|
201 - The Ethics of Democratic Capitalism: a Moral Reassessment |
The Ethics of Democratic Capitalism:
a Moral Reassessment
By Robert Benne
Philadelphia, Fortress, 1981. 267 pp. $10.95.
"The prescriptions of the right are being played out by the current administration. The wraps are being taken off the larger private corporate impulses while government is withdrawing from concerns of the public sphere. We are going to rely more and more on the private sphere. Even some of the traditional limiting contexts are being weakened. The strong are given freer rein with the assumption that as they grow stronger they will carry the weak with them.... We press with more uncontrolled momentum into a future that cannot under those conditions be gracious". No, this is not a passage taken from a 1982 source. It is the author and Philip Hefner from Defining America (1974, p. 89), where they pointed out that the defenders of the right came primarily from the established controllers of wealth, who understandably thought that the free expression of their own interest would benefit all.
The present work could be read superficially as though the author had simply flipped over to embrace positions he had earlier criticized. Yet this would misread a helpful and important book that shows fundamental continuity with the previous volume while moving moderately to the right.
Professor of church and society at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, Berme closed Defining America in quest of a spiritual regeneration of America that would overcome our blindness to caring and belongingness. We needed concern for the quality of our public ethos and new thought about the theoretical and practical relation of freedom and control. The product of his new and further thought about this practical relation brings us a strong defense of the promise of democratic capitalism. His thesis, modestly stated, "argues that the combination of democracy and market economy peculiar to the United States is a morally defensible arrangement."
The author calls the book "a polemic against easy dismissals", directed at those who "seem to have so little sense of proportion in their judgments of American society". He cites, for example, the statement by American theologians at the Bangalore meeting of the World Council of Churches' Faith and Order Commission, characterizing American society as "an overall system which causes loss of dignity for all", maintaining that "relative success" is in fact normative in Ameri-
|
|
202 - The Ethics of Democratic Capitalism: a Moral Reassessment |
can democratic capitalism - and this accounts for its persisting legitimacy.
His criteria of judgment for the realities and possibilities of American democratic capitalism come from the political philosophy of Reinhold Niebuhr and John Rawls. In his interpretation of Niebuhr, he points out that the fundamental cause of human egoism is inherent in the internal conditions of human nature itself. Sin is the universal condition of all individual and corporate existence, and no segment of human life is free of it. This basic Niebuhrian anthropology is linked to Rawls' concerns for justice as fairness. For the author, this calls for the equal distribution of basic liberties and a distribution of wealth that need not be equal, but must benefit the least favored persons. Liberty and equality are the main goods to be distributed fairly, and the best way to ensure them for each interest group and the members of the group is to maintain and, where necessary, establish external and internal balances of power. Within this perspective of society, power is as diffuse as possible, while the natural balances are exploited for all they are worth.
Both Niebuhr and Rawls expressed fears that the economic value of efficiency had eclipsed other more important values. The author is not indifferent to these concerns, but feels that we may err in not sufficiently appreciating values of efficiency and growth. He feels that it is irresponsible to denigrate the value of efficiency, stating that a society without sufficient economic efficiency will have an almost negligible chance of achieving both Rawlsian principles of justice.
Berme is aware that there will be severely disadvantaged persons under the democratic capitalism he defends. Rawls holds that the allocation of talents is arbitrary and should be compensated for by strategies of redress. Yet the author says that "only the mentally retarded or handicapped fall under this kind of stipulation". He does, however, support the negative income tax proposal of Paul Samuelson, which he feels would significantly mitigate poverty and inequality and replace much of present welfare assistance that destroys incentive.
The work concludes with an essay built around the writings of Daniel Bell, who finds our modern culture a shambles, characterized by market hedonism, adversary culture, and government entitlements. "American capitalism", says Bell, "has lost its traditional legitimacy, which was based on a moral system of reward rooted in the Protestant sanctification of work." He feels that this Protestant ethic provided the moral foundation for society. Benne, I believe, wants to recapture what he calls "the healthier aspects of the Protestant Ethic and the American Dream." He certainly feels that American democratic capitalism has considerable gifts and possibilities. We need have no ultimate commitment to its present form, but "we should have a more abiding commitment to the principles of justice it partially embodies, and insist that whatever replaces it will offer at least as many gifts and possibilities."
He believes he has defended capitalism even by the tests of Rawlsian justice. Others, however, including Rawls, would see a broader pattern
|
|
204 - The Ethics of Democratic Capitalism: a Moral Reassessment |
of compensatory strategies as necessary. They may find his remark that high native ability does not necessarily lead to" high income, nor does modest ability lead to economic deprivation" a true but limited perspective that conveys a cool, detached, and perhaps insensitive rugged individualism.
Benne's introduction points out that the basic manuscript was finished before the election of Ronald Reagan, whose policies he finds "deficient in their concern for justice." He may find, however, that his book will have impact chiefly in ways that support rather than challenge these programs. He may even find himself celebrated in circles that leave him uncomfortable.
This book serves many readers and will be widely discussed. It is much heavier in affirmation of democratic capitalist practice than it is in criticism, both of which the author sees as necessary. It is, however, clearly written and fairminded. It succeeds beyond being "a polemic against easy dismissals" and makes a notable contribution to the serious moral discourse we need.
Rodger Van Allen
Villanova University
Villanova, Pennsylvania