Saturday, February 3, 2018

A Tale of Two Ideas (With apologies to Charles Dickens)

It was the best of ideas,
it was the worst of ideas,
it was from an age of reason,
it was from an age of greed,
it was from an epoch of belief,
it was from an epoch of incredulity,
it was from a season of light,
it was from a season of Darkness,
it was the spring of hope,
it was the winter of despair,
it was an age of Enlightened Self-Interest,
it was a time for Rational Selfishness.


Prior to rise of republican forms of government (note small r) in Europe, power was in the hands of the aristocracy whether it was by birth or property.  This aristocracy could be either monarchial and oligarchical.  Most people belonged to the working class who had no power to influence their lives.  Within these systems developed the concept of “noblesse oblige” where it was the responsibility of the privileged to act with generosity and nobility toward the less privileged. 

Noblesse oblige was a mixture of altruism and self-interest.  There was a certain level of pity that led the upper crust to sweep a few crumbs off the table for those beneath them.  But mostly, the privileged recognized that there were more working-class folks than aristocracy.  It was in their self-interest to buy the loyalty of those who waited on them and made their lifestyle possible.  Traditions like Boxing Day and charity hospitals developed out of this self-interested altruism.

However, following the Enlightenment and the formulation of the “Rights of Man” these old aristocratic monarchies and oligarchies began to fall.  They were replaced by systems that shifted the power to representatives who were elected by the people.  These republican democracies began to emerge throughout Europe and their colonies throughout the rest of the world.  Some maintained their aristocratic roots such as England.  But most began to remove official recognition of the aristocracy and populism emerged that, in theory, denied that there was a privileged class.  “All men are created equal, with certain inalienable rights…”

With the loss of any officially recognized aristocracy the idea of noblesse oblige began to lose favor.  And so, the need arose to provide for those who were “less fortunate” than others.  Note that the language was about fortune, not choices.  It was about being the victim of ill fortune.  The belief was that everyone was equal, but some folks did not have the good fortune to be born rich.  Others experienced unforeseen and undeserved circumstances like illness or accidents or old age.  How were these people to be cared for in a society that was becoming increasingly wealthy with a growing middle class? 

In 1831, Alexis de Tocqueville was sent by the French Government to come to the United States to examine the prison system.  He visited a few prisons but also traveled throughout the US.  In 1835 he published two volumes of On the Democracy in America.  In the second volume he wrote “I do not think upon the whole that there is more egotism amongst us (France) than in America; the only difference is, that there it is enlightened—here it is not.  Every American will sacrifice a portion of his private interests to preserve the rest…”  Noblesse Oblige had become what later writers would call Enlightened Self-interest.  In essence it was Noblesse Oblige for the masses.

Enlightened self-interest became part of the social ethic.  It touched on every walk of life.  It grew out of a frontier culture where everyone had to sacrifice if the community was to flourish.  Schools were built.  Doctors were brought to town.  Clinics and hospitals were built.  Businesses recognized that they needed to provide for the needs of the people if they were going to stay in business.   Churches became centers for philanthropy as they provided care for the “unfortunate.” 

Unfortunately, this enlightened self-interest worked too well.  It raised all the boats in the harbor.  But some boats started to experience the effect of “super-abundance,” having more than they need and feeling entitled to it!

When we have more than we need, we would rather invest it and begin earning unearned income than give it away.  This leads to a sense of entitlement based on self-assumed merit.  Our blessings that had been shared became earnings that must be hoarded.  The “unfortunate” became the “undeserving” because they did not have the good sense to save.  Whenever we begin to feel we have more than we need and deserving of what we have, we become less generous and seek ways to keep more of our “hard-earned” wealth.

The opposite of enlightened self-interest is unenlightened self-interest, or, more simply, greed.  It says that if everyone looks after their own self-interest then society, as a whole, will prosper.     The old idea of “the invisible hand” that is attributed to Adam Smith justified laissez-faire economics of the 19th and early 20th centuries.  Ayn Rand called it “Rational Selfishness.”  Some believe that Rand elevated “egoism to a moral principle.”  In the latter half of the 20th Century it became known as “Supply Side Economics.”  Others called it “Trickle Down.”

The gradual drift from Enlightened Self-Interest to Trickle Down has created a society that is callous to the needs of our neighbors and has lost sight of our need to share with the unfortunate in our society.  Poverty became a choice people made.  Misfortune became the consequences of poor choices.  Public morality has become a quaint idea that belongs to another time.  We have gone from Enlightened Self-Interest to Rational Selfishness and have become impoverished along the way.  It seems we can’t afford to be concerned about our neighbor any longer.

Bob Dees


No comments:

Post a Comment