Making Me Wonder, Helping Me Hope
Writing; Reading
Posts on this blog, Still Wondering, can read as if I’m not wondering at all, as if instead I have the answer and want to tell you.
Sometimes the steps in my thinking are obvious, as in my recent search to understand ‘neoliberal.’ (For the record: I dislike the term, and prefer the more targeted ‘market fundamentalism.’ But I will use both.)
Often the wondering is less apparent. I may start writing quite sure about what I will say, but find the certainty wavering as I write. Putting an argument into words exposes its weakness. Fact-checking leads to unexpected places. The column I post is always a few degrees different from the one I first planned.
ONE POST BEGETS ANOTHER
Bird-dogging ‘neoliberal,’ recently, turned my attention to its root, ‘liberal.’ I learned, almost accidentally, that in Europe ‘liberal’ means something quite different from what it means here. In Europe ‘liberal’ is roughly synonymous with our ‘conservative.’ I wondered how that happened.
Here’s what I found. Roosevelt called his New Deal liberal because it retained the word’s original emphasis on liberty. Rights to vote, to speak one’s mind, to worship as one pleases, all remained strong. But the New Deal rejected the idea that unchecked markets automatically protect freedom.
The New Deal rejected the idea that unchecked markets automatically protect freedom. Instead, they make many poor. Living in poverty is like living in shackles.
By the 1930s it was clear that while they lead some to wealth with all the power that brings, it also leads many to poverty. Living in poverty is like living in shackles. If everything is privately owned, available only for sale, those without money are out of luck. Health care, clean water, a roof over one’s head and food on the table, are out of reach for those without money. Hence FDR’s four freedoms: Freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, freedom from fear. For that reason he kept the word ‘liberal,’ with its root meaning of freedom.
The New Deal protected freedom of speech, religion, and press; it aimed to add freedom from want and freedom from fear.
FDR had another reason for keeping the word: His New Deal was markedly different from the radical activism rising in Europe. Many there wanted to abolish capitalism entirely, which by the 1930s had plunged so many into destitution. In contrast, the New Deal was an attempt to save capitalism by lessening its harshest consequences. So while ‘liberal’ in Europe kept its original meaning of freedom from government, in the United States it came to mean a broader kind of freedom, in which the government restrains and supplements capitalism. In my childhood we called our system a “mixed” economy. I’m sorry the term has disappeared.
THE NEWS ALSO MAKES ME WONDER
Sandra Day O’Connor’s death brought me back to a subject I wrote about last year, when the Supreme Court overturned Roe. I certainly didn’t like the decision, but I also thought most criticisms being lobbed were confused. The Constitution is a set of broad principles that require interpretation. Different Justices can legitimately reach different conclusions. I also knew that when Roe was decided, 50 years earlier, many who welcomed the result nevertheless believed the case had been poorly argued.
I worked out those doubts in three posts, each giving birth to the next. Finally I concluded that the problem was this Court’s readiness to overturn precedent. That realization in turn led to a new question: Why does precedent matter? When should it be respected, when overturned? After all, one of the most important Court decisions of the 20th century was Brown vs Topeka, which outlawed racial segregation in public schools. A 19th Court decision had upheld school segregation. Sometimes a wrong decision must be overturned. But when? Are there principled ways to think about that?
Justice O’Connor’s death helped me return to that question. Commentators noted how respectful she had been of precedent. She understood the law to be a stabilizing force, definitively ending disputes. That is the fundamental role of a rule of law. For the sake of stability, change should happen only gradually.
The purpose of law is to provide stability, an authoritative end to disputes. Overturning precedent disrupts that stability.
I had always considered Brown vs Topeka a shining example of a radical but necessary decision. But now I recalled the decades of massive resistance that followed. And the fact that, despite the decision, many of our schools remain segregated, not by government but by social forces.
There’s a parallel with Roe, which was followed by years of dissension. During those years many wondered if more gradual, less dramatic, decisions would have provoked less fierce resistance. I now wonder the same thing about Brown. Would a slower approach have been more successful? I don’t know; no one can. And there are powerful reasons to support both decisions as they were written. Nevertheless, an alternate and more gradual history is worth thinking about.
NEWS AND HOPE
O’Connor’s death brought new attention to the possibility of term limits for Supreme Court Justices. In my posts grappling with Dobbs, I considered the same possibility. In giving lifetime tenure to our highest court, we are almost alone among the world’s democracies. That tenure is the root of the politicization of the Court. There are practical solutions, and I’m glad they’re getting more attention.
News gives me hope, too, that eventually Obama’s Affordable Care Act will take full effect, that fewer Americans will suffer needlessly and die too soon. The ACC was hobbled when most Republican governors rejected what it offered. In the years since, minds have gradually changed; North Carolina has just become the 41st state to sign on. If every state took full advantage of the ACC, the United States would finally catch up with the rest of the developed world.
Hope for the future: the ACC is increasingly accepted, and lifetime appointments to the Court are questioned. Hope, too, as critics question neoliberal assumptions.
More critics also recognize that market fundamentalism (aka neoliberalism) underlies the dysfunction of our health care system. More have also put the troubles facing the airlines ( like the Southwest debacle) in historical context, tracing them to the deregulation of 40 years ago. Remembering history is the first step toward learning from it.
In my next post, (next year!) I’ll write about hope. Full disclosure, though: Hope is not the same as optimism.