Paraguayan President Nicanor Duarte Frutos has been talking to the BBC's Steve Kingstone about democracy in Latin America, the future of South America's trading bloc Mercosur, and what he thinks of Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez.

Latin American democracy is not 100% established. As long as first-world countries maintain their protectionism, close their markets to us, and fail to consider us a part of globalisation, democracy will always be complicated for us.

As long as knowledge - of science, technology and first-world markets - is not transferred to us, democracy will be complicated. But of course, strengthening democracy does not only depend on external forces, it also depends on us.

As long as leaders do not fight for greater transparency, better institutions, a more formal economy and competitiveness for our people - it's obvious that even with international backing we will continue to be poor.

Since the arrival of democracy we have spent much more on education. What is the point of Paraguay having the biggest dam in the world, the Itaipu, if its most important resource - the people - don't get an education?

What use are fertile lands when our farmers cannot read the instructions on a bag of fertilizer? I belong to a new generation and we are struggling to rebuild the image and identity of Paraguay.

And if President Bush concludes that Paraguay is on Chavez's ideological team?

I don't know if Mr Bush should be the one to determine the decision of the people. I don't think so. I'm against any kind of imperialist project or philosophy, whether it's European imperialism, North American imperialism, Japanese or Chinese imperialism.

I don't see Venezuela as an imperialist government. Venezuela has not developed capitalism to a high level. Imperialism is an extension of the capitalist model, combined with the control of science and technology, of political and military power. Venezuela does not have this. However, Venezuela has developed regional leadership.

Have you not abandoned your hopes of changing the Constitution [to allow an incumbent president to seek re-election]?

It's very difficult but for God nothing is impossible. Herodotus, a master of ancient history, said that chance is the mother of all history. I don't know what is going to happen.

The scandal, which the Bush White House may or may not have been aware of, sent a few Republican officials to jail, including Allen Raymond, a former RNC official who sat down this week with down the Boston Globe for his first post-incarceration interview. Apparently, he's had time to reflect on what his party is all about.

"Republicans have treated campaigns and politics as a business, and now are treating public policy as a business, looking for the types of returns that you get in business, passing legislation that has huge ramifications for business," he said. "It is very much being monetized, and the federal government is being monetized under Republican majorities."

Of course, the flip side of the president's "assimilation" is stringent enforcement of existing immigration laws, an approach that many conservative Nebraskans favor. After spending a few days researching the impact of immigrants on the economy in the state, I, for one, believe that yes, we could strengthen immigration enforcement and expel any worker with iffy documentation from our meat packing and food processing plants. But that could cause a calamity for the rest of the country: No more steaks.

I am so confused by your al queda article. Isn't it correct that al qaeda and zarqawi were antagonists? How can we get it straight if we are led down the administration path? I know you do not directly assert that the two were the same, but the parallelisms would never trigger consciousness in an unwary reader. What's up?

The Mark of Z

Most Wanted Now: War-Weary Sunnis

• E-Mail
• Print
• Single Page
• Reprints
• Save

By JOHN F. BURNS

Published: June 11, 2006

The blue tanks also contain a group of excellent political strategists, skilled not only in nuts-and-bolts analysis but also in high-level social commentary. But something else is apparent: there is hardly a theorist to be found engaged in the study of "classical" political ideas. Now pass over to the red tanks. In addition to an opposing cadre of experts and wonks, each institution has a connection to at least one theoretical school and to the pantheon of its thinkers. Visit these institutions and you will likely hear mention, at some point along the way, of Tradition and Culture, of the "invisible hand" and "spontaneous order," of natural right and natural law, and of revelation and faith. Nor would it be a shock to overhear a whisper of Edmund Burke or Russell Kirk, Adam Smith or Friedrich von Hayek, James Madison or Leo Strauss, or Calvin or Aquinas....For conservatives, it is clear that the attention they devote to their theoretical principles is meant as much more than a gesture to good breeding. Conservatives consider these principles to be directly related to the political world and to how it should be governed, which is precisely what the Left reproaches them for.

But I can imagine my Straussian colleagues, even those who supported the neo-con movement, simply rolling their eyes: Here's an author who clearly is insufficiently informed about the classic critiques of political liberalism put forth by Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Schmitt, Strauss, and Kojève. My progressive postie friends would cringe at his clunky attempts at defining a national purpose by demonizing and scapegoating an Other. Beinart desperately takes a crowbar to the work of political theorists Michael Walzer and Hannah Arendt in an attempt to dignify his case that the war on terror ought to be seen as continuous with earlier wars against communism and fascism. But my undergraduates, drawing more thoughtfully on Arendt, W.E.B. Du Bois, and Foucault, would have an easy time dismantling his adamant but woefully antiquated notion of totalitarianism. Such a book will not engage or inspire my undergraduates, because--should I say it baldly? --it is theoretically impoverished, something of an embarrassment to read. It is not worthy of their intellectual efforts. Is this the best we can do?

Where, indeed, do we want American democracy to go--and why? Let's ponder some of those heady issues--in organized fashion--before we jump headlong into the next laundry list of proposals about health care reform, campaign finance, environmental protection, tax policy, affirmative action, national defense, and so on. I think back to JFK's "Ask Not" speech, or MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech, or LBJ's "Great Society" speech, and then I compare those grand notions to the current DNC's apparent vision for the upcoming elections: "Had enough? Vote Democratic." What a let down. Arghh.

Send to a friend

Post a Comment

Print Post

Read all posts by John Seery

 

Related News Stories

• GOP Rep.: "I Think The Jury Is Still Out On [Iraqi] WMD"...
• US Flying In Forensics Experts "To See How [Zarqawi] Actually Died"...
• Congress Kills Ban On Permanent US Military Bases In Iraq...

Related Blog Posts

• Arianna Huffington: Harry Reid at Home
• Bob Cesca: Republicans Agree: Our Elections Aren't Stolen!
• Cenk Uygur: General Wesley Clark Takes on President Bush on Iraq and 9/11

Comments :

So the Dems should follow the advice of, whom, Richard Rorty? John Rawls? Cornel West is a good choice, but I doubt he would shil for the Dems as they stand now.
In the mid-1990's, theologian Jurgen Moltmann complained in an essay that the age of dreaming big dreams in Europe was over. Noting that dreaming big dreams had nearly destroyed European civilization, certainly sidelining it politically, he nonetheless wished for big ideas, utopian ideas and dreams to return to European thought. He was greeted with, of course, deafening silence.
Strauss is a gnostic hack; Nietzsche a syphillis-addle-pated madman; Heidegger a Nazi. I admire Arendt, but find her outdated for the choices confronting contemporary politics. I would rather the Dems focus on winning, and leave the theorizing to Straussians and Friedrich ("I am not a conservative") von Hayek- loving libertarians.
http://progchristian.blogspot.com...

By: progressxian on June 06, 2006 at 02:42pm
Flag: [abusive] [best of]

Maybe.
In the same article you're saying blue state think tanks need to draw on theory you eviscerate a blue state journalist guy who does. The red state think tanks use theory in a morally and ethically bankrupt way and are often eviscerated in the same way you do here. yet that doesnt seem to register for you. I think it's just your limited perspective.
You are actually saying that blue staters need to apply the theory that YOU think is undeniable and can't be critisized and devalued by red state critics. (In an age of FOX news misinforming it's viewers you actually think this is possible?) without also noticing that red state think tanks often mix their Adam Smith with doses of Ann Ryand. I'm not sure how you think a blue state think tank is supposed to debate a red state nation that literally shouts 'communist!" every time a liberal opens their mouth.

By: Alexande on June 06, 2006 at 02:49pm
Flag: [abusive] [best of]

Or, the right wing might just be mired in a tar pit of outmoded ideas.

"The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country." Lincoln's Second Annual Message to Congress, December 1, 1862.

By: Argonaut on June 06, 2006 at 02:57pm
Flag: [abusive] [best of]

You should tell us sometime what you think of this "voo-doo" economics. I listen to little geo expounding the merits of the tax cuts putting people to work. (I'm wondering if little geo understands real negative interest rates)
In case you have not been paying attention, the issues of our time are fear (by what ever measure) and corrupt corporate greed. A jail-house conversion of Kenny-boy will, of course, be moot. This is an ugliness that will have to die its own putrid decay. The media, of course, are the enabler.

By: Henry on June 06, 2006 at 03:18pm
Flag: [abusive] [best of]

Too bad in your description of the folks that make upt most of these think tanks is that lack folks who have REAL SUCCESSFUL practical experience in trying to apply theory to reality.

I think that it is probably for all of us if political theory be experimented in academia rather attempted to be executed in the real world. I think that much of the world has no wish to be a lab rat for some ivory tower wanker's hypothetical vision of humanity.

Nice theories on paper often become toilet paper in reality.

By: Dan on June 06, 2006 at 03:21pm
Flag: [abusive] [best of]

Strauss is the patron saint of the Neo-conservative movement, no? Subscribed to the notion of the 'Noble Lie', as did Plato, eminent ancient Republican.

So, what is the purpose of the 'noble lie', in a democracy? Do Democrats need to get better at lying? (LBJ was pretty skillful. Ah, the Good Old Days of Vietnam & the Tonkin Gulf Attack...)


"WISE MEN TELL NOBLE LIES
The President of the United States told the world that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. His secretaries of defense and state made the same assertions. They claimed to be telling the kind of truth that enables good countries to go to war against evil ones. Secretary Powell showed drawings of mobile biological-weapons factories to the United Nations Security Council, and America went to war. From time to time after the occupation of Iraq was complete, the reason for going to war changed, for there were no weapons of mass destruction. Only a miserable dictator and the remains of a once prosperous country were found. As a result of the war the Iraqi people went from fear to fear and anger. The administration no longer spoke of weapons of mass destruction but of a terrible dictator deposed, the sweet flower of freedom planted in Babylonian soil.


One of the great services that Strauss and his disciples have performed for the Bush regime has been the provision of a philosophy of the noble lie, the conviction that lies, far from being simply a regrettable necessity of political life, are instead virtuous and noble instruments of wise policy.

The idea's provenance could not be more elevated: Plato himself advised his nobles, men with golden souls, to tell noble lies-political fables, much like the specter of Saddam Hussein with a nuclear bomb to keep the other levels of human society (silver, iron, brass) in their proper places, loyal to the state and willing to do its bidding. Strauss, too, advised the telling of noble lies in the service of the national interest, and he held Plato's view of aristocrats as persons so virtuous that such lies would be used only for the good, for keeping order in the state and in the world. He defined the modern method of the noble lie in the use of esoteric messages within an exoteric text, telling the truth to the wise while at the same time conveying something quite different to the many.


For Strauss, as for Plato, the virtue of the lie depends on who is doing the lying. If a poor woman lies on her application for welfare benefits, the lie cannot be countenanced. The woman has committed fraud and must be punished. The woman is not noble, therefore the lie cannot be noble. When the leader of the free world says that "free nations do not have weapons of mass destruction," this is but a noble lie, a fable told by the aristocratic president of a country with enough nuclear weapons to leave the earth a desert less welcoming than the surface of the moon." ...


Leo Strauss, George Bush, and the philosophy of mass deception -
Earl Shorris, Harpers' Magazine, June 2004


http://www.embeddedlive.com/pdfs/Harpers.pdf...

By: Doofus on June 06, 2006 at 04:03pm
Flag: [abusive] [best of]

Indeed, where is the beef? This topic has been my foremost major problem with the Ddeomcratic party. And its this specific lacking of any strongly worded rallying cry that keeps them from winning elections. They need to step up their game, be a real opposition party. They need to stop being so gun shy about BIG IDEAS. The question we, the liberals, progressives, the moderates need to ask ourselves is not how do we win elections but what do we Ultimately want? Bold action is needed to pull this country back from what I would consider oblivion, tough choices need to be made, but we need to decide.

So I ask you to think hard about what you really want? And we need to debate those things amongst each other? Find historical context for our ideas and not be afraid to think big.

(wow, I can be preachy!)

By: gotompo on June 06, 2006 at 04:54pm
Flag: [abusive] [best of]

My conservative friends all have dreams. They have the dream of the Invisible Hand lifting up the economy. But once in a while thay have nightmares of the government tying down the indivisible hand causing inefficiencies in the economy to grow like a cancer.

They have dreams of more hurricanes and earthquakes signifying the end of the world, and the final confrontation between Christ and the beast who bears the mark of 666.

You might say that there dreams are naive and to pursue their dreams would be folly. But at least they have a dream about the world they want to live in. At least they have a vision to guide them in their decision making.

On the other hand, the Democrats have abandoned their dreams and hope to survive by being the me too party. They accept the basic conservative tenets, but promise the public that we will by kinder and gentler by pursuing conservative ideals at a slower rate than Republicans.

We are now at a crossroads. The country has been trending conservative since Johnson crushed Goldwater in 1964. In the next two elections, either the trend will be reversed or the Republicans will become a permanent majority.

In order to reverse the conservative trend, I believe that the Democrats must Crash the Gate by creating a progressive infrastructure that will rival the conservative infrastructure. I also believe in George Lakoff's assessment that we need to know our principles and values before we can properly frame the political debate, see http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/...

By: BlueTide on June 06, 2006 at 05:43pm
Flag: [abusive] [best of]

We live in a real world, Mr. Seery. War, disease, crime, natural disasters,etc. The academics walk around with their heads in the clouds of political theory, while the real world needs real solutions. Political theorists are useless. The real need is for persons to roll up their sleeves and get to work solving our world problems.

By: stammdm on June 06, 2006 at 06:10pm
Flag: [abusive] [best of]

John Seery: "Where's the beef?"

Democracy? Most would prefer republic as mentioned in the Constitution. That document does not mention democracy.

Your Straussian and neocon buddies used to be called Nazis. They had a lot of front organizations and "think tanks" before, during and since WWII. Americans got so turned off the word Nazi that those front organizations went underground. They reinvented themselves as neoconservatives.

America had it with Nazis then and hoped not to see its evil face again. Anyone who studies Nazi history can spot your forms at once.

There are still too many living Americans with memories of Nazis, some with identification numbers on their wrists, who know Nazis were hired by our government, and we have some in the government, including Bush, whose grandparents helped Hitler.

There's a post today on HuffPo concerning some declassified information about the CIA keeping Adolph Eichmann's whereabouts secret.

You can call Nazis neoconservatives or Straussians, but they still smell, act and think like Nazis. Like calling a cabbage a rose but it still smells like a cabbage.

By: seriously on June 06, 2006 at 11:27pm
Flag: [abusive] [best of]

{The idea's provenance could not be more elevated: Plato himself advised his nobles, men with golden souls, to tell noble lies-political fables....

By: Doofus on June 06, 2006 at 04:03pm}

I have never been fond of Plato. The ridiculous business with the Solids, for example- its religion for christ's sake.
Makes you wonder if L.Ron Hubbard's first life was spent wearing a toga.

Better to stick with the Pre-Socratics, from back before the whole thing went off the tracks with that dopey Plato guy.

By: williamwilliam on June 06, 2006 at 11:47pm
Flag: [abusive] [best of]

This post of Mr. Seery's has got to be one of the more interesting posts I've seen here.

Apart from hearing every now and then about Strauss being the father of our Neo-con nightmare- (never read the guy myself so I don't know if its true)- I had no idea that Republicans or the Right actually thought about anything. I don't mean that to be snide.

There has just never been anything in their public policy that suggests anything to me beyond psychopathic greed, neurotic sexual and racial terror, religous infantilism and, as with most people, an accute lust for power for its own sake.

That the Right's got people in a room somewhere reading books and thinking thoughts is a real revalation, and it makes me wonder now if and how any backroom theorizing practically affects their policy and strategy.

I've often felt that its curious that the majority of Democrats seem completely uncontaminated by ideas or convictions of any kind.

I assumed that this was because there are in fact no Democrats or Republicans, but instead just one team televising a rigged wrestling match for our entertainment: Big Business.

But its interesting to wonder if there actually are in fact Democrats, and whether they are genuinely bereft of ideas simply because they are as it turns out- genuinely bereft of ideas.

By: williamwilliam on June 07, 2006 at 12:10am
Flag: [abusive] [best of]

thanks for the very thoughtful post, dr. seery. for a long time now, it's been clear to anyone with half a brain that the dems need something more than "bush and the GOP suck" to win elections. but until this post i hadn't seen any decent suggestions for a way to create the sea change in left-wing political thinking that would be necessary to find a positive new vision. sure, plenty of people have come up with dream platforms and resolutions and whatnot (i like michigan history and near-eastern studies professor juan cole's from may 8--check it out at www.juancole.com), but those are mostly wishful thinking and even if adopted can't last forever. if the dems can get more people just thinking--not analyzing, not number-crunching, just creating a new vision--maybe there's hope for the left.

By: mistersuss on June 07, 2006 at 10:10am
Flag: [abusive] [best of]

Let me chew on a couple of points you made:
1) lack of theorists on the left.
Problem- the assumption that theorizing is worthwhile. Until the death of Maoism and Marxism as viable ideologies, there was a theoretical battle in academia very roughly defined between Right and Left. The vast majority of what was written was bunk on both sides, because unlike the hard sciences, there is no experimental test of political and economic theory inside academia.

On the Left there is now a refreshing lack of political theory, and yet the study of economic history is alive and well. ( alright I acknowledge the silly ethnic-gender-post this&that fiefdoms, but they have no influence) Meanwhile, the non-academic Right, the John Birchers, Adolph Coors, the Reaganauts, used their money to create a pseudo-academic constellation of chairs and think-tanks and revolving-door speaking engagements. The genius of this is that it provides lifetime employment for their supporters, while appearing to foster genuine discussion. In reality, they are only arguing with themselves. Unfortunately the neo-cons launched their policy takeover from this pinstriped hot-house, and the resulting empirical test is catastrophic. They were utterly unprepared for the complexity and chaos of actual war, actual power, and the actual Middle East.

The best and brightest under the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, followed by Kissinger, made similar mistakes of hubris. But this is not a claim that the study of history is useless. On the contrary, it's not studied well enough. Or rather, only the attractive ideas with ideologic leverage are extracted. The repeat of the Viet Nam debacle in Iraq is a case- leaders failed to realize that conventional forces cannot win against substantial guerrilla forces without Nazi tactics, and maybe not then ( see Russians in Afghanistan). Ideas without feedback are untested and therefore largely worthless.

2) Democrats stand for nothing.
Well it's not true, but it is certainly true that elected Democrats seem to be utterly hapless. I've written, with humor I hope, about this at http://www.jawfish.net/wordpress/archives/112... .

The total failure of public Democrats is a mystery. But here is a suggested explanation: With the civil rights period over, and the era of big-city corruption passing, Democrats increasingly stand for issues of good government. These include providing services, maintaining physical and economic infrastructure, planning for the future. Starting with Reagan, Republicans brought in the smoke&mirrors of positive thinking ( "There you go again...") and a disrespect for government in general. If you just keep saying 'America is great' and don't expect government to accomplish anything, then it's really easy to govern. You didn't promise anything concrete, and so you didn't fail. If you actually try to alleviate poverty, advance science, improve health care, and lead a consensus in Europe, then you are bound to fail much of the time. If your shibboleth is 'free markets are always better' then you have advocated a self-fulfilling goal. OTOH If you want to get Wal-Mart employees some health insurance, then your goal is measurable and easily attacked.

Sure there is a perfectly valid Conservative point of view that distrusts government, and defends personal freedom. These Conservatives should rightly ask if social program X is worthy, and imminent domain Y is just. They should squash any attempt to introduce superstition into law ( stem cell bans; intelligent design). They should loudly question the federal debt and our dependence on the Chinese. They should lament the rise of rampant consumerism and the lack of substantive values in our society. I wish some real Conservatives would come back. Somehow they all yelled 'every man for himself' and deserted the ship.

Conclusion:
It is actually the Red think-tank types who are intellectually bankrupt, because their ideas are so abstract that they are untestable. Oddly it is they who resemble Leninists the most.

By: jawfish on June 07, 2006 at 05:34pm
Flag: [abusive] [best of]

Dear Professor Seery,

I found your piece, "Where's the Beef?" to be an insightful look at the lack of consideration for political theory in the Democratic Party community. The Democrats sometimes seem to be good at wasting opportunity, and the example of theory is striking. Democrats are not drawing on theory for ideological direction despite the incredible body of work and research that could support their efforts. The Democrats could draw on thinkers like John Rawls, Michael Walzer, Richard Dworkin and others. Indeed, why not draw upon Rousseau when asking questions involving inequality, like Hurrican Katrina, or upon anti-authoritarian satirists like Voltaire (maybe this could help The Democrats not take themselves too seriously). One could argue that in regard to economic applications, left-leaning activists have laid down their "weapons" while conservatives have wielded theirs. I see no clear winner in a debate between theorists like Robert Nozick and John Rawls in the academic world, but in the real practical world, the proponents of the Nozick side have won hands-down.

I think part of the reason for the lack of appreciation for "progressive" left-wing theory from The Democrats is partially because of the nature of American politics, left-wing activists who wish to be "practical" don't draw from the some of the most interesting left-wing theory, because it may lead in anti-capitalist directions. Thus, I would argue that there are deeper existential problems that ultimately prevent the Democrats from utilizing theory. While the poverty of conservative thought rightfully serves the Republicans, great works of theory are wasted on The Democrats.

By: cptcpt on June 09, 2006 at 09:39am
Flag: [abusive] [best of]

The Progressive Trinity

Family, Business, and Public Service

What is going on? It all seems so shallow, so partisan. I want to ask: shouldn't we be talking about fundamental principles?

By that I mean a reasoned analysis of how our country works, what's wrong with it, how it can be made better, addressing the individual's relationship to society, who has power, who doesn't and who should, based on some awareness of history and the social and intellectual ground that has been plowed before by Plato and Madison, Locke and Jefferson, John Stuart Mill and Martin Luther King, and so many others

We need this trinity: the Family for love, Business for prosperity, and Public Service for...that's a big question, isn't it? The logics and benefits of each social system are far from perfect, and Public Service probably draws the most controversy. I believe that humanity's best interests are served by a decent balance among the three forms of organization, and that's where our current difficulty lies.

Business is now the dominant social institution on the planet. I shouldn't even have to prove this. Many people know this and are proud of it. Others know this and fear it. Yet this fact is rarely emphasized in public discourse, not only because the evidence of it is everywhere, but also because to say it might provoke the Robin Hood in many of us, make us want to pick up the bow and arrow.

There is much to rejoice about in the triumph of Business. I am glad that free enterprise has brought cell phones to Africa and two Starbucks coffee shops to my town. Nevertheless, the sad and dangerous truth is that Business has become so powerful in the world that it is invading the realm of the Family and the realm of Public Service, upsetting their inner logics, siphoning off their resources and good will, throwing society out of balance.

A similar dislocation happened before. In the late nineteenth century, with the rise of industrial capitalism and monopolies came the severe oppression of workers, farmers, and their families, and the corruption of government. In Europe, the response was the pursuit of various forms of socialism, to force the capitalist class into submission, ranging from the utopian social revolts portrayed in Les Miserables to the dictatorship of the proletariat sought by Lenin and the communists.

What we need is a formulation of Progressive theory beyond partisan politics that speaks to what's best for America, that tries to speak to the party of Theodore Roosevelt and the party of Franklin Roosevelt, and to independents, too, giving each citizen who wishes to consider it a distinctive interpretation of modern political life with which he or she may agree or disagree.

1. What is life like in the United States now?

You wake up to the news on the clock radio, or turn the TV on at breakfast as you have your cereal from Kellogg or Post with nonfat, 1%, or whole milk that may or may not contain bovine growth hormone, that may or may not matter to your health.

2. What dynamic patterns can we see in this picture?

Daily life in America, if you are making the effort to take care of yourself and your family, is an unrelenting hassle, dawn to dusk, for almost all of us. And far too many of us suffer real deprivation.

You usually miss out on getting the best product at the best price, because the system is designed to make the truth too difficult to learn. Advantage: Business. Disadvantage: you.

I wouldn't define a mother, father, and children in a single-family house as the only kind of Family.

It would be hard to praise Business too much for the prosperity it has brought to America, Europe, and the emerging nations of Asia and Latin America. Business is the source of most of our jobs. Business, however, was not created by natural human impulses, as the Family was. Sure, the desire for wealth and status is a powerful psychological drive, but the Business system in America today is an artificial construct of laws adopted by government over the span of a century under the heavy influence of the Business class.

At the very least, we should start a new conversation about what the principles ought to be. I propose this simple statement: the limited purposes of government are to protect, correct, and connect.

. How do Family, Business, and Public Service interact and what can we do?

To promote the greatest good for the greatest number of individuals, with dignity for all, each of the three social systems must be healthy and in balance with the others.

we

Those who have money have power and those who do not, do not. Louis Brandeis once said: “You can have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, or democracy, but you cannot have both.” To paraphrase Tom Friedman's observation in a lecture at Johns Hopkins University about the roots of terrorism, those who have power don't think very often about their position of relative privilege in society, but the powerless think about it all the time and it deeply offends their pride.