I would like to extend my appreciation to ESR for hosting the Willson Lectures, to David Johns for arranging Joerg Rieger’s visit, to Rieger himself for coming all the way to Richmond and presenting, and to Mandy Ford for working to make the lectures available for viewing online. I believe that Rieger’s goals are noble, and his analysis prompted me to give more significant thought to important questions than I would have otherwise. That’s a good outcome for the Willson Lectures, and I am confident that my experience is not unique.
Overall, my main response to Rieger’s lectures was of wanting more – a more robust critique of empire and economics, and more clear paths forward. After reading his book No Rising Tide in preparation for his visit, I couldn’t help but feel that the lack of clarity regarding the clear distinction between free markets and the interventionist chaos we are faced with today undermined both his analysis of economics as well as
the validity of the conclusions he reached. My hope as I arrived to listen to Rieger in person was that he would move beyond the limitations of that text. Unfortunately, this hope was left unfulfilled. From the economic side, I stand by my initial critique of Rieger’s No Rising Tide as he offered little during the lectures to indicate that he does not in fact conflate free markets with a mercantilist system whereby “groups with political power use that power to secure government intervention to protect their interests while claiming to seek benefits for the nation as a whole.” This creates a significant problem in the solutions he presented at the Willson lectures – the political side of his analysis – grow out of this conflation.
As I read No Rising Tide, I was struck repeatedly both by the lack of clear steps toward the new reality Rieger envisions and by an all too uncritical approach toward public policy. He notes that “politicians are democratically elected by the people, while business leaders are not,” as if this puts an end to the discussion about corruption in government, and asks with genuine astonishment, “why would ‘government’ want to take just anything from its citizens, and who is ‘government’ in a democracy if not the citizens?”
These themes were again evident again in the lectures. Few concrete solutions were presented, and those that were raise more questions than real answers. He spoke several times about the importance of community gardens and labor unions, for instance, but it is difficult to see how these alone will begin to transform an empire and economic system that is so pervasive and domineering. His very limited comments on war and their connection to empire and economics should disturb any Friend. His assertion that when Jesus tells his disciples to tell John that the sick are healed and the blind can see is an affirmation of nationalized health care is an impressive leap. At one point during the
Q&A period, he was asked how high unemployment should be addressed, and he suggested significant expansion of public sector jobs. One must ask at this point why someone who speaks to “bottom up” power employs such “top-down” solutions through the state. The essential narrative that Rieger appears to operate out of is one in which the state is there to protect us from corporations. But while I would agree that the empire and economics as they exist today are pervasive and domineering forces in our lives, I wish that Rieger would expand the scope of his definition of empire to include democratic states that collude with business interests.
His appreciation of democracy coupled with his disdain for corporations seems to prevent him from correctly identifying the crony capitalist nature of our economic system. This in turn prevents him from offering a response to empire-as-state that recognizes the incentives within the empire to expand the scope of its power whether employing the language or free markets or that of progressivism. Sadly, therefore, the very remedies he suggests only serve to feed empire further.
In 1978, economist James Buchanan coined the phrase “politics without romance” to describe what he was trying to develop at the time – public choice theory. As Buchanan further elaborates, “Armed with nothing more than the rudimentary insights from public choice, persons could understand why, once established, bureaucracies tend to grow apparently without limit and without connection to initially promised functions. They could understand why pork-barrel politics dominated the attention of legislators; why there seems to be a direct relationship between the overall size of government and the investment in efforts to secure special concessions from government (rent seeking); why the tax system is described by the increasing number of
special credits, exemptions, and loopholes; why balanced budgets are so hard to secure; and why strategically placed industries secure tariff protection.” In order to build upon the work he has already undertaken, deepen his critique, and point readers toward solutions that begin to sever the ties between empire and economic interests, I would encourage Rieger to further explore public choice theory. As Buchanan argues, “Regardless of any ideological bias, exposure to public choice analysis necessarily brings a more critical attitude toward politicised nostrums to alleged socioeconomic problems.” If Rieger or others seek to strengthen their understanding of the connections between empire and economics, I would suggest Anthony de Jasay’s The State and Robert Higgs’s Crisis and Leviathan.
One of the definitions of theology is “faith seeking understanding.” During his lectures, Rieger issued a call for truly understanding the nature of the world around us so that we can be effective agents of change. Here’s where I would agree with him wholeheartedly. If at least part of our faith involves helping to bring about a more just and humane world, then there is no time to waste.
Matt Hisrich is the Ministerial Advocate for Indiana Yearly Meeting. He lives in Richmond, Indiana, with his wife and two daughters, and is a member of First Friends Meeting there. Matt is a graduate of Hillsdale College in Michigan and ESR, where he received his MDiv in teaching and theology. Prior to enrolling in seminary, he worked with non-profit public policy organizations in Indiana, Kansas, and Ohio.
Matt,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your critique(s) of Rieger’s work, both in print and in person.
I agree with your assessment of the tendency to evaluate fiercely corporations but going soft on government. There is such a tangled connection here that it is difficult, in the present climate, to discern where the boundaries are between the two. Add to this (and this speaks to one of your concerns as well), the way in which government stands ready time and time again to sacrifice women and men in the military to safeguard, not freedom, but American economic interests. The reach of Empire is nearly total and to critique one without examining the other is shortsighted.
I wonder if Rieger’s enthusiasm is more for democratic entities than for government, per ce (which may be democratic in form and rhetoric, but weak on liberty). I am thinking here of the idea of “subsidiarity,” the notion that decisions/actions ought to be tended to by the smallest, least centralized able authority…in other words, small democratic organizations (such as community groups) that, through their bottom-up approach to power, mediate between the individual and larger centralized authorities, such as the municipality or the state. I think this is where he places more confidence.
Clearly, if one hopes government will rescue the citizenry from the abuses of the corporations, there will be great disappointment. Who will rescue the citizenry from the government itself, which is (in rhetoric and less in form) “by, of, and for” the people?
Rieger’s hope is in the bottom-up life of Christian communities animated by the gospel. He is cautious here, however, because repeatedly the Church (and religious organizations: denominational agencies, schools, et al.) has adopted top-down models that privilege the powerful and marginalize the weak. He is cautious because desire, even in religious communities, is deeply formed by corporate marketing that appeals to our emotional and spiritual longings. And when the Church embraces the false idols of Empire, then the domination of Empire is complete.
Perhaps the conversations Rieger sparked during his short visit to campus will continue (informally and formally) as we explore concrete ways to address human need and longing, and as we build communities that resist the power Empire and that live, instead, in the power of the gospel.
David Johns
Thanks for your critique(s) of Rieger’s work, both in print and in person.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your assessment of the tendency to evaluate fiercely corporations but going soft on government. There is such a tangled connection here that it is difficult, in the present climate, to discern where the boundaries are between the two. Add to this (and this speaks to one of your concerns as well), the way in which government stands ready time and time again to sacrifice women and men in the military to safeguard, not freedom, but American economic interests. The reach of Empire is nearly total and to critique one without examining the other is shortsighted.
I wonder if Rieger’s enthusiasm is more for democratic entities than for government, per ce (which may be democratic in form and rhetoric, but weak on liberty). I am thinking here of the idea of “subsidiarity,” the notion that decisions/actions ought to be tended to by the smallest, least centralized able authority…in other words, small democratic organizations (such as community groups) that, through their bottom-up approach to power, mediate between the individual and larger centralized authorities, such as the municipality or the state. I think this is where he places more confidence.
Clearly, if one hopes government will rescue the citizenry from the abuses of the corporations, there will be great disappointment. Who will rescue the citizenry from the government itself, which is (in rhetoric and less in form) “by, of, and for” the people?
Rieger’s hope is in the bottom-up life of Christian communities animated by the gospel. He is cautious here, however, because repeatedly the Church (and religious organizations: denominational agencies, schools, et al.) has adopted top-down models that privilege the powerful and marginalize the weak. He is cautious because desire, even in religious communities, is deeply formed by corporate marketing that appeals to our emotional and spiritual longings. And when the Church embraces the false idols of Empire, then the domination of Empire is complete.
Perhaps the conversations Rieger sparked during his short visit to campus will continue (informally and formally) as we explore concrete ways to address human need and longing, and as we build communities that resist the power Empire and that live, instead, in the power of the gospel.
David Johns
Hello David,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your thoughtful response! You are more familiar with Rieger's full body of work so it may very well be that he places more confidence in small democratic organizations and the notion of subsidiarity in other texts.
From his lectures at ESR and "No Rising Tide," though, I don't think this was at all clear. The potentially more local efforts he mentioned - labor efforts and community gardens - weren't necessarily tied to democratic government. When he addresses government and economic policy it is almost always in macroeconomic terms - how Obama's stimulus package, for instance, grows out of Keynesian economic theory and whether or not this does enough to challenge the status quo; public sector jobs programs; national health care programs; federal deregulation and its supposed devastating consequences; and campaign finance...to name a few examples.
On page 119 he quotes Jim Stanford to help make his point about the importance of production: "the goal of socialism is to consciously manage economic activity with an eye to maximizing collective well-being." And, as Rieger states earlier in the book, "The real concern of socialism, however, has to do not with totalitarian attitudes but with a concern for democracy - especially with what might be called economic democracy." But shortly thereafter he admits, "How such a democracy can be achieved will have to be debated" (56). Indeed.
This is the rub, because the kinds of systematic changes he calls for and the economic models he hints at (without going into a lot of detail) would seem to require a centralizing force to direct the transformation. He doesn't undermine this interpretation with lines like that from page 42 - "the current popular sense, supported by Friedman, that governmental power is generally undesirable while private power is generally desirable, is odd."
My sense is that for Rieger, the free market is so pervasive - and so evil - that it requires the public to demand government wield its authority in their interest against these forces. In other words, government becomes the instrument of the people - and it needs to be large enough to tackle the size and scope of the problem.
I would definitely be interested in seeing more about how this apology for government intervention could be steered in the direction of subsidiarity - which is not a concept I found in the work of his that I heard and read. Perhaps you can volunteer to co-author his next book! ; )
Thanks again,
Matt
thanks so much for these thought-provoking comments, Matt & David. I've ordered copies of the 2 books Matt suggested; I'm certainly interested in strengthening my "understanding of the connections between empire and economics"!
ReplyDeleteI'm also grateful to David for giving me a name for a concept I've long found attractive: "subsidiarity."
Susan
Hello Susan,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments! That's great about the books - I'd love to hear your thoughts after you get a chance to look at them. It sounds like you've got a lot of reading already, but if you're interested in an excellent discussion of the role of subsidiarity in American history (even if it is not specifically mentioned), David Beito's "From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State" is a great resource:
http://www.amazon.com/Mutual-Aid-Welfare-State-Fraternal/dp/0807848417
hmmm... I tried the word "subsidiarity" out on a few people over the weekend and got blank looks both for the term and for the concept. I think I need something really basic, just about that one concept.... and some specific examples/applications.... using the word in a sentence so to speak... :-)
ReplyDeleteSure, here are a couple of links that might help:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgBqWuZTPJA