Jeffrey
Sachs makes it difficult for any libertarians who happen to look at his book,
‘The Price of Civilization’, to consider seriously his claim that powerful
corporate interests have excessive influence in America. He claims that libertarians
‘hold that the only ethical value that matters is liberty, meaning the right of
each individual to be left alone by others and by the government’.
There are a
lot of other ethical values that matter to me – and probably to most others who
view themselves as libertarians. In my view, liberty deserves primacy only
because it makes it possible for people to live in peace – with minimal coercion
of one person or group by another.
Perhaps I am
excessively naïve, but it seems to me that anyone who is concerned that people
are being manipulated by corporate propaganda might see libertarians as
potential allies. Can a case for individuals to be protected from techniques of
persuasion that undermine individual sovereignty be argued along similar lines
as the case for laws to protect against force and fraud? If it could be, I
imagine many libertarians would support additional action to protect individual
sovereignty.
Why does
Jeff Sachs think that corporate interests have too much influence in America? Dr
Sachs, the clinical economist, identifies a range of symptoms. The media is
privately owned and funded by advertising revenue. Corporate interests generate
propaganda which the media disseminates. Corporate interests largely fund
campaigns of candidates for political office. People spend a lot of time
watching electronic media.
Sachs writes:
‘The
relentless streams of images and media messages that confront us daily are
professionally designed to distort our most important decision making
processes. We are encouraged to act on fantasy instead of reason’.
Cartoon by
Nicholson from “The Australian”
newspaper: www.nicholsoncartoons.com.au
Sachs claims
that America has become a corporatocracy – a political system in which powerful
corporate interests dominate the political agenda. As he sees it:
‘The media,
major corporate interests, and politicians now constitute a seamless web of
interconnections and power designed to perpetuate itself through the
manufacture of illusion’.
So, some
readers may ask, does this explain why Americans no longer see much merit in
equality of opportunity, don’t think governments should do more to help people
in need and don’t think the rich should pay more tax? No! Dr Sachs actually
cites evidence that a high proportion of Americans still want more equality of
opportunity, favour more help for those in real need who are prepared to help
themselves and favour taxing the rich more heavily.
Where does
that leave Dr Sach’s diagnosis? I’m not sure. Perhaps the disease has not
progressed very far at this stage. Sachs claims that the patient is suffering
from a disconnection between shared values and national politics. He sees the
disconnection as arising from various aspects of the political system that
enhance the power of corporate interests – particularly the military industrial
complex, Wall Street, big oil and transport, and health care.
Jeff Sachs
has left me as confused as ever about the American political system. He has not
persuaded me that America is a corporatocracy. Corporate interests are powerful
in America, but so is religion, the teaching profession, environmentalists, etc.,
etc.
It seems to
me to be the main problem in American politics, which is shared by other modern
societies, is the trivialization of politics by media that is primarily in the
business of selling entertainment. The media can’t be expected to evaluate the
claims made by interest groups, but if journalists have access to such
evaluations from respected sources they can hold politicians to account for the
views they express (or fail to express). Think tanks perform the task of policy
evaluation to some extent, but can be too easily dismissed because they are not
seen to be above interest group politics. Paradoxically, the government itself
is the only organization capable of creating sources of policy advice that are sufficiently
above interest group politics to have some hope of commanding widespread
respect in the community at large.
Despite the
reservations I have about ‘The Price of Civilization’ (in an earlier post about taxation levels as well as here) I want to end this post on a positive note. I
strongly endorse Jeff’s view that individuals can benefit themselves and the societies
in which they live by making efforts to become more mindful. We will do less
harm and may do a lot of good if we become more moderate in our habits, achieve
more balance in our lives, improve our knowledge, exercise more compassion,
have more regard for the effects of our actions on the environment and future
generations, consider how we can promote more constructive political
deliberations and be more accepting of diversity as the path to peace.