Mehra - Blog Post 11

  In Part I of The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Adam Smith begins to illustrate how human sentiment-- particularly sympathy-- is the greatest driver of human action and thought. As humans, we involuntary feed off and are driven by the emotions and conditions of others. Specifically, in Section III, Chapter II, Smith argues for the admiration and superiority of wealthy, powerful people. And once acquired, wealth and power are protected; as Smith writes, “To those who have become accustomed to the possession, or even the hope of public admiration, all other pleasures sicken and decay” (26). In this post, I will apply Smith’s principles from Section III Chapter II to modern antitrust concerns, and use his account to argue for the danger of money in politics. 

Smith’s analysis of maintaining great wealth and power offers a psychological explanation for why today’s greatest corporations and richest individuals oftentimes attempt to increase their own wealth and fight alleged antitrust violations. Smith notes that “The man of rank and distinction  . . . is observed by all the world. Every body is eager to look at him, and to conceive, at least by sympathy, that joy and exultation with which his circumstances naturally inspire him” (23). In short, the rich and powerful are admired by the masses. In fact, they might almost be worshipped; as Smith explains, “Even when the order of society seems to require that we should oppose them, we can hardly bring ourselves to do it,” as it is against our human nature (24). 

Whether or not admiration and “eager[ness] to assist” the wealthy and powerful remains true today is in my view less relevant than the eagerness of the wealthy to maintain their own wealth at extreme levels. The maintenance of superior power by the ultra-rich is somewhat analogous to Smith’s example from the Macedonian War. Smith writes “When the family of the king of Macedon was led in triumph by Paulus Aemilius . . . the king appeared . . . and seemed like one confounded and astonished, and bereft of all sentiment, by the greatness of calamities . . .Yet what did those calamities amount to? He was to spend the remainder of his days . . . in a state of plenty, ease, leisure, and security” (26). Even if the loss of the greatest power does not mean the loss of wealth and comfort, it is devastating to the person who loses power because of, in short,  the superiority of being superior. Smith’s analysis of the ambition for maintaining wealth and power among the wealthy can be applied as a psychological explanation for the increasing absurdity of wealth among today’s ultra-wealthy. 

Smith’s psychological analysis can also be used to argue for the necessity of antitrust law and campaign finance reform. Antitrust laws are designed to promote competition in the marketplace and prohibit monopolization that is anti-competitive and harmful to consumers, among other functions. In a society where people are driven to maintain their wealth and power, it is critical that law regulates corporations such that they do not become unlawful monopolies or ultimately harm consumers. On Smith’s account, though, it is clear that the passing of such regulations could be challenged by the lawmakers themselves. If lawmakers “sympathize” with the wealth and power of some corporations, they may be more inclined to see antitrust laws as constraining their due freedom instead of as protecting individuals in the market. 

Another complication to the approval of antitrust laws (and other laws that constrain corporations generally) stems from the power of the wealthy themselves. This power, paired with Smith’s assertion of their inherent psychological desire to not lose this power, suggests that money in politics will be poisonous. Even if Smith’s argument for the admiration and support of powerful individuals is not universally applicable today, the wealthy can still (and likely will, given Smith’s analysis) maintain their interests by donating to PACs that support particular candidates. Namely, those candidates might oppose stringent antitrust regulations and hold corporation positive views in general. Whether or not the admiration of the people is present, the wealthy can (and mostly will) maintain their wealth in modern society by influencing politics. According to Smith, it is simply in their nature. But surely, the wealthy being psychologically motivated to maintain their wealth is not in line with democracy. The psychology and motivation of the wealthy thus give a case for campaign finance laws.