between equally compelling alternatives. In his analysis, there were two particularly important tensions, between individualism and community, and between equality and efficiency. You can imagine these two sets of extremes defining a space of possibilities, and a good society as an ever-changing balance, from time to time shifting to a different point on each of the two continua.
Where is the balance today? It seems to me that we are moving much closer to two end points, placing greater emphasis on individualism, and on efficiency. America has always been a country that champions individual rights, and which place great emphasis on maximising returns and minimising costs. As such it appears to offer an excellent case study in considering the nature of a good society, and might illustrate a timely warning as to what happens when we move too far from the middle ground of compromise.
But I began these remarks by saying I was seduced. For twenty-five years I have continued to base much of what I do on what I rediscovered that late Autumn. I use moderated discussion as often as I can, as a way to introduce others to ideas and perspectives that may help them in their lives and work. I re-introduce men and women, managers and administrators, the self-employed and the unpaid on home duties, and students and retirees to reading and to thinking. I abandoned talking about the world of ‘ploc’ in 1992 (the acronym much loved by many managers – plan, lead, organise and control’, a world I never lived in!) for the seductive land of ‘star’ (study, think, act, re-examine’). I’d like to think I’ve enabled others down that path.
Seduced? Perhaps I need to stand back, and think again. It could be argued the nature of society has changed so much that these ‘poles’ of a good society make little sense. It seems we might be witnessing two competing attempts for our attention: the Scylla of “Yes We Can” and Obama’s attempt to create a good society, and the Charybdis of “Make America Great Again” and Trump’s attempt to restore the way things were. Are both like sirens, dragging us off course?
Does an Executive Compass help? Perhaps not. Seduction can blind you to flaws! Who goes to The Aspen Institute? The good and the great: that should have been sufficient warning.
Before I continue, I notice that many articles today about a book or a film use the term ‘spoiler alert’, to warn you might not want to know what is about to be revealed. So here is your spoiler alert. In the next few paragraphs, I am going to try to see the world as many Trump supporters and people on ‘the right’ of politics do – and justify it!
Is America the epitome of individualism? Critics from the right claim it is not. They seek to save individual rights against what are seen to be two unrelenting, crushing forces. One is government, with its desire to regulate and control. The other is big business, exploiting workers by outsourcing manufacturing to cheap labour overseas, employing migrants rather than the locally born. Both have to be resisted to save the country from moral and economic decline.
At present, two constitutional rights are the focus of attention. One is the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Many see this bundle of rights under threat. The government has taken steps to make abortion and gay marriage legal, acting against “god’s word”.[iii] For people who fought in wars to save and promote democracy and the American way of life, these threats are a repudiation of what was being saved. That roadside sign says it all very clearly: the soldier kneeling before a religious cross “all gave some, some gave all”; they were fighting for god and country, and now the country is tossing god aside.
As we recover from the latest massacre, a shooting spree in Las Vegas, many continue to be concerned about threats to the Second Amendment, that curiously worded statement: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. The focus is on the second part of that amendment, and they fear the government is trying to take that right away. Many of these same people do accept that this does not mean a right to own machine guns, or even the oddly named ‘bump stock’ that turns a rifle into a machine gun style of weapon. However, they also will point out that “guns don’t kill people, people do”. You might not agree with that view, but it resonates in rural areas. The freedom to own a gun (or guns) is now seen as a bellwether over the government seeking to restrict the rights of the individual.
Yet another sign of the government’s encroachment on individual rights concerns vaccination. Vaccination is seen as dangerous[iv]. It conflicts with the views of a number of religions[v]. Perhaps, most fundamentally, many believe the government should not intervene in personal medical choices, both conflicting with the First Amendment. It’s about liberty, succinctly expressed in John Stuart Mill’s view that “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign”[vi].
Against these views, the response from the other side of politics is often the simple statement “you’re wrong”. That’s provocative and unhelpful. It is clear that ‘representative democracy’ can lead to the election of governments which can exercise the ‘tyranny of the majority’. That is why individual rights are important. But when the rights of one minority conflict with the rights of another – gay rights up against religious rights – then we face an impasse, especially if we emphasise rights without accepting obligations. Surely, my right to live the way I want has to be balanced against my responsibility to accept diversity. Once more we can turn to what Mill said: “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others”[vii].
Many from the right are concerned about the loss of jobs, increasing unemployment, the steady shift of many manufacturing activities overseas (where, quite correctly, these critics can see the work is done more cheaply), and the employment of immigrants willing to work for low wages. In this case, where the concern is about an individual’s ability to get a job (a well-paying job), the government is criticised for lack of action, not for inappropriate encroachment on individual rights. It should be closing borders, and making firms carry out their activities onshore, stamping out ‘outsourcing’.
These critics articulate and channel the experience of many living in rural areas, where concerns over the loss of rights and outsiders taking over are compounded by a sense of decline. Roads are deteriorating, schools are poorly resourced, businesses are moving to the big cities, and the largely white residents feel they are ignored while they believe support goes to ‘people of colour’. To compound all these indicators, there is little doubt that income inequality is increasing, as the affluent are becoming increasingly affluent.[viii]
To repeat: for many of these people, their experience is about decline, depression and disadvantage, and they see their plight. the plight of millions, is easily ignored by government and the urban rich. As communities decline, so do services. Health, welfare, and education are all slowly disintegrating. The quality of life is deteriorating. If they still cling on to the American Dream, epitomised by Horatio Alger’s stories of going from rags to riches, those living in the terminal areas of America are coming to terms with the reality those opportunities are shrinking, possibly disappearing altogether for the foreseeable future.
Have I made my point? It is easy to criticise the views of those on the right. However, if we try the difficult task of standing in their shoes (setting aside the ravings of extremists), their views are neither senseless nor ideological. Moreover, in trying to understand what is happening through the framework of the four poles of a good society, it is not so easy to claim that the country is slipping towards individualism rather than community. The rugged individualism that characterised the pioneer years has long gone, and individualism today is a contested, confusing space.
How are the concerns of many on the right being heard? What are the comments from those on the other side? Those on the right are told that guns are killing more and more Americans. That isn’t true, (and while the number of mass shootings is increasing, they still represent a very small proportion of all gun related deaths). America does have a very high rate of gun killings, more than twenty times the rate in other affluent countries. However, if you support the right to carry a firearm, you know it is people who kill people, and you will need a gun to protect yourself. That’s where the trouble sits, other people, people who are terrorists, people who are ill (or ‘evil’), people who have lost hope (and it is still the case that more gun deaths are suicides than any other reason, accounting for around two thirds of all gun related deaths[ix]).
They are told that government regulations stop companies investing in rural areas, regulations over fossil fuels and pollution, regulations over occupational health and safety. Wouldn’t it be better to ease back on these, so at least there are jobs? They hear people from the left talking about gay marriage, transgender youth, and cultural appropriation. These are ideas antithetical to many of the churches that hold these communities together. Those people from the left are not ‘God-fearing’ and they should be. I could continue, but I am sure you get the point. Most of the people I have put in this loose category of ‘on the right’ are neither illogical nor stupid. Fearful?
Yes. Sometimes credulous? Yes. Understood? A lot of the time, the answer is no.
Because you are still reading this, you are almost certainly from the left, in my simple model of American society. Do I need to carry out the same kind of description of views I did for those on the right? I don’t think so. Quickly, they are the opposite of the views outlined above. Abortion is a choice to protect the reproductive rights of women (as well as dealing with rape and other unwanted sexual activity). Transgender and gay individuals are members of society, and are entitled to the same rights as everyone else. High rates of gun ownership are clearly linked to high rates of gun deaths. Immigration has been one of the major drivers of growth in the economy. Cycles of business disruption occur regularly, and are the result of innovation; innovation which brings us new products and services, and keeps American companies in world leadership positions.
Yes, my explanation is simplistic, painting a picture of two worlds, each poorly understanding the other, with little common ground. My point is the division is not about individuality having primacy over community, as both sides seek a greater attention to individual rights. Nor is it about a greater emphasis on equality. Both sides want a fairer world. A sociologist might argue we are facing anomie, usually described as a condition of instability found in societies “resulting from a breakdown of standards and values or from a lack of purpose or ideals”. We certainly lack common values, standards and purpose today,
The problem with talking about ‘poles’ is that there are only four of them. If O’Toole’s critique is valuable, it was in drawing our attention to the idea good societies aren’t one thing or another, they are always a compromise between equally compelling alternatives. If it is unhelpful, it is in limiting the areas of compromise.
Where is the critique of Oligopoly, a market structure in which a small number of firms has the large majority of market share? An oligopoly is similar to a monopoly, except that rather than one firm, two or more firms dominate the market, as a result of which they can greatly influence price and other market factors: oligopoly versus free markets. In understanding that world, we might need another pair of opposed characteristics – perhaps they are orthodoxy versus innovation. Orthodoxy is about groupthink, the tendency of corporations to see the world through their eyes, to be rigid and controlling. This is the world we see created by companies like Facebook and Google. Innovation is where new ideas are pursued and supported. This is the process we are told is being sustained by companies like Facebook and Google. Funny that.
Where is the critique of Plutocracy, where a country is governed by the wealthy, and power is provided by wealth? I saw, with a grim smile, the cartoon in my local paper today: the two State senators for North Carolina are being asked to comment on the shooting in Las Vegas and the need for gun control. They can’t reply, because both have their mouths stuffed full of money (they are the second and fourth senators ranked in terms of donations given by the NRA). Democracy versus plutocracy. At least I am clear about this one: the balance is way over to plutocracy. The current president and his gang must comprise one of the most venal governments this country has ever seen. Ruled by the mercenary.
Yes, I was seduced. The four poles model is a comfortable one to explore, as it downplays the realities of exploitation by governments and business, and glosses over the self-interested motives of those in power. It made good sense in the seemingly untroubled world of the 1990s, a framework to measure progress to a better society. Comforting for businessmen and public servants: it’s just a matter of twirling the dials!
Wrong: it’s all there in the Aspen readings; we just have to pay attention! Glaucon and his story in The Republic, where Gyge’s ring is about self-interest as the driver of behaviour. Thucydides in his history of the Peloponnesian War, describing the power politics of the Athenians as they crush the Melians. It’s a multi-polar world, and we need to spend more attention to some of the other poles: plutocracy as opposed to democracy; oligopoly as opposed to the free market. Maybe even deeper than that: we need to return to a critique of capitalism and the role of money, and toss away that shonky stuff Locke wrote defending private property. Can we save humanity from the ills of today? Stop treating companies as if they are people, and money as the measure of all things. Go back to examining what’s happening. Read. Think. Good or great – or is it too late?
Seduced and then abandoned, but I’m still thinking! Maybe I should end on a lighter note. Checking on definitions, I came across a form of government I had not encountered before: capracracy[x]. What is it? Rule by goat. The comment “without a doubt, the most superior form of governance known to man or to goat”. Perhaps that’s all we deserve!
[i] Charles van Doren was the moderator of The Aspen Institute Executive Seminar, held at their campus on the shores of the Chesapeake. He had become famous in 1957, as the contestant in Twenty One, a quiz show, in which he admitted he had been ‘coached.’ Whatever his past, as a seminar facilitator, he was superb.
[ii] The Executive’s Compass, Oxford University Press, 1995
[iii] I know that many church leaders do not share these views, but many others do. Their congregations can quote biblical text which makes it clear marriage is between a man and a woman, that abortion is murder.
[iv] There are risks. CDC, “Possible Side-Effects from Vaccines,” www.cdc.gov, Feb. 4, 2014. They are very low probability, but they exist.
[v] Universal Family Church, “FAQ,” www.universalfamilychurch.org (accessed June 11, 2014)
[vi] From Chapter 1 of ‘On Liberty’
[vii] Ibid. Incidentally, He tended to talk about men. This was before Harriet Mill helped him realise that men and women should be seen as equal!
[viii] A good summary of trends can be found here: https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality
[ix] A useful summary is provided by FiveThirtyEight based on Centre for Disease Control data. Males account for 85% of suicides, more than half are aged over 45. See: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/
[x] See: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_forms_of_government
