Capitalism and Human Values (and Magazines)

My wife and I are active humanists and subscribe to the American Humanist Association’s magazine, The Humanist (“a magazine of critical inquiry and social concern”). While there are certainly exceptions (me included), humanists tend to lean left in politics. Perhaps it’s because the left better parades its human concerns – poverty, inequality, etc. Though in my view the ends are disserved by the means they advocate.

Anyway, the Humanist magazine has had a pronounced leftward slant. I particularly recall a flaming anti-American rant by an emigre from Vietnam. Well, I do believe in free expression. But when one Humanist issue really overdid it, including an article hitting a whole slew of pet lefty tropes, I decided to e-mail the editor, Jennifer Bardi. I queried whether, for the sake of balance, she might accept an article with a different viewpoint, to be titled “Capitalism and Human Values.”

Her response was that “it would certainly be appropriate to examine the ideas you propose. I’m intrigued, and invite you to submit.”

So, with a prescribed 3,000 word limit, I went ahead and wrote the piece. It was rejected – “doesn’t suit our editorial needs.” Bardi denied that this was “because it’s not inline (sic) with our progressive slant.” “Rather,” she wrote, “we felt that while you make (sic) some reasonable conclusions, the piece oversimplifies at some points and ignores too much (i.e., conglomeration (sic), Wall St. hedging, etc.).”

Well – given just 3,000 words for a huge subject, perhaps a few oversimplifications were unavoidable. But as for “conglomeration, Wall St. hedging, etc,” this seemed shallow sloganeering, reflecting exactly the “progressive slant” Bardi denied invoking. And it was disingenuous – because my piece did not ignore but explicitly addressed the import of Wall Street financial machinations.

The left believes steadfastly in free expression – for the left. (At least that’s true all too often.)

So I thought The Humanist’s refusal to publish was disgraceful; and that it was not because the article wasn’t any good. But you can judge for yourself, because I then submitted it to the distinguished British magazine, Philosophy Now, which published it. Click here to read it.

A bit of an irony is that Philosophy Now’s Assistant Editor who handled this was Grant Bartley. A couple of years ago they published an article by Bartley that I considered the epitome of muddled left-wing thinking about development and globalization issues; and I sent a letter-to-the-editor ripping Bartley’s viewpoint. (I do so as well in my book, The Case for Rational Optimism.) Bartley must have virtually gagged in reading my Capitalism and Human Values. But he never said so. I salute Philosophy Now, and Mr. Bartley, for willingness to publish divergent viewpoints. At least some on the left really believe in free expression.