The Three Musketeers of Capitalism

By Pat Berkheim
contributing writer

Capitalism needs to be "all for one and one for all". Capitalism as a total free market is unrealistic. Every man for himself produces winners and losers, an unjust two class economic society. Communism produces a two class society of powerful bureaucrats and unmotivated workers and therefore is also unrealistic.

"All for one" means the populace supports the efforts and success of outstanding citizens, encouraging them to produce and lead the way. Like the team being thrilled by the individual efforts of a star running back scoring and helping the team to victory. Also supporting the star's reward of publicity, popularity, and gratuity knowing that these will reflect well on the team.

"One for all" means the entrepreneur realizes his success was not totally an individual accomplishment. Both circumstance and group effort probably contributed to the final result. Like the star running back who gives credit and reward to the blocking and teamwork which make his touchdowns possible, the economic star recognizes a moral obligation to help the group. As the group is rewarded the star's self interest is also served because the workers are motivated to continue to produce to enhance the success of all. Like the linemen of a humble running back will give more effort than the blockers for and egotistical braggart.

Government is the third musketeer in capitalism ("all for one and one for all"). There are interests of citizens that are not served best by profit driven organizations. Examples are education, police and fire protection, national defense, transportation infrastructure, and health care. Citizens in a capitalist republic also deserve a social safety net to protect children and the elderly. The wealthy need to accept more of this financial burden, understanding that a stable society will benefit all. The government in the football analogy takes the role of coach and referee. The coach encouraging entrepreneurs to invest and support fair wages and bargaining rights. The referee protecting citizens from profit seekers willing to jeopardize our water supply, clean air and food sources. Also, helping to settle differences between business and workers. The coach encourages workers to make reasonable demands and loyally work for the success of the company.

What has happened in America is a swing to only valuing profit. Big business and the wealthy have been consumed by greed. The rich have been able to take control of government by buying politicians. The pendulum needs to swing toward workers rights and responsible government; not bigger government or no government but government that is responsive to all citizens, politicians not manipulated by the wealthy and small activist interest groups in their constant quest for re-election but politicians who believe America is "all for one and one for all".

Greed and Liberty

By Pat Berkheim
contributing writer

Some people care about money. Others care about people. The people who care about money believe if you take care of money the people will prosper. If you care about people you know love of money is not always enough to promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. People who care about others believe government has a role in both liberty and equality.

The people who believe government's only role is to insure liberty believe the wealthy will provide for all. Greed is a false prophet who has convinced many a follower that taxation is an evil demon. A representative democracy must balance equality with liberty. A progressive tax is fair and just. America can afford to help the disadvantaged and be solvent. The wealthy, motivated by greed, will attempt to scare the majority with cries of government control and loss of liberty, but they can pay more with no impact to their liberty.

People who care believe that some elements of America are better served by not for profit entities under the control of the voice of the people. America's judicial system, highway transportation network, police and fire protection, education, social security and our military are examples of entities that would be ill served by for profit private control.

Striving for balance that promotes equality, liberty, and justice is not socialism but the duty of Americas' representative government as defined by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Why Am I A Liberal?

By Dennis McClatchey

My political awakening began in the sixties as I journeyed through high school and then into college. The political story of the day was civil rights. It was during this time that I became truly aware of the inhumanity of the Jim Crow south.

I learned that in the south if you were black you were told: Sorry, you can’t shop here. You can’t dine here. You can’t drink from the fountain here. You can’t ride on the bus here. You can’t live here. You can’t work here. You can’t go to school here. And, if you have the audacity to try to do these things we will bring out the hoses. We will bring out the dogs. We will bring out the clubs. We will bring out the rope. We will bring out the bombs and guns. We will beat and terrorize you into submission. And yet, many had the audacity to believe that this was America, the land of the free. They came out by the scores, by the hundreds, by the thousands. And, out came the hoses, the dogs, the clubs, the rope, and the bombs. Unbelievable pictures of this savage response to the exercise of freedom were thrust into our homes with the powerful visual intimacy of television.

And, during this period, who was it who championed civil rights legislation? It was the liberals. Who fought passage of the legislation? It was conservatives, many of whom were southern Democrats. Regardless of party affiliation, the liberal cry was for civil rights for all, while the conservatives decried loss of states’ rights. Notable conservatives such as William Buckley recognized the injustice but believed the marketplace- capitalism- would eventually solve the problem. Be patient. Eventually these shop owners will realize the color of money is all the same. Even the conservatives’ beloved Ronald Regan, while running for governor of California, proclaimed that if a home owner didn’t want to sell to someone for whatever reason he had a right not to do so.

 I immediately knew where my political soul belonged.

While the civil rights movement was a defining moment for my political arousal, it has not been the only moment. My liberal beliefs have been reinforced both by a reading of history as well as through contemporary events.

In 1935, as a part of his New Deal, it was the liberal Franklin Roosevelt who brought us Social Security including unemployment insurance. And who fought against this bold new initiative? The conservatives, of course, again many of whom were southern Democrats. In fact, a major embarrassment of this otherwise lofty landmark was the fact that Social Security when it was first enacted did not cover most women and minorities, another gift from the conservative coalition of the day.

 Roosevelt also signed the Fair labor Standards Act of 1938. The FLSA provided for a minimum wage, banned child labor and had as its purpose establishing minimum standards of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well being. Once again, it was opposed for the most part by southern conservatives.

It was liberals who promoted and passed in 1965 Medicare and Medicaid providing health coverage for the elderly, the poor, and the disabled. Once more, the conservatives pushed back hard to block this progressive move calling it “socialism.”

The liberal agenda brought us Title IX which established that: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

The liberal agenda brought us The Americans with Disabilities Act which “prohibited private employers, state, and local governments, employment agencies and labor unions from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities…”

The liberal agenda brought us the Consolidated Budget Reconciliation Act (C.O.B.R.A.) which allowed employees access to their employer’s health care coverage for eighteen months if they lost their job or were laid off.

The liberal agenda brought us the Children’s Health Insurance Program (C.H.I.P.S.) which made millions of children eligible to receive health insurance coverage if otherwise unavailable.

These are but a few examples that come readily to mind. Not too shabby of a record for a bunch of “elitists.”

 And, who fought this agenda for social justice? Why, our conservative brethren, of course.

 Now, I know the conservative retort: government is too big, too intrusive, and too expensive. Please, my taxes are too high as it is. Well, friend, if you are paying a chunk of taxes, then you are also making more than a chunk of money, so for you, life is pretty good. So, stop your complaining. “Oh yeah,” you say. “Well, it would be an even better life if my taxes were lower.” Perhaps. But how better would your life be if you lost your job and that liberal sponsored safety net wasn’t there to ease your fall.

Throughout our history it has been those “God-less liberals” who have stood for the poor, the weak, the disabled, the disadvantaged. It has been those “Godless liberals” who have fought for social justice. (Remind you of anyone from history, say around 2000 years ago?) The liberal mantra can be said to be: we are our brother’s keeper. The conservative chant, on the other hand, seems to be: what’s in it for me?

Why am I a liberal? I guess the question to me should be: why isn’t everyone?