Blog

Recently, some 5 million Americans participated in a “No Kings” day protest, objecting to Donald Trump’s perceived arbitrary and capricious decision-making, his imperious fixation on self.  The slogan, “No Kings,” was shorthand for shouting out, “No Trump.”  It was an iteration in new words of the persistent assertion that he himself – not his ideas only – is a danger to democracy and a dictator in the making.

Opposition to abuse of kingly authority has a long history for Anglo-Americans.  In 1215, the barons of England imposed the Magna Carta on King John to restrain his personal authority.  In 1260 or so, Henry de Bracton, the first legal scholar commenting on English laws, set down the basis for a politics of “No Kings.”  In his treatise, he wrote in Latin: Ipse autem rex non debet esse sub homine sed sub deo et sub lege, quia les facit regem – “The king must not be under man, but under God and the law, for the law makes the king”; non est enim rex ubi doninatur voluntas et non lex – “There is no king where will rules and not law”; and Et ideo si rex fuerit sine fraeno, id est sine lege, debebt et fraenum apponere – “Also his curia, namely, the earls and barons, because if he is without a bridle, that is without law, they ought to put the bridle on him.”

Here, the rule is set down clearly: the law makes the king.  A king acting without the law – an outlaw – is no man to be obeyed.

Later, in 1399, King Richard II was deposed by the “earls and barons” and clergy of his realm.  One of the reasons for his being removed from his throne was written down as:

The King being not willing to maintain and protect the just laws and customs of the Realm, but endeavoring to gratify his pleasure in every thing, according to the arbitrariness of his Will, when the laws of the Kingdom were declared and expounded to him by his justices and others of his Counsel; and when they would desire him to administer justice to his subjects according to those laws, the King with a fierce and stern countenance, would tell them sometimes, that the laws were in his mouth, and at other times, that they were in his breast, and that he alone could make and alter the laws of his Kingdom; and being seduced by that opinion, would not suffer justice to be done to his subjects, but by his threats and menaces forced multitudes of his subjects to desist from the prosecution of their rights at the common law.

In March 1649, after they had won a civil war against King Charles I and executed him for willfully “traitorously and maliciously levying war against the present parliament and the people therein represented,” the Parliament abolished the office of king in England and all its dominions:

And whereas it is and hath been found by experience, that the Office of a King in this Nation and Ireland, and to have the power thereof in any single person, is unnecessary, burthensom and dangerous to the liberty, safety and publique interest of the people, and that for the most part, use hath been made of the Regal power and prerogative, to oppress, and impoverish and enslave the Subject; and that usually and naturally any one person in such power, makes it his interest to incroach upon the just freedom and liberty of the people, and to promote the setting up of their own will and power above the Laws, that so they might enslave these Kingdoms to their own Lust; Be it therefore Enacted and Ordained by this present Parliament, and by Authority of the same, That the Office of a King in this Nation, shall not henceforth reside in, or be exercised by any one single person; and that no one person whatsoever, shall or may have, or hold the Office, Stile, Dignity, Power or Authority of King of the said Kingdoms and Dominions, or any of them, or of the Prince of Wales, Any Law, Statute, Usage or Custom to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding.

This was a dramatic affirmation of the constitutional and political principle “No Kings.”

Yet, our world continues to witness and tolerate national leaders (rulers?) who act willfully on their own prerogative, without the law or having the laws come from within their conscience or out of their mouth.

The Caux Round Table, when drafting its Principles for Government, sided with the principle that “law makes the king.”  We proposed that the powers of an office – any office – are no more than responsibilities to act as a humble trustee of the common good, seeking above all else to benefit others.

Fundamental principle: 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.

I just ran across a letter of June 28, 1985 – 40 years ago – which led to the foundation of the Caux Round Table.  The letter was sent by Frits Philips, former chairman of Philips, in Japan and a leader of Moral Re-Armament, an NGO advocating cross-culture value alignments and headquartered in Caux, Switzerland, to Mr. Yukihisa Fujita of Moral Re-Armament Japan.

Here is the letter:

The article, which Philips referred to, was a report of the Philips Electronics Company on “unfair” Japanese business practices.  It was as if Donald Trump had written it.  The Dutch reporter wrote after reading the report: “Japan is busy disrupting the international economy. Japan is lusting for world power.”

The accusation was that Japanese Zaibatsu industrial groups, coordinating with the Ministry of Trade and Industry, set out to crush competition in the making and selling of high value electronics.  Horrors!  A group of Japanese companies set out in the U.S. to break through into the American market for televisions by making and selling a color television that cost only $400.

Then, it was alleged, the alliance of Japanese companies used the profits from the sale of color televisions to subsidize the production of video cassette recorders to sell them abroad at a low price.  Thus, when Philips came out with a superior quality video cassette recorder, Japanese companies had 95% of the world market.

Having gained a virtual monopoly in the field of consumer electronics, the Philips report alleged that Japanese companies were getting ready to give a “neck chop” to their European competitors by setting product standards, selling at a cheap price and marketing their products.  The Japanese were also scheming to take American market share in the emerging product category of “professional electronics – monitors, telephone systems, copiers, home and personal computers.”

Their tactic was to subvert competitors with cheap prices.  First in components, then in high-grade sub-systems and finally, with the whole apparatus.  “The Japanese don’t mind foregoing profits for a while, provided that they can earn twice as much later on.”

Japan put difficulties in the way of permitting American companies to sell in Japan.  Japanese companies were financed up to 80 % or 90% of their total capital with low interest loans.

The Philip’s report considered increasing tariffs on imported Japanese electronics, noting that an import duty of 19% on compact disc players has given Philips room to become one of the largest makers of these machines in the world.  But Philips took losses up front on the manufacture and sale of CD players in order to gain market share.

Frits Philips and Yukihisa Fujita, with support from Moral Re-Armament, then convened the first meeting of what would become the Caux Round Table at Mountain House in Caux, Switzerland, in 1986 to discuss better rules and practices for international competition in free markets in all countries.

The Economist, in its June 14^th issue, put national industrial policy – such as President Trump’s big, beautiful plan to revive American manufacturing (and by so-doing) Make America Great Again – in a different, more dyspeptic frame of analysis.

The magazine reported:

Politicians hope that boosting manufacturing means decent employment for workers without university degrees or, in developing countries, who have migrated from the countryside.  But factory work has become highly automated.  Globally, it provides 20m, or 6%, fewer jobs than in 2013, even as output has increased 5% by value.

Many of the good jobs created by today’s production lines are for technicians and engineers, not lunch-pail Joes.  Less than a third of American manufacturing jobs today are production roles carried out by workers without a degree.

By one estimate, bringing home enough manufacturing to close America’s trade deficit would create only enough new production jobs to account for an extra 1% of the workforce. Manufacturing no longer pays those without a degree more than other comparable jobs in industries such as construction.  As productivity growth is lower in manufacturing than it is in service work, wage growth is likely to be disappointing, too.

Another misconception is that manufacturing is essential for economic growth.  India’s manufacturing output, as a share of GDP, languishes about ten percentage points below Mr. Modi’s target of 25%.  But that has not stopped India’s economy growing at an impressive rate. In the past few years, China has struggled to meet its growth targets, even as its manufacturers have come to dominate entire sectors, such as renewable energy and electric vehicles.

As our modes of production change and with AI yet to release its full potentials in our economies, should we rethink the benefits of trying, yet again, to out-think markets by turning to managers and implementing their plans?

Last week, I was in Rome for the annual meeting of the Papal Foundation Centesimus Annus, which advocates Catholic social teachings on business, finance and the economy.  The Caux Round Table Principles for Business of 1994 were, in part, derived directly from Pope John Paul II’s 1991 encyclical, Centesimus Annus.  That encyclical was written to recall and extend the 1891 encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum.  Pope Leo XIV has noted his choice of name as intentionally directed to recall the contributions of Pope Leo XIII to Catholic social teachings in the modern era of industrialization as the economic foundation for modern humanity.  Pope Leo XIV must now propose his reflections for a post-industrial global economic order and soon, AI-driven wealth creation.

On coming to the Caux Round Table, I, for the first time, read Papal encyclicals, thanks to the mentorship of Jean-Loup Dherse, an author of our principles for business.  Though raised a Protestant, I immediately appreciated the quality of the thoughts and arguments presented by the Popes in their social teachings, the skill in articulation of how values and the ups and downs of life intersect and could intersect if we would but pay closer attention to ourselves and others. Many passages and sections reminded me of the best U.S. Supreme Court opinions of Chief Justice John Marshall, written 200 years ago.

Last Saturday morning, Pope Leo XIV graciously met with our participants.  I found him most at ease and seemingly assured in the execution of his responsibility to provide thoughtful guidance to all who will listen.  He framed his thinking for the work of all of us who care “to raise a standard to which the wise and the honest may repair.”

You can read his remarks here.

The Pontiff’s thoughts also apply to the work of the Caux Round Table.

Some 20 years ago, when I wrote my book, Moral Capitalism, to provide a thoughtful framework to vindicate the importance of the Caux Round Table Principles for Business, I brought forward a tension between the capitalism promoted by Adam Smith and the capitalism promoted by Herbert Spencer.

In 1851, Spencer wrote Social Statics to present human nature as self-centered, without a moral compass.  Smith, on the other hand, had written a book of moral philosophy, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, which universalized to all persons an inborn capacity for seeking and acting on constructive, wealth-creating, social connectivity.

Smith’s capitalism, therefore, was synergistic and symbiotic, ending towards a balanced dynamic equilibrium and win/win transactions.

Spencer’s capitalism was more a dog-eat-dog struggle, driven by instincts of endless self-seeking, where only the fit prospered and the devil take the hindmost.  Spencer aligned with the political views of Thomas Hobbes on the nature of us being, at best, a grim scenario, where life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”  Spencer presumed that since we descended from the great apes, we retain their self-referential animalism and lack of conscience and that we, too, followed the law of nature that either kill or be killed, eat or be eaten.

Later in the 19^th century, Spencer’s approach was given the name “social Darwinism.”  This, though, was an unkind misuse of Darwin’s thinking about human nature.  Darwin, in fact, wrote a book, The Descent of Man, which was closer to Smith’s thinking.  Darwin argued that humanity was an evolutionary step beyond animality, where regard for others, a capacity for rational thought and language and a sophisticated and reciprocal socialization gave us moral sentiments and a capacity for collaboration.

But in presenting the Spencerian alternative to Smith, I aligned it with Hobbes’ thinking and called it “brute capitalism.”

I attach here chapter 3 on brute capitalism from my book.

The timely question is whether or not Donald Trump is a brute capitalist.  If he is, his policies will be out of sync with what is best for America and the world.

This past Tuesday, in an editorial, the Wall Street Journal said of Trump: “Mr. Trump thinks he can bully everyone into submission, but he can’t bully Adam Smith, who deals in reality.  Markets know that tariffs are taxes and taxes are anti-growth.”

Trump’s win/lose understanding of globalization and international trade and markets seems to adopt Spencer’s understanding of the human condition.

Consider Trump’s remarks on “Liberation Day,” when he proposed to throw off the shackles which foreigners had used to “rip off” Americans.  Were they not win/lose, beggar your neighbor, don’t give the suckers an even break?

He said:

“For decades, our country has been looted, pillaged, raped and plundered by nations near and far, both friend and foe alike.  American steelworkers, auto workers, farmers and skilled craftsmen, we have a lot of them here with us today.  They really suffered gravely.  They watched in anguish as foreign leaders have stolen our jobs, foreign cheaters have ransacked our factories and foreign scavengers have torn apart our once beautiful American dream. … Our country and its taxpayers have been ripped off for more than 50 years, but it is not going to happen anymore.  It’s not going to happen.  In a few moments, I will sign an historic executive order instituting reciprocal tariffs on countries throughout the world, reciprocal.  That means they do it to us and we do it to them, very simple, can’t get any simpler than that.  This is one of the most important days, in my opinion, in American history.  It’s our declaration of economic independence.  For years, hardworking American citizens were forced to sit on the sidelines as other nations got rich and powerful, much of it at our expense, but now it’s our turn to prosper.”

This is win/lose thinking, as Spencer would validate as quintessentially human.  Kind of brutish, don’t you think?

Jamelle Bouie recently wrote in the New York Times his own take on Trump as a brute capitalist:

He did not reason himself into his preoccupation with tariffs and can neither reason nor speak coherently about them.  There is no grand plan or strategic vision, no matter what his advisers claim — only the impulsive actions of a mad king, untethered from any responsibility to the nation or its people.  For as much as the president’s apologists would like us to believe otherwise, Trump’s tariffs are not a policy as we traditionally understand it.  What they are is an instantiation of his psyche: a concrete expression of his zero-sum worldview.

The fundamental truth of Donald Trump is that he apparently cannot conceive of any relationship between individuals, peoples or states as anything other than a status game, a competition for dominance.  His long history of scams and hostile litigation — not to mention his frequent refusal to pay contractors, lawyers, brokers and other people who were working for him — is evidence enough of the reality that a deal with Trump is less an agreement between equals than an opportunity for Trump to abuse and exploit the other party for his own benefit. For Trump, there is no such thing as a mutually beneficial relationship or a positive-sum outcome.  In every interaction, no matter how trivial or insignificant, someone has to win and someone has to lose.  And Trump, as we all know, is a winner.