schweblog

The traditionally Republican view predominant amongst some of my social circles these days is strongly laissez faire. Pushing aside the anti-capitalist views that several Republican policies have taken on in the past few years, I generally like to bring up the observed wealth gap that seems to inevitably appear in pure, free-market systems. After much discussion, our stereotypical Republican usually brings up the classic card when faced with the seemingly unavoidable horrors of capitalism: it is good for the country. That is, in pursuing your own happiness/profit, you end up benefitting the country by improving the economic flow of goods and services and, presumably, increasing your local tax base. What’s good for you is good for your country; an individual pursuing his own capatlistic movitivations is, in itself, a patriotic act. Those poor dolts that are too lazy to work are just straining the system and hurting the country.

Ignoring the dangers of the impending wealth gap on creating fissures in society, let’s assume that this is true for a moment. Then, for an added layer of fun, let’s tack on the pro-globalist position that most Republicans adopt. By spreading free-market systems across the globe, countries’ economies boom as industry is introduced and individuals adopt the typical motivations in a free market. So we now have another important tenet in our free-market system: investments in third-world labor in pursuit of capitalistic ends is a good thing. Further, in going along with that, selling off goods to foreign markets is also a good thing–exporting is always good, right?

The problem with this entire model is that the two predominant “goods” being promoted–the individual, in being a good capitalist, is contributing to the good of the country and individuals, in exploiting foreign markets, are also contributing to the good of the country–are contradictory. Case in point: Milo Minderbinder. For those of you unfamiliar with him, he was the classic capitalist star of Joseph Heller’s Catch-22. Milo, initially drafted into an Air Force squadron responsible for air raids across Western Europe, creates an intricate underground network of trans-continental trade, called “the syndicate”. Fresh eggs are flown in here and sold under cost; vegetables, recently harvested, are flown in there and are practically given to the cook so the troops can have a nice, home-cooked meal. In exchange for the goods at low prices, Milo makes deals with other squadrons’ commanders to arrange planes for trade on days they aren’t being used in the war effort. Milo ends up turning a hefty profit. His motto: what’s good for you is good for the syndicate.

Milo is the classic opportunist and, seemingly, the hero of our Republican friends advocating unbridled capitalism on a global scale. He makes money. He spreads commerce. All is well, right? Wrong. Ultimately, our Republican friends are left with a huge conflict in the capitalist principles they purportedly espouse and their love of country. Our old buddy Milo ends up setting up a very profitable deal with the Germans for some anti-aircraft artillery. This is the same artillery that will be used to shoot down several planes from his own squadron on a mission. Suddenly, our heroic capitalist is not so patriotic. The desire for profit trumps the worth of the life of his fellow countrymen. A contradiction–the catch-22–arises. The principles will inevitably conflict–our capitalists will end up selling to our enemies, since there’s a market there.

And thus, a dilemma. Which principle trumps the other? Most people scoff at the possibility of greed (notice the shift in wording as the situation changes–it used to be capitalism, to our Republican friends) trumping patriotism. But if we take the alternate route and assert that the good of our countrymen overrides the profit motive, we’re left with the problem we started with–the have-nots, our countrymen, are falling victim to the capitalistic aspirations of their “motivated” fellow citizens. How can one address this inevitably problematic situation? Which principle should our Republican counterparts adopt and honor in remaining consistent with their ideology? I certainly don’t know the answer–and I’m not sure they do, either.