THE GREENING OF AMERICA by CHARLES A. REICH

[islandboy]

Though the liberals were the mainstay of the New Deal, they were not only numerically weak, they were also weak in determination and consciousness. Soon after the New Deal got under way, there was a counterattack by the Right aimed at the New Deal's most outspoken members; the House Un-American Activities Committee and other Red hunters succeeded in hounding from the government many of those with the most energy and creative ideas. For the others, moderation was in order, plus a discreet move into lucrative private life. These liberals were bright and aggressive; the system as it stood promised them rich rewards, and they showed little inclination to take personal risks in order to press for more drastic reforms when, for them at least, the promised land was at hand. The war, by putting other issues to the fore, relieved them of any lingering sense of guilt over their prudence. Thirty years later, it is revealing to note what became of the New Dealers. Nearly all of them took jobs where they served the very interests which were the enemies against which the New Deal fought. Many became highly paid corporate lawyers, using their know-how to help their clients avoid attempts at public regulation. Many others served as executives of large corporations. They adopted the life-styles of wealth, power, and success. They became hostile to radicalism. If their adventure with the New Deal had been a combination of idealism, glamour, and ambition, it was ambition which proved to be the lasting element. But quite apart from personal motives, the consciousness of the liberals had proved inadequate to the task.

[islandboy]

It was not merely that the New Deal was opposed by Consciousness I; the mind that was actually creating the New Deal fell short. The liberals never imagined how great were the obstacles they faced---the incredibly stubborn opposition of those they were trying to regulate, the lack of true understanding and participation by the workers, the dangers and weaknesses of the reform structure itself. And the liberals were not aware, either, of the degree of America's problems. They knew that much was wrong, but they did not feel it as the youth of today feel it, or see it as fully as it is seen today. They did not adequately sense the plight of the black man, the tragedy of the cities, the irrationality of production of luxuries amid the starvation of public services, the dangers of repression and war. They meant well, but they tired to cure America with half-measures and without personal risk to themselves. After the New Deal ended, the liberals lasted into the 1950's and 1960's, but their day was over. The final lesson of the New Deal, then, is that social change cannot be accomplished without the support of an appropriate consciousness in the people. Mere political change, mere alterations in the law, in structure, or in government power, cannot accomplish basic reform. The New Deal was accepted as a doctor is accepted, in an hour of fear and need. But America retained its basic, almost childish refusal of serious responsibility, its lack of communal solidarity, and above all its myths. It wanted only to get on with the ball game.

[islandboy]

What was the lasting product of these troubled years of disillusionment and reform? The theme that lingered beyond insecurity and beyond idealism was the theme of domination; these years had convinced much of America that its people must be placed under the control of something larger and more rational than individual self-restraint; that individual man must, for the good of all, become part of a system. This  theme runs from Bellamy to FDR, from Mabuse to Portnoy, from the muckrakers to the young lawyers of the New Deal brain trust. The lasting product of the New Deal era was not its humanism or idealism, but a new consciousness that believed primarily in domination and the necessity for living under domination. This consciousness, which grew out of reform, we have called Consciousness II. It is not accurate to call this consciousness "liberalism" or "reformism." Neither liberalism nor reformism were ever given a fair trial in America. Indeed, humanistic liberalism, with a program adequately conceived and followed through, might have given us a viable society for many years after the New Deal. Consciousness II was often associated with "liberalism," but that usage merely altered the meaning of the latter term. For the new consciousness "liberals" cared more about order than they did about liberty. The New Deal also produced a lasting institutional product to go with Consciousness II---the public state. The hope behind this creation was that now public and private power, like the armies of two nations, would balance each other, and the result would be containment of both, and safety for the individual. What the theory neglected was the possibility that the two kinds of power might join. And this is what did happen.

[islandboy]

The final tragedy of the reform movement is that the power it created was amalgamated with the private power already in existence, and with the now overwhelming and terrible power of technology, to form the inhuman structure in which we now live--the American Corporate State.

CONSCIOUSNESS  II
We turn to the consciousness that created the Corporate State---Consciousness II. It carried forward the pessimism of the industrial era and the optimism of reform into a new "realism" that described America in very different terms than those accepted by that part of the population who remained unshaken in Consciousness I and its version of the American dream. In contrast, Consciousness II saw an America where organization predominates, and the individual must make his way through a world directed by others.

[islandboy]

Consciousness II came into existence as a consequence of the disastrous failure of Consciousness I. In the twentieth century, Consciousness I had led to monstrous consequences: robber barons, business piracy, ruinous competition, unreliable products and false advertising, grotesque inequality, and the chaos of excessive individualism and lack of coordination and planning, leading to a gangster world. For many persons, this chaos meant a profound insecurity and sense of powerlessness. In a mass, industrial society ungoverned by any law except self-interest, the individual became the plaything of circumstances and forces beyond his control. A lifetime of hard work could be wiped out by a business failure. The Great Depression brought the whole nation to the brink of disaster. In Germany and Italy, similar insecurity led to fascism. In America, it led to a breach in the existing consciousness, a turn away from individualism. A large number of people continued as Consciousness I, but another group began to develop a new consciousness. To the newer consciousness, what the realities of the times seemed to demand was the organization and coordination of activity, the arrangement of things in a rational hierarchy of authority and responsibility, the dedication of each individual to training, work, and goals beyond himself. This seemed a mattered of the utmost biological necessity; this way of life was what "had to be" if society was to keep on functioning. Consciousness I sacrificed for individual good; now it seemed necessary to sacrifice for the common good.

[islandboy]

Discipline and hierarchy were seen necessary because the society was not yet prepared to offer each person the kind of work he wanted or the chance to perform his work with a measure of independence.

The categories of people in the general area of Consciousness II are very diverse, including businessmen (new type), liberal intellectuals, the educated professionals and technicians, middle-class suburbanites, labor union leaders, Gene McCarthy supporters, blue-collar workers with newly purchased homes, old-line leftists, and members of the Communist Party, U.S.A.  Classic examples of Consciousness II are the Kennedy's and the editorial page of THE New York Times. It is the consciousness of "liberalism," the consciousness of "reform." Most political battles in America are still fought between Consciousness I and II. Consciousness II believes that the present American crisis can be solved by greater commitment of individuals to the public interest, more social responsibility by private business, and, above all, by more affirmative government action--regulation, planning, more of a welfare state, better and more rational administration and management. Behind the facade of optimism, Consciousness II has a profoundly pessimistic view of man. It sees man in Hobbesian terms; human beings are by nature aggressive, competitive, power-seeking; uncivilized man is a jungle beast. Hence the vital need for law: without law we would all be at one another's throats; "only the law makes us free."

[islandboy]

Consciousness II is deeply cynical about human motives and good intentions, and it doubts that man can be much improved. It is this philosophy that helps explain the great emphasis on society and institutions: these are designed to do the best possible job of administering the doubtful and deficient raw material that is "human nature." Believing that the best and most hopeful part of man is his gift of reason, Consciousness II seeks to design a world in which reason will prevail. At the heart of Consciousness II is the insistence that man produces by means of reason---the state, laws, technology, manufactured goods--constitutes the true reality. Just as Consciousness I centers on the fiction of the American Adam, the competitive struggle, and the triumph of the virtuous and strong individual, so Consciousness II rests on the fiction of logic and machinery; what it considers unreal is nature and subjective man. Consciousness II believes more in the automobile than in walking, more in the decision of an institution than in the feelings of an individual, more in a distant but rational goal than in the immediate present. One of the central aspects of Consciousness II is an acceptance of the priority of institutions, organizations, and society and a belief that the individual must tie his destiny to something of this sort, larger than himself, and subordinate his will to it. "Ask what you can do for your country (and corporation), " says the voice of Consciousness II. He is an "institution man." He sees his own life and career in terms of progress within society and within an institution.

[islandboy]

An established hierarchy and settled procedures are seen as necessary and valuable. Achievement by character and hard work is translated into achievement in terms of a meritocracy of education, technical knowledge, and position. When he speaks of the vitally and challenges of his life, this is likely to be in terms of "his part" in the challenges of organized society; a young lawyer may actually spend most of his time doing dull legal research in the library, but he feels that his firm represents important clients and issues, and is involved in exciting controversies; it is not his work in a phenomenological sense but the significance of his work that is important to him. He relies on institutions to certify the meaning and value of his life, by rewarding accomplishment and conferring titles, office, respect, and honor. He also looks to institutions to provide personal security in terms of tenure, salary, and retirement benefits. In place of the continuity of life formerly supplied by religion and family, he sees his work living after him in institutional terms; "this organization is his monument."
Belief in the reality of society is carried into political philosophy. Government regulation of private activities, including business, is considered necessary and desirable; likewise government should help individuals and protect them from the risks of an industrial society. Consciousness II insists that "individual interests" are subject to "the public interest." Thus a typical New York Times editorial will argue that "private" interests such as the desire of hospital employees for a raise, of oil companies to maintain prices, or protecting students to air grievances, must be subordinated to "the public interest." A similar philosophy is a strong part of our current constitutional law.

[islandboy]

In this sense the "liberalism" of Felix Frankfurter, the communism of Lenin, and the patriotism of a policeman's benevolent association are all alike; they insist on the primary reality of the State, not the individual. Consciousness II does not accept any "absolute" liberty for the individual; rather, it regards all individual liberty as subject to overriding state interest. Consciousness II is deeply committed to reform. We can thank its reformist tendencies for changes in the criminal law, for social security, the movement against racial discrimination, regulation of business, government economic planning, internationalism, an end of corruption in government, public projects like TVA, collective bargaining, and improvement of work conditions, and so on down a long, honorable, and admirable list. These reforms help to define Consciousness II because they may be seen as part of a battle with the past. Much of the energy of Consciousness II has gone into battling the evils that resulted from Consciousness I---prejudice, discrimination, irrationality, self-seeking, isolationism, localism, outworn traditions, and superstitions; Consciousness II has worn itself out fighting the know-nothingism of earlier America, Consciousness II believes optimistically in the possibility of social progress ( as distinguished from individual progress, which it doubts). Confront men of Consciousness II with any list of evils and the response is cheerfulness: they know what measures can be taken, they see signs of improvement, and they compare the present favorably with the evils of the past which have been overcome. Even today they still believe America's problems can be solved by pushing ahead with material progress, equality, a greater public commitment to social welfare, to rebuild cities, and to revised domestic priorties.

[islandboy]

Consciousness II believes in the central ideology of technology, the domination of man and environment by technique. Accordingly, science, technology, organization, and planning are prime values. Different groups within Consciousness II might disagree---aircraft executives mightthink the nation should be dominated by machine and computer technology, while professors of English, horrified by this, would think the world should be dominated by rationally critical thought---but the idea of domination is common to both, although neither would necessarily acknowledge that similarity. Throughout all of Consciousness II runs the theme that society will function best if it is planned, organized, rationalized, administered.
Consciousness II believes in control. Even the broadest civil libertarian outlook is placed in a framework of procedures, supervision, and limits. Consciousness II deeply fears what man would be like, and what masses of people would be like, if not placed under the ascendancy of reason. There is in all of this a rejection of unfettered diversity and unresolved conflict. Liberalism, of course, supports conflict as a means to the attainment of the greatest possible rationality (the truth of the market place) and it supports pluralism as a means to attain a balance in society. Consciousness II wants conflict-resolution; it is deeply procedural because procedures help get things "settled"; its paradise would be one possessing an appropriate tribunal or authority where problems are "solved."

[islandboy]

Consciousness II, although nominally "liberal," has the potential to become repressive. It welcomes every point of view and tolerates every idea, but wants everything expressed through proper channels and procedures; it wants no interference with rationalities; it wants no disruptions of orderly processes.  "Freedom" must not destroy the underlying order that enables all types of freedom to flourish in orderly fashion. Consciousness II believes in a meritocracy of ability and accomplishment, the object of which is to promote excellence. Rejecting the rigid structures, caste systems, and hereditary aristocracies of the past, it seeks to open society to universal achievement.
As Consciousness II might conceive of the meritocracy, the society would be so structured as to produce, encourage, and reward those forms of excellence which are socially valuable: the excellent medical man, the excellent lawyer, the excellent scientist. Consciousness II believes in the uncommon man; the man of special abilities and effort, the man who is intelligent, sophisticated, exciting, and powerful. It believes that this form of "merit" can and should be judged by society, using standards that are external and rational; there is an objective difference between an excellent engineer and an incompetent one. Consciousness II believes that this merit is both an inborn capacity and a moral quality. Since it is a moral quality, or a virtue, it furnishes the appropriate basis for a "democratic aristocracy" in which society's "best" people---judged by rational standards---receive the rewards of money, status, security, and respect.

[islandboy]

The meritocracy is therefore structured so as to provide an equal opportunity for all at the starting point, but it rejects the idea of equality thereafter, for such equality is a war with excellence. Consciousness II people are tremendously concerned with one another's comparative status, and they often speak of others in terms of their abilities or lack of abilities; he is "able," he is "not very able," he is "first rate," he is a "C student," he is the "executive type," he is "plodding and unimaginative." There is an abstract equality of opportunity, but not an equality of individual human beings.  Consciousness II is thus profoundly antipopulist and in a large sense, antidemocratic. It is no accident that the most successful Consciousness II individuals surround themselves, not with vulgar material display, but with the signs of elegant style and taste; it is no accident that they show an impatient, intolerant, and disdainfull attitude toward individual members of the very groups they are "trying to help"---the less intelligent, the ill-educated, and above all the blue-collar "boob." For "reason" has led Consciousness II to believe in an elitist society---with never a doubt that the standards by which the elite is determined are the correct ones: utility to the technological society. The absolute worth of each individual is, to Consciousness II, a mere religious doctrine, having no application in reality.  One of the central beliefs of Consciousness II concerns work. The belief is that the individual should do his best to fit himself into a function that is needed by society, subordinating himself to the requirements of the occupation or institution that he chosen. He feels this as a duty, and is willing to make "sacrifices" for it. He may have an almost puritanical willingness to deny his own feelings. Self-sacrifice is regarded as a virtue for two reasons. First, because it serves a higher purpose, that of the state, organization, or profession. Second, because it serves to advance the individual and his family in terms of the rewards that society can offer.

[islandboy]

The Consciousness II man thus adopts, as his personal values, the structure of standards and rewards set by his occupation or organization.  We are not now speaking of the purposes which the organization is designed to achieve, but what the organization defines as standards of individual success. Thus the individual directs his activities toward such goals as a promotion, a raise in salary, a better office, respect and commendation by his colleagues, a title, "recognition" by his profession.   He becomes an oppressive person who does not enjoy himself while at work, who does not seem to have any personal distance from the hurdles that have been set for him. In some cases this even leads the individual to unethical or illegal behavior, which he slips into because it all seems to be part of "playing the game."  A prime characteristic of the Consciousness II person is his disclaimer of personal responsibility for what his organization does or for what society does. He pictures himself as a person without absolute or transcendental values; he cannot make a personal judgment; he must accept the premises of society. He cites the compartmentalization of his work, his lack of general authority. He says that he must defer to the judgments of experts in other areas where he is not competant; if his company is making a dangerous product, that is a matter within the special competence of Product Design; if his country is making war, that is the responsibility of political and military experts. It is not for him to "take a stand"; he doesn't know enough; it would be unprofessional. But this is only a refusal to be responsible, it is a refusal to think independently.

[islandboy]

For example, lawyers talk about the rationality and equality of the law, but they simply do not get outside the accepted assumptions to think about how the law operates as an instrument of one class in society against another. Accordingly, the public values of Consciousness II can stray far from reality; they simply do not question the assumptions, however unreal, of the system in which they function. Like Consciousness I, Consciousness II sees life in terms of a fiercely competitive struggle for success. The difference lies in the means of struggle and the terms of success, for with Consciousness II these are defined by organizational or institutional values. This difference lends an air of gentility or public spiritedness to the struggle by Consciousness II. He can claim, and convince himself, that his struggle is for something other than pure selfishness. His efforts produce good for the corporation or institution, good for the public interest, good for his fellow man, for the more he helps his institution, the more "self-sacrificing" he is, the more he helps himself to get ahead.
Consciousness II does not celebrate his own success with ostentation but with sophistication. Nevertheless, in Consciousness II the struggle does show through from time to time; an excess of zeal, a lack of nicety about means, or a cold and impersonal attitude, combined with driving energy, reveal the true state of things.

[islandboy]

But the void below the meritocracy is far worse than being "at the bottom of the heap" in earlier days; everything that makes the Consciousness II man feel his own reality is lost. His friends are made through his work; they are unlikely to find anything in common with him after his downfall. In a world where men are recognized only by their credentials, to lose credentials is to cease being a human being. Thus it is that some of the most successful men of our times are also among the most insecure; they have to go on proving themselves as if there were cracks in their stylish floors through which they could still catch glimpses of the abyss.
In sum, the new man's insecurity is greater than that of the old. The new man is tied to uncertain forms  and forces over which he feels little control and may at any time be victimized by an impersonal "system"; moreover, when the new man loses, he seems to have less in the way of personal strength---roots, perhaps---to fall back on. He lacks a sense of self that could be sustained despite rejection by the system. And he lacks a community of friends who can be counted on to support him with their affection despite the judgment of society. Because it classifies and judges individuals according to generalized standards, Consciousness II often fails to see behind the classifications to the unique individual. Upon meeting a person, the first thought is to classify him, the second thought is to judge him, and the third is to find the best way to deal with him. The difference between Consciousness I and II can be felt immediately across a lunch table; I is observant of the particular person who is opposite; II pays no attention, and is indifferent to most personal cues and signs of personality. II's conversation, unless he has some particular goal, would be pretty much the same regardless of who was sitting opposite.