By William C. Shelton

(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville News belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville News, its staff or publishers.)

People sometimes ask whether I’m ‚Äúconservative,‚Äù ‚Äúliberal,‚Äù ‚Äúprogressive,‚Äù ‚Äúlibertarian,‚Äù etc. I never know what to say. I’ve never fit comfortably into a single label, and I believe that they’re increasingly meaningless. Certainly today’s conservative and liberal policies bear little resemblance to their historical predecessors’ core beliefs.

Here is what makes me a conservative. I believe in preserving the integrity of families and communities. I believe that, except during war and deep depressions, government should not spend more than it takes in, and when it does, it should pay down debt as quickly as possible. I don’t believe that you can solve problems by throwing money at them. I don’t believe that farmers should get paid for not growing crops or that corporations should get bailed out for their greed-driven catastrophes.

I believe that people at the local level generally know what to do for themselves and how to do it better than do federal legislators and bureaucrats. I believe that the U.S. government should not meddle in other countries’ affairs, except in cases of genocide. Some readers will be offended to learn that I believe in the right to bear arms, although I don’t think that right extends to automatic assault weapons. I believe that the U.S. should start building nuclear power plants now.

My values are essentially conservative. But I believe that the world has changed so much that our institutions, particularly those most defended by today’s ‚Äúconservatives,‚Äù are antagonistic to these values. For the wellbeing of our families, our communities, and the planet, I believe that we need to transform our institutions at their roots, and that makes me a ‚Äúradical.‚Äù Moreover, I believe that the institutional changes we need most often go toward solutions advocated by the ‚Äúleft.‚Äù

My Webster’s tells me that the oldest meaning of radical is ‚Äúof or relating to the root or origin; fundamental.‚Äù The ‚Äúextremist‚Äù meaning of radical only entered the language as an attack on activists by those interests threatened by root change.

When I say that we need to change our institutions, I don’t mean the Constitution. That radical creation remains a work of genius after 211 years. Instead, it is primarily economic institutions that have warped political, social, educational, familial, community, and health institutions and undermined many of the Constitution’s virtues.

Yet our economic institutions made today’s freedoms possible. Back when we were hunters, gatherers, or early agriculturists, trade involved exchanging a commodity that you produced, for one that you didn’t have. The value of what was exchanged was generally equal. But sometimes, the person who had the commodity you wanted didn’t want what you were offering; and the person that wanted your commodity didn’t have what you wanted.

The invention of money solved this. You sold a commodity for money and bought what you wanted. The value of the commodity that you sold and the one that you bought remained generally equal.

 
About 400 years ago, a kind of transaction that had been rare increased in prevalence. It began with money rather than a commodity. Traders would use the money to buy commodities. They would then sell those commodities, initially to feudal lords, for more than what they paid, ending the transaction with more money. The increased value was profit; the money used to create it was capital.

Emerging capitalists transformed the world. With the industrial revolution, they built an economic base that lifted many out of poverty, supported the growth of intellectuals and artists, and vastly expanded what was possible. They freed, or more accurately, expelled, people who were bound to the land. They created laws bestowing individual liberty and built a world in which the average person’s consciousness became richer and more complex. Human costs were horrific, but few people wanted to become peasants again.

Those radicals who wrote the Constitution could not foresee the dynamic rooted in the very economic institutions that made freedom possible. At the end of every profitable transaction, the capitalist must do something with the profit. If it is simply consumed, the capitalist will have nothing to reinvest and cease to be a capitalist. Profit must generate ever more profit.

When the constitution was written, almost everyone was a farmer, small business owner, or slave. But at the end of every round of economic competition, there are fewer competitors in the ring, and those remaining have more wealth and power.

Simply making a profit becomes insufficient. Capital goes to those who can deliver the highest rate of profit, spinning the hamster wheel ever faster and penetrating more areas of our lives. There are always those who discard ethics and human decency, knowing that others must pay for their greed; hence, the recent and recurring disasters in the financial sectors.

In past decades, the interests of those with the greatest wealth and power aligned with conservative principles. Globalization and cynical politics changed all that. Conservatives of absolute integrity like Barry Goldwater would repudiate policies now advocated by “conservatives.”

The continually increasing concentration of wealth and power that is embedded in our economic institutions is mutilating democracy. Its requirement to constantly grow or die has profound environmental and geopolitical implications as well. If we don’t change it, the families and communities whom we love won’t have much of a future. 

To be continued