According to two editors at the Economist, there have been three revolutions in 
Western government. They believe we're due for a fourth. Similarly, there have 
been three revolutions in economics since the late 19th century. Are we due for 
a fourth?



http://www.doggieheadtilt.com/steering-a-middle-course-pt-3/

Steering a Middle Course (Pt.3)

According to two editors at the Economist, there have been three revolutions in 
Western government. They believe we're due for a fourth. Similarly, there have 
been three revolutions in economics since the late 19th century. Are we due for 
a fourth?

John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, editors at the Economist, have 
authored a new book, The Fourth Revolution: The Global Race to Reinvent the 
State. They cite three revolutions in modern world governments - the 
nation-state, "Liberal State," and, most recently, the bloated welfare state.1 
They say it's time for a fourth.

There have likewise been three revolutions in economics. Crony and collusive 
capitalism are the first two. They try to expand the domain of free choice. The 
third, collectivism, reacts against both by expanding the domain of law. All 
three encroach on Lord Moulton's middle course, however. That's why many are 
calling for a fourth revolution, calling for conscious, inclusive, 
collaborative, and creative capitalism. And while each makes some good points, 
the better model is conscientious capitalism. It aligns with human nature, a 
lesson the Greeks learned long ago.

The Greeks had "a deep respect for the passions of the mind," writes Michael 
Novak in The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism.2 Aristotle believed "the Good," 
fully seen through inquiry and reason, yields a virtuous mind. Virtuous minds 
yield virtuous people. But this is the Enlightenment error - think right; act 
right. Vestiges of this are still visible in the "mindfulness" movement. It 
says "being mindful" of goodness yields goodness. But this assumes our minds 
work in rational ways. Dan Ariely debunks this.

In his 2008 book, Predictably Irrational, Ariely shows how our decision-making 
in buying things differs from academic models. Academicians act like Greeks. 
They believe data drives behavior. It doesn't. Desire does. Ariely cites 
findings from neuroscience indicating we make decisions based more on our 
heart's desires than data in our head. Our minds are fundamentally not 
rational, explaining why "mindfulness" is inadequate.

To be fair, the Greeks didn't know about neuroscience. They instead learned the 
hard lesson of how 'seeing the Good' didn't create good people. As society 
prospered, the wealthy - those most mindful of economic opportunities - acted 
like crony capitalists. Income inequities widened. Have-nots looked to the law 
as a corrective. As unbridled liberty and unduly burdensome law increased, the 
middle course shrank. "It was left to Christian thinkers," writes Novak, 
"especially to St. Paul, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas, the task of 
correcting the unfinished psychology of the Greeks."

The correction was conscience. The Early Church was steeped in the Old 
Testament where conscience is described as the "heart" (the Hebrew language 
uses body parts as metaphors for the immaterial realm).3 When the Bible says 
"David's heart smote him" (I Sam. 24:5), it's telling us his conscience was 
correcting him. David wasn't merely conscious of his sin; he responded 
conscientiously by repenting and making restitution. Mindfulness is inadequate. 
It requires a moral motor, conscience, to move us from consciousness to 
conscientiousness. Conscientious individuals more often repent and repudiate 
bad behavior. They're obedient to the unenforceable.

Conscientious people recognize the human capacity for rationalizing our 
failings (Jer.17:8-9). They know the mind plays all sorts of tricks on us. They 
believe self-awareness, or conscientiousness, requires outside assessments. 
Conscientious people rely on 360 reviews, avoiding today's popular 
self-assessments that assume individuals can clearly assess their strengths and 
weaknesses. They can't, which is how the church completed the unfinished 
psychology of the Greeks. It introduced conscience.

This is why Western culture flourished for a millennium. When a society's 
institutions operate conscientiously, they steer a middle course. They exhibit 
the courage to do good - no matter what the cost. "Conscience is an active 
combining of knowledge with the moral courage to do the good," wrote Thomas 
Aquinas. Martin Luther steered this middle course, standing at the Diet of 
Worms and uttering these immortal words: "My conscience is captive to the Word 
of God, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is 
neither right nor safe."

The founding fathers had much to say about conscience, tying it to a virtuous 
society and free markets. James Madison wrote that when a nation follows the 
"dictates of conscience," a free people remain free. Sadly, within a century, 
the idea of conscience dissolved. Capitalism was no longer bound by its 
dictates. That's where we pick up the story next week.

Follow me on Twitter: @Metzger_Mike

_____________________
1 John Micklethwait & Adrian Wooldridge, The Fourth Revolution: The Global Race 
to Reinvent the State (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).
2 Michael Novak, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism (New York: Simon & 
Schuster, 1982).
3 Herant Katchadourian, Guilt: The Bite of Conscience (Palo Alto: Stanford 
University Press, 2010), p. 143.


-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to