Alan Greenspan's "Mistake": Some Theological Reflections

It may be a long time before we hear another Federal Reserve Board Chairman admit the kind of mistake that Alan Greenspan did recently. Typically, gurus neither admit mistakes nor concede even the possibility of making one. There has been no bigger guru around than former chairman Greenspan these past few years, so his very public confession is a big deal, and he deserves a lot of credit for being a mensch about it.

Not to kick a man who has already taken himself down, I do think that "mistake" is not quite the right word for what this good man is talking about. A fundamental and global error in thinking may be more like it. But no matter: confession is the first step toward being forgiven. The second is learning something from the experience of both, which is what this column is all about.

Alan Greenspan's admission is edifying because it immediately transcends economic theory, even though it is expressed in explicitly economic categories. Certainly it has to do with ignoring the fatal flaws of what George Soros has called "market fundamentalism," a dogma roughly approximate in status to Papal Decrees, to the effect that markets work better for the heavy hitters to the extent that they are unregulated and for the great unwashed to the extent that heavy hitters' capital gains trickle down to them. But what Mr. Greenspan has let us in on about this dogma points straightaway to its deepest problem, a naïve misunderstanding of what human beings --- all of us --- are really like. Mr. Soros elaborates on this point in philosophical terms. I think the issue at stake is even better thought through as an exercise in theological anthropology, viz. with reference to what the Christian tradition has wisely said about "fallen" human nature.

What apparently upset Greenspan the most about the economic catastrophe that has befallen us is the failure of leaders in the financial sector to pursue their self-interests in an enlightened, rational manner, as they were supposed to do. Instead, they allowed greed to overwhelm their common sense, thereby infecting the whole system that is designed to run on the basis of rational deliberation with impulsive, self-serving behaviors run amok. The "mistake" the former Chairman says he made was his failure to notice signs of infection early enough to innoculate the system with just enough virus-destroying regulation to restore it to health. Sadly, however, the mistake is much bigger than just this.

And it has been with us for some time, from at least the first publication of Adam Smith's An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, in 1776 no less. In his own right, this Scottish moral philosopher ("economics" had not been invented yet) offered something of a Declaration of Independence on his own, defending the pursuit of wealth unfettered by external powers, save that of the marketplace's own "iron hand," as not only a good but a trustworthy thing, given human beings' innate proclivity to temper the pursuit of self-interest by disinterested, rational considerations. Ironically, in the same year David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, which dealt a death blow to the idea of a Providential Presider over human cupidity, were published posthumously as Hume himself had provided for.

200 hundred years later, the exercise of rational control over the pursuit of self-interest was rapidly going by the wayside in our own country. In the 1980's, one of the biggest market manipulators of all, Ivan Boesky, summed it up well: Greed is right. Michael Douglas' Academy Award creation, Gordon Gekko, preferred putting it as greed is good. So much for rationally-driven self-correction, either of a global economy or an individual's character.

Fellow coveters, forgive me for hyping this next sentence with caps that I usually work hard to avoid; ordinarily they remind me too much of the mindless OMG of computer-speak. But here it is: Greed IS NOT right, and it IS NOT good. It is a sin, and a deadly one at that, no matter what word may be substituted for it (envy and lust come to mind immediately). It corrupts human inclinations, character, and institutions quickly, and like compulsions and addictions in general it cannot be brought under control without the "iron hand" of regulations and regulated regulators, and without the hope that help will be available from an Almighty and Merciful hand with a grip on us that is infinitely stronger than our own.

The fact of the matter is that human beings are in general very far from being the rationally self-interested beings that Alan Greenspan apparently supposed us to be. We are much more like the Laban and Jacob of Genesis 31:49, kept at peace only by a contract which includes a petition to the Almighty to watch between them while they are apart from one another, because they cannot trust one another to do the watching themselves.

Bedmates: Marital and Political

In theological circles, a debate has been going on for some time about how to read the early chapters of Genesis on the marriage relationship. Tradition infers from them that a woman is intended to be her man's helper. Feminism does not take the ribbing in stride; women are mens' partners, and men are womens' partners, whether God said so or not. Hierarchy and subordination should not enter the picture at all. Early in the debate, good academic that I am, I lined up on both sides. The feminists are right, I believe, and Genesis, properly understood, agrees with them. Role differentiation? You betcha. Imposed upon partners without either their input or their consent? Heck no.

Applying this consideration to a present day issue necessitates getting down, dirty and, as if it did not come to the same thing, political for a minute. If the four women at the top of the campaign ladder and the one man I will get to shortly are any indication, this issue is no more settled in our society than it is in our churches. Governor Palin's gee whizzes are the campaign equivalent of elbowing her struggling-to-keep-up, so-called partner almost off the platform altogether, which may be one of the reasons she seems to have been carefully positioned behind and off center to him. By contrast, Mrs. McCain on the platform looks for all the world like the Stepford Wife that all too many men in this country still secretly wish their own wives were. At least she came out of her trance long enough to join the protests against sending our sons and daughters into battle without the proper equipment. In my reading of Genesis, though, it is the Governor who looks more like Eve. Hopefully, Mrs. McCain is more adept at pillow talk than common decency allows her to reveal.

To all outward appearances, Mrs. Biden seems the quintessential helpmate who is thoroughly her own person in the role and who is enjoying herself just as thoroughly as the genuine person she is. Somehow, I find it hard to imagine that Mrs. Obama will be content to remain quietly in the background and let her husband figure out all on his own how to get the tracks rebuilt off of which our country has been hurled. I can't help thinking that her pillow talk would run along the same lines as Mrs. Clinton's might have, softly but reinforced by a stick under her pillow big enough to propel her conversation partner to the floor with a flick of the wrist. The main idea that I hope will carry over into the next paragraph is that in a marital partnership with a President, both sexual and presidential matters should get expressed in the bedroom, not in the conference room, not in the Senate, and not on the campaign trail.

And with this idea aloft, it is time to turn to Alaska's self-proclaimed "chief dude," Todd Palin. For all of the Palins' conservative Christian background, Mr. Palin seems extraordinarily caught up in the feminist ideal of marital partnership rather than marital helpmate, even to the point of telling people what's what in the ways that the Alaska electorate thought only their governor should be doing. At least, this is what is coming out of the recently released investigative report on the real Governor Palin's not so seemly arm twisting. (To be fair, though, we could wonder why either of them would have had to buttonhole so many officials to get a hearing for their complaints about a very suspicious-acting former relative by marriage.)

It is difficult to imagine any female executive in business, industry, or the professions today who would even think of permitting their own Big Dudes unfettered access to their places of business, their offices, and their staff. And for all of my theological affinity with fellow Christians who believe that God intends spouses to be equal partners in keeping their marriages strong, in Todd Palin's case I'm all for hierarchy, subordination, and following respectfully behind the currently more powerful one in the relationship. It is wonderful to contemplate the bliss this delightful couple may continue to enjoy in begetting together. It is not so wonderful to contemplate the power they might acquire in governing the country together.

What is especially refreshing about the four women we are getting to know as a result of the current Presidential campaign is the comfort they and their spouses seem to have with the roles they have chosen to play in their own marriages. They make the possibility of settling once and for all what Genesis says about husbands and wives just a little more remote. Which may be what God has had in mind all along.