Blog

An American Tragedy

Yesterday’s decision of a jury in New York City to find Donald Trump guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records with the intent of covering up a crime puts before the American people this question: how much do they want their constitutional republic to survive?

One notable and now relevant historic precedent was the factional self-destruction of the Roman Republic.

A second relevant and most notable precedent was Maximilien Robespierre’s terror during the French Revolution to cleanse France of “enemies of the people.”  The law which established the tribunals seeking out those “enemies of the people” and killing them was the Law of 22 Prairial (10 June 1794)

That law legalized the following procedures:

The Revolutionary Tribunal is instituted to punish the enemies of the people.

The enemies of the people are those who seek to destroy public liberty, either by force or by cunning.

The following are deemed enemies of the people: those who … have sought to disparage or dissolve the National Convention and the revolutionary and republican government of which it is the center.

Those who have deceived the people or the representatives of the people in order to lead them into undertakings contrary to the interests of liberty.

Those who have sought to inspire discouragement.

Those who have disseminated false news in order to divide or disturb the people.

Those who have sought to mislead opinion and to prevent the instruction of the people, to deprave morals and to corrupt the public conscience, to impair the energy and the purity of revolutionary and republican principles or to impede the progress thereof, either by counterrevolutionary or insidious writings or by any other machination.

The penalty provided for all offenses under the jurisdiction of the Revolutionary Tribunal is death.

The proof necessary to convict enemies of the people comprises every kind of evidence, whether material or moral, oral or written, which can naturally secure the approval of every just and reasonable mind; the rule of judgments is the conscience of the jurors, enlightened by love of the Patrie; their aim, the triumph of the Republic and the ruin of its enemies.

If either material or moral proofs exist, apart from the attested proof, there shall be no further hearing of witnesses, unless such formality appears necessary, either to discover accomplices or for other important considerations of public interest.

The law provides sworn patriots as council for calumniated patriots; it does not grant them to conspirators.

We should note in this law that those accused had no right of defense.  If there was evidence against them, they could not contravene it with counterevidence of their own. And no legal counsel could assist them.

More importantly, the standard for conviction was whatever the jurors might believe, no matter how false such beliefs were or how prejudiced the jurors were.

In the criminal proceeding against Donald Trump and in line with the Law of 22 Prairial, the judge left it to the conscience of the jury to find a crime.  His jury instructions encouraged them to indulge in speculation and prejudice.

Nor, during the trial, did the judge permit Trump to have effective assistance of counsel.  The judge even refused to let the jury hear germane and material testimony from an expert witness that no crime had been committed under federal election laws.

Trump’s trial, in other words, was a diluted measure of French revolutionary terror seeking to destroy an “enemy of the people.”  The revolutionary faction on the hunt for its enemies being the Democrats in the White House desperate to crush through state repression those whom they fear as “counter-revolutionary” activists.

Fear of such opposition to the moral hegemony asserted by the Democrats has been given the name of “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” a kind of elite psychosis.

Looking back, we might even say that Robespierre, Saint Just and other Jacobins also were under the influence of some derangement of mind and heart.

The dynamic of breaking the law in order to defend the law was presciently described by James Madison in his 10th Federalist Paper on factionalism.

Madison considered any propensity for the “violence of faction” to be a “dangerous vice.”  He reasoned:

“The instability, injustice and confusion introduced into the public councils have, in truth, been the moral diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished.” …

“The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society.  A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.” …

“It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests and render them all subservient to the public good.  Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.”

John Locke, in his 1690 second treatise concerning civil government, had previously rendered an opinion as to abuse of lawful authority as we have seen accomplished in the criminal trial of Donald Trump.

According to Locke, the purpose of civil government is to protect us from “the corruption and viciousness of degenerate men.”  Thus, a government may be directed to no other end but the peace, safety and public good of the people”.

Locke proposed that all power is given to public officials as a trust and that whenever that trust is manifestly neglected or opposed, the powers which have been given in such trust must be forfeited and returned to the people.  A public trust may never be used to further personal ambitions.  Making use of power not for the good of those who are under it, but for one’s own private, separate advantage, is tyranny.  “Wherever law ends, tyranny begins,” he said.

Locke insisted that whenever rulers “make themselves or any part of the community, masters or arbitrary disposers of the lives, liberties or fortunes of the people,” they forfeit their trust and lose their authority.  They, thus, “put themselves into a state of war with the people.”

“Great mistakes in the ruling part, many wrong and inconvenient laws and all the slips of human frailty will be born by the people without mutiny or murmur.  But if a long train of abuses, prevarications and artifices, all tending the same way, make the design visible to the people and they cannot but feel what they lie under and see whither they are going; it is not to be wondered, that they should then rouze themselves and endeavour to put the rule into such hands which may secure to them the ends for which government was at first erected.” (Sec 225)

“The end of government is the good of mankind and which is best for mankind, that the people should be always exposed to the boundless will of tyranny or that the rulers should be sometimes liable to be opposed, when they grow exorbitant in the use of their power and employ it for the destruction and not the preservation of the properties of their people?” (Sec 229)

“Here, it is like, the common question will be made, who shall be judge, whether the prince or legislative act contrary to their trust? … To this I reply, the people shall be judge; for who shall be judge whether his trustee or deputy acts well and according to the trust reposed in him, but he who deputes him and must, by having deputed him, have still a power to discard him, when he fails in his trust?” (Sec. 240)

With the conviction of Donald Trump, no matter how the case finally comes out after appeal courts have considered its lawfulness and fairness, the American people now face a watershed November election in their political history: will this abuse of power by the Democrats be ratified by the people or will the Democrats be found to have forfeited their public trust?

At stake for the American is nothing less than the rule of law and their constitutional order.

The Caux Round Table Principles for Government accept the righteousness of the rule of law, looking at precedents in different wisdom traditions – Ezekiel 34 in the Old Testament, Cicero, the Buddha’s middle way, Qur’anic guidance in keeping one’s trusts (Amanah) and serving as God’s steward (Khalifa), Mencius on the right of revolution, Confucius on the need for virtue (te).

Our principles include the following:

Public power is held in trust for the community.

Power brings responsibility.  Power is a necessary moral circumstance in that it binds the actions of one to the welfare of others.

Therefore, the power given by public office is held in trust for the benefit of the community and its citizens.  Officials are custodians only of the powers they hold.  They have no personal entitlement to office or the prerogatives thereof.

Holders of public office are accountable for their conduct while in office.  They are subject to removal for malfeasance, misfeasance or abuse of office.  The burden of proof that no malfeasance, misfeasance or abuse of office has occurred lies with the officeholder.

The state is the servant and agent of higher ends.  It is subordinate to society.  Public power is to be exercised within a framework of moral responsibility for the welfare of others.  Governments that abuse their trust shall lose their authority and may be removed from office.

Justice shall be provided.

The civic order and its instrumentalities shall be impartial among citizens without regard to condition, origin, sex or other fundamental, inherent attributes.  Yet, the civic order shall distinguish among citizens according to merit and desert where rights, benefits or privileges are best allocated according to effort and achievement, rather than as birthrights.

The civic order shall provide speedy, impartial and fair redress of grievances against the state, its instruments, other citizens and aliens.

The rule of law shall be honored and sustained, supported by honest and impartial tribunals and legislative checks and balances.

Truth and Moral Capitalism

I just read a clever little human-interest story which brought me up short.

The story was about Peter Barton Hutt, of whom I had never heard.  He apparently introduced to the American consumer systemic learning of the “truth” about what they bought to eat – the mandated nutrition labels that sellers of food products must put on their packaging to inform customers of what is in the food they are buying.

Five decades ago, Hutt wrote the rules on disclosure of ingredients for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.  Disclosures of ingredients have since appeared on billions and billions of packages in legible typeface.

But consider: how can a moral capitalism ever work if there is no truth?

Running capitalism on “your” truth or “my” truth just won’t cut it.  Such a system of illusions and delusions, of random guestimates, will never gain traction among human persons.  Who will trust whom about what something is or is not?

If there is not truth, how can any good, service or company be given a sound and sensible valuation?  Governments impose a requirement for telling the truth on those who issue securities.  Donald Trump is in big legal trouble for allegedly not telling the truth about the value of his ownership interests.  The courts impose liability on those who lie, cheat, deceive and misinform and so harm others.

Markets need flows of trusting buyers to survive from moment to moment.  Unquestioned reliance on the probity and honesty of sellers makes markets possible.  Caveat emptor – “buyer beware” – is an age-old caution putting a drag on market dynamics.  Not every seller tells all the truth all the time.

Alan Greenspan’s quip about the dangers of “irrational exuberance” – a form of truthlessness – has caused many a market bubble to form and then pop, leaving buyers sorry and angry over their unexpected losses.

If truth drives markets to produce the “wealth of nations,” as Adam Smith observed, who then can we find to always be truthful and keep our markets working for the best?

Remembering John Brandl: A Moral Politician

A friend of mine, the late John Brandl, a former Minnesota legislator and dean of the Humphrey School of Public Affairs, demonstrated in his life and his career in politics how to incorporate moral ideals with self-interest and differences in religion to create a common good for citizens.

John demonstrated, with tact and grace and through personal perseverance, that we can collaborate in good faith with others who are not our intellectual or cultural clones to instantiate in our lives a common good.

We have included in a special issue of Pegasus some essays written in honor of John’s example.

I am reminded, when thinking about John and others like him who I have met around our world, that it is individuals who create moral outcomes.  Such happenings are not of natural design.  Nor do they come about by accident or from thoughtless, uncaring, selfishness.  They demand human agency and invention.

Principles – for moral capitalism, moral government and moral society – can easily and elegantly be proposed, but only individuals can bring them as a living presence into the reality that philosopher Jurgen Habermas called “facticity.”

Therefore, I hope I am not being overly provincial in bringing to your attention the example of an American politician from one of our 50 states.

An Historic Contribution to Interfaith Understanding within the Family of Abrahamic Religions

Last Thursday, at the Pontifical Institute for the Study of Arabic and Islam in Rome, our fellows, Professor Ibrahim Zein and Dean Recep Senturk, both of the College of Islamic Studies, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, gave presentations at the Georgetown Lecture on Contemporary Islam 2024.

John Borelli, special assistant for Catholic identity and dialogue to the president of Georgetown University, moderated the program.

Professor Ibrahim Zein and Ahmed El-Wakil have authored a book, The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad, on the historical giving by the Prophet Muhammad of covenants to respect and protect Christians and Muslims.

For his part in the Georgetown lecture, Professor Zein affirmed, after close study of multiple existing recensions of covenants given personally by the Prophet, that these documents are not forgeries.  His conclusion is that we have accurate texts of covenants given by the Prophet Muhammad from which we can learn more about his religious principles, his values and his engagement with non-Muslims “under the wing of mercy,” as he said in several of his covenants.

In this connection, it is most important to note that the Qur’an opens with acknowledgement of Allah’s mercy and compassion:

In the name of God, the Most Compassionate, Most Merciful: Praise be to God, Lord of the worlds, the Most Compassionate, Most Merciful.

Dean Recep then spoke to the contemporary application of the values enshrined in Prophet Muhammad’s covenants with Christians and Jews (and also with Zoroastrians).  Dean Recep places the Prophet’s use of covenant within the moral recognition of a universal humanity arising from God’s creation of Adam and all those who descended from him.  In Arabic, this universalism of the inherent possibility of preciousness to be associated with all human persons is called Adamiyyah. (Please refer to Dean Recep’s article, “Islamic Law and the Children of Adam”.)

The common conclusion of the two presentations is that at the time of the Prophet, Islam was a more welcoming and tolerant religion than is conventionally accepted these days by many, including many Muslims.

At the conclusion of the Q&A segment of the lecture, our chairman emeritus, Lord Daniel Brennan, stated his view that the lecture had been “historic” in opening new vistas for mutual respect and inter-religious collaboration and mutuality among the faithful followers of the three Abrahamic religions.

To decide for yourself how significant it is for us today to learn about the covenants of the Prophet Muhammad and their affirmation of tolerance in religion, please do read the book by Professor Ibrahim Zein and Ahmed El-Wakil linked above.

I would also like to thank Silvano Cardinal Tomasi for his leadership and guidance these past 5 years, as the Caux Round Table has provided its good offices as best as possible to gather scholarly opinion about the provenance, historicity and textual authenticity of the Prophet’s covenants.

I write this on the day of Pentecost, a moment of remembrance for Christians of the coming of the Holy Spirit into our world.  May that touch of higher justice inspire all of us to think again of just who is our neighbor and what is due to them from us.

Caux Round Table Proposal for Reconciliation Among Those Faithful to the Abrahamic Religions

I write to you from Rome where yesterday, our chairman emeritus and myself, with our Caux Round Table fellows, Silvano Cardinal Tomasi, John Dalla Costa, Dean Recep Senturk and Professor Ibrahim Zein, made public a press release and statement on the use of covenants for reconciliation among the faithful within the family of the Abrahamic religions.

Yesterday was most significant for releasing a statement on seeking peace in the Holy Land.  It was the anniversary of the 1948 Nakba, a devastating experience for many Palestinians, leading to decades of alienation and conflict between Palestinians and the Jews of Israel.

The world has watched, over many decades, failure after failure to heal the wounds of fear and conflict in the Holy Land and bring about a just and lasting reconciliation among parties in conflict.

Perhaps, therefore, a new approach is needed.  Neither war, nor sovereign claims to territory, nor conferences and diplomatic interventions, have been successful.

Finding a basis for mutual respect and appreciation of the other is needed, as Pope Francis proposed in his last encyclical, Fratelli Tutti.  In this context, the precedent of the Prophet Muhammad giving covenants for himself and his followers to keep until the end of time to respect and protect Christians and Jews becomes of great significance.

Orn Bodvarsson Appointed Fellow

It is my honor to report that Orn Bodvarsson has been appointed a fellow of the Caux Round Table.

Professor Bodvarsson has an enviable record of accomplishment in teaching and thinking about capitalism, business, finance and public governance.  He has been graciously supportive of our work in past years and I look forward to his greater involvement in our delivering thought leadership and a foundational vision of justice.

Orn has a Ph.D. in economics from Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada, with research in labor economics, applied microeconomics, economics of information and financial economics. He received his B.S. in economics, with honors, from Oregon State University in 1979 and his M.S. in agricultural and resource economics, also from Oregon State University, in 1982.

Orn is currently the dean of the Atkinson Graduate School of Management and professor of economics at Willamette University in Salem, Oregon.

Previously, he was dean of the Gore School of Business and professor of economics at Westminster University in Salt Lake City, Utah, dean of the College of Social Sciences and Interdisciplinary Studies and professor of economics at California State University, Sacramento and founding dean of the School of Public Affairs and professor of economics at St. Cloud State University in St. Cloud, Minnesota.

Orn has published The Economics of Immigration: Theory and Policy, 2nd edition (with Hendrik F. Van den Berg), Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag (2013) and numerous articles for peer reviewed journals.

He will bring to our discussions a wise humanity, an open mind and thoughtful attention to detail.

I am delighted to have his guidance and counsel readily available.

Cultivating a Better Understanding of AI: Video

Back on April 2, our fellow, Michael Wright, CEO of Intercepting Horizons, provided us with a general overview of AI, which you can view here.

Michael is a values-driven leader and innovator who is passionate about leveraging technological convergences to shape future business landscapes.

He is the author of two books, The Exponential Era and The New Business Normal, both on management and technology.

Many thanks to Loren Swanson, one of our regular participants, for recording it.

American Education In-person Round Table – Thursday, May 23

Our colleague, Michael Hartoonian, keeps us thinking about how a society can meet expectations of promoting moral capitalism and benefiting from moral government if citizens are not well educated.

America is in crisis – mostly due to elite failure in government and culture.  Our slogan, to borrow from students in our elite educational institutions, might be: “From the Atlantic to the Pacific – America is unhappy.”  The crisis has enveloped all our institutions of education, from pre-K to post graduate.  Failure of educational institutions has aggravated our dis-ease.

One set of data on this is the following chart:

Michael has recently drafted a statement on public education.  I have sent it to the presidents of colleges and universities in Minnesota with a request that they work with us on a Minnesota statement of ethical principles for higher education.  I attach a copy for your review.

Please join at noon on Thursday, May 23 at Landmark Center for an in-person round table over lunch to discuss what needs to be done to address what is both a consequence and a cause of our national anxiety and consequent low expectations of ourselves and our leaders.

Registration and lunch will begin at 11:30 am.

Cost to attend is $20.

Lunch will be provided by Afro Deli.

To register, please email jed@cauxroundtable.net.

April Pegasus Now Available!

Here’s the April issue of Pegasus.

In this edition, we include three articles.

The first, by yours truly, is about equity.  What is it?  What’s its history?  Do people who speak of it actually know what they’re talking about?

Secondly, we include a piece by Michael Hartoonian on the causes, propositions and policy recommendations for atrophying societies.

Lastly, we have a guest article by a colleague at the Sasin School of Management on boosting Western capitalism with Eastern wisdom.

As usual, I would be most interested in your thoughts and feedback.

It’s the Values, Stupid!

Bad actors make a mess of capitalism.  Deepfake creators are taking advantage of AI capabilities available in the market to scam companies.

In particular, AI programs can now imitate actual voice patterns of individuals to create phony, over the phone instructions to companies to do something for a supposed customer.

Banks and financial service companies are among the first to be targeted.  Companies providing voice activated access to personal accounts could expose depositors to theft.

OpenAI has showcased technology that can re-create a human voice from a 15-second audio clip.  But, thoughtfully, OpenAI said it would not put the technology on the market until it has more information on potential misuse.

Bad actors could also use AI to generate fake driver’s licenses to set up online accounts.

Could it be that we really do need “morals” in capitalism to protect the common good, that self-interested, short-term money profiteering is an unreliable road leading to increasing the wealth of nations?