Category: Commentary

When reading some of the kind comments I received yesterday and today about my email on VE Day, I recalled my dad once introducing me to the songs of folk singer Josh White. White was well known in the 1940s as using his music for human rights ideals and to end segregation in the White south. He was close to Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt and followed by many of those in my mom and dad’s generation. But in the McCarthy period of strident anti-Communism, White was marginalized and largely forgotten. He was ignored by the folk revival of the 1960s and the growth of audiences keen for the blues.

Josh White’s song “Free and Equal Blues” used the blues genre to reaffirm our common humanity, regardless of race or ethnicity.

His thinking that the body chemistry shared by all persons has moral implications has just been affirmed by the coronavirus, which can reproduce itself without regard for race, religion, ethnicity or class – thanks to the biology we all share.

You can hear White sing this 1940s anthem of global equality here.

The lyrics of the song are:

I went down to that St. James Infirmary and I saw some plasma there,
I ups and asks the doctor man, “Say was the donor dark or fair?”
The doctor laughed a great big laugh and he puffed it right in my face,
He said, “A molecule is a molecule, son, and the damn thing has no race.”
And that was news, yes that was news.
That was very, very, very special news.
‘Cause ever since that day, we’ve had those free and equal blues.

“You mean you heard that doc declare
That the plasma in that test tube there could be
White man, black man, yellow man, red?”
“That’s just what that doctor said.”
The doc put down his doctor book and gave me a very scientific look
And he spoke out plain and clear and rational,
He said, “Metabolism is international.”

Then the doc rigged up his microscope with some Berlin blue blood,
And, by gosh, it was the same as Chun King, Quebechef, Chattanooga, Timbuktoo blood
Why, those men who think they’re noble
Don’t even know that the corpuscle is global
Trying to disunite us with their racial supremacy,
And flying in the face of old man chemistry,
Taking all the facts and trying to twist ‘em,
But you can’t overthrow the circulatory system.

So I stayed at that St. James Infirmary.
(I couldn’t leave that place, it was too interesting)
But I said to the doctor, “Give me some more of that scientific talk talk,” and he did:
He said, “Melt yourself down into a crucible
Pour yourself out into a test tube and what have you got?
Thirty-five hundred cubic feet of gas,
The same for the upper and lower class.”
Well, I let that pass…

“Carbon, 22 pounds, 10 ounces”
“You mean that goes for princes, dukeses and countses?”
“Whatever you are, that’s what the amounts is:
Carbon, 22 pounds, 10 ounces; iron, 57 grains.”
Not enough to keep a man in chains.
“50 ounces of phosphorus, that’s whether you’re poor or prosperous.”
“Say buddy, can you spare a match?”

“Sugar, 60 ordinary lumps, free and equal rations for all nations.
Then you take 20 teaspoons of sodium chloride (that’s salt) and you add 38
Quarts of H2O (that’s water), mix two ounces of lime, a pinch of chloride of
Potash, a drop of magnesium, a bit of sulfur and a soupֱon of hydrochloric
Acid and you stir it all up and what are you?”
“You’re a walking drugstore.”
“It’s an international, metabolistic cartel.”

And that was news, yes that was news,
So listen, you African and Indian and Mexican, Mongolian, Tyrolean and Tartar,
The doctor’s right behind the Atlantic Charter.
The doc’s behind the new brotherhood of man,
As prescribed at Gettysburg, Iwo Jima, Bull Run and Guadalcanal:
Every man, everywhere is the same, when he’s got his skin off.
And that’s news, yes that’s news,
That’s the free and equal blues!

It is VE (Victory in Europe) Day as I write this. I have been watching the news coverage of the end of the war in Europe 75 years ago, a brutal and bloody war to defeat Hitler and his Thousand Year Reich.

The narrative of the news was in the past tense. I wondered if VE Day was covered mostly out of courtesy to the muse of history. Then, thinking of history, I recalled the Atlantic Charter of 1941. In that document, Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt set forth a commitment to achieving a more just human community after the war was won.

The Atlantic Charter said:

The President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom, being met together, deem it right to make known certain common principles in the national policies of their respective countries on which they base their hopes for a better future for the world.

First, their countries seek no aggrandizement, territorial or other;

Second, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;

Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;

Fourth, they will endeavor, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity;

Fifth, they desire to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field with the object of securing, for all, improved labor standards, economic advancement and social security;

Sixth, after the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny, they hope to see established a peace which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries, and which will afford assurance that all the men in all lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want;

Seventh, such a peace should enable all men to traverse the high seas and oceans without hindrance;

Eighth, they believe that all of the nations of the world, for realistic as well as spiritual reasons must come to the abandonment of the use of force. Since no future peace can be maintained if land, sea or air armaments continue to be employed by nations which threaten, or may threaten, aggression outside of their frontiers, they believe, pending the establishment of a wider and permanent system of general security, that the disarmament of such nations is essential. They will likewise aid and encourage all other practicable measure which will lighten for peace-loving peoples the crushing burden of armaments.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Winston S. Churchill

And, after the war, the promises of the Atlantic Charter were kept. We now refer to that Atlantic Charter program in action as the “post-World War II international order.”

The greatest achievement of what the Atlantic Charter proposed is the United Nations. Its preamble sets forth the norms and rules of a fair international order:

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom

AND FOR THESE ENDS

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples

In recent years, considerable angst has been expressed by many committed to that international order of law, no wars of aggression, growing prosperity for all and human rights that the rise of populist nationalism, small wars, migrations and refugees, growing concentration of economic power and inequality of income and wealth have created a bad inflection point in human history, a turning away from the “post-World War II order.”

The ideals embedded in the Caux Round Table Principles for Business and Principles for Governments cannot be disentangled from those in the Atlantic Charter and the Preamble of the United Nations.

VE Day, therefore, is important today, for us and for the world as the scope of justice which it proposed is still wise and needed.

Devry Boughner Vorwerk, a member of our board of directors and a Young Global Leader with the World Economic Forum, is involved in their “#FindingBeauty in Quarantine Times: A 24-Hour Livestream of Art, Culture & Sport” taking place today and tomorrow.

What their program reminds us of is art – beauty, a deeply moral emotion actually open to all of us. We so often let our attention and concerns get wrapped up in organizations, hierarchies, contests of will and power, technologies, money and cold, hard laws of science that we overlook beauty as a source of meaning and hope.

Was it not philosophers who sought to center our lives on truth, goodness and beauty, each one supporting the other?

You can learn about the live streaming here.

I hope you might have a moment to listen in.

Just now in the U.S. and I presume in many other countries struggling to contain the coronavirus, there are differences of expert opinion on how fast to remove restrictions on our personal lives and the economy. There are also conflicting demands from citizens as to what governments should do. Some give priority to getting back to work, while others prefer longer periods of quarantine, just to be sure the virus is in full retreat. Experts differ over the facts, while people have different levels of risk tolerance and different situations – some needing work immediately.

What to do?

Our Principles for Business balance economic goods, narrowly understood, with the non-economic needs of customers, employees and communities, believing that what employment, commerce and finance make possible supports our lives in many important, intangible ways. Our Principles for Government advocate discourse to resolve differences and to mediate conflicting views and priorities on the proper use of public power.

In the U.S. House of Representatives, a small caucus of both Democrats and Republicans, the Problem Solvers Caucus, has proposed a common sense program for returning the U.S. to more normal ways.

You may find their recommendations here.

It is always gratifying when those in positions of authority and influence align their actions with good principles.

One of our fellows, John Dalla Costa, recently sent me a most thoughtful, short essay on implications for our sense of self arising from the current pandemic and the measures we have taken to confine the spread and impact of the virus.

You may read John’s educating observations here.

Our global community, in some unexpected ways, is more coherently united today thanks to the coronavirus than before. But what do we share in common, other than fear, a perceived priority to be given to self-protection and the need to work?

Several years ago, John Dalla Costa proposed using a Talmudic format from the Jewish tradition to assemble thoughts and reflections from across wisdom traditions which would stimulate deeper perceptions into selected ethical objectives. We turned to rabbi Naftali Brawer of London to help us.

Our Talmudic or Midrashic layout and format of these objectives and commentaries related to them can be read here.

I believe from recent Zoom meetings and other conversations that such a compilation of wisdom is far more relevant to our lives today than it was when John first suggested it.

In some recent conversations, a question emerged as to the impact in our secular, desire-driven cultures of today of the demands on character being made by fears and restrictions coming upon us as a result of the jump from animals to humans of the coronavirus. Has our culture empowered us as individuals to have inner resilience under these conditions? Or are many of us too prone to passive self-absorption, resentful dependency, ennui or even anomie in response to our social isolation and the stress of coping with disappointments and dissatisfactions?

I happen to be going through old files as we prepare to move our office to find a list of good mental frameworks for making the most of times such as this and of life in general, even in good times. The list is ascribed to the Dalai Lama, but I can’t confirm that.

In any case, I wanted to share his Instructions for Life with you.

An implication of the ethics of sustainability and concern for stakeholders is to question the reasonableness of having too much debt or fiat currency in the marketplace. The old wisdom of Benjamin Franklin was that “A penny saved is a penny earned.” The ethics of saving and building personal equity – the way to wealth, Franklin said – were once unquestioned in my family and many others.

But when negative interests place the value of money at below zero, who can benefit from saving? Furthermore, cheap money is a market incentive to borrow and incur debt, reducing the safety net provided by equity for companies, families and individuals. Very cheap money expands the scope of moral hazard, does it not?

Please also note this chart, also of some years ago:

There was a story in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal that major American retail companies are struggling to survive under current circumstances due to heavy debt obligations. Boeing was chastised for eating into its cash reserves and leaving itself very vulnerable when losses from the 737 Max 8 debacle arrived.

Equity provides a buffer against fate to protect what has long-term value. Debt is not such a helpful asset; it is accounted for as a liability.

Is very cheap money really in the best interests of all? Over the past 12 years, the provision of liquidity and quantitative easing have gone hand and hand with rising nominal prices for financial instruments. Qui bono? This increase in liquidity and rising market prices have also gone hand in hand with the increasing share of wealth held by the top 1% and 10% of all of us.

If the purpose of capitalism is to provide for the well-being of humanity, might we ask what is the well-being calculus which so favors debt over equity and savings?

The concept of equity in financial accounts derives, I believe, from the commitment to equity in the old courts of England. Equity was added to the law by courts to recognize the moral claim of a person to fairness under the law. In protecting a person’s equitable interests, the courts were protecting not only his or her moral dignity, but also his or her material empowerment.

Fairness in economic arrangements should not overly favor debt and so undermine the advantages provided by equity.

Our affiliate, the Convention of Independent Financial Advisors, has just released this statement calling into question public policies which seem risky and hostile to sound ethical principles.

I recommend it to your consideration.

The global affliction caused by the coronavirus is, as some would say, of Biblical proportions. Does something so natural, but so consequential carry any moral meaning for us?

That question directed me back to the Book of Job, one of the wisdom books of the Judeo-Christian Old Testament.

The story of Job and his God was, to me, always somehow out of sync with the rest of that scripture, but, even so, it gave one grounds to ponder.

With the help of some friends, I have reflected some on how to benefit intellectually and perhaps spiritually from this old text. My own take on the story – and how it ends – can be found here.

I welcome your thoughts on this small essay.