Mission, Objective, Strategies and Tactics

Edward J. Dodson

[An essay written for Equal Rights, September, 2006, but unpublished]

Georgists have seldom been of one mind when it comes to strategy and tactics. Even Henry George came under criticism by some for his political activism. Back in the 1980s, our colleague John Burger patiently helped many of us get back in touch with our mission and objective. From there, we all went off (alone or in groups) to pursue strategies and tactics around which we put our hopes for progress, for success. We did so aware of the long years of struggle by many others in the face of organized opposition, internal discord and the growing acceptance of liberalism as the means of achieving incremental change.

As the movement's numbers continued to decline after the first decade of the twentieth century, those who remained had little choice but to work within the system, that is, to work for incremental improvements. Mitigations replaced solutions as the best that could be achieved. Keeping the Georgist message alive for a time when the widespread rejection of mitigation became a central strategy of the movement's leaders.

At the same time, a second survival strategy centered on education of the public. From the founding of the Henry George Schools in the 1930s until the late 1950s, many Georgists believed the school could serve as a means of rebuilding the movement to its former glory days. For many reasons, this did not occur.

Recently, I came across a commentary in the January, 1940 issue of The Freeman by Glenn E. Hoover offering his insights into the movement rebuilding process and the importance of The Freeman, as the leading Georgist periodical. As we struggle with essentially the same issues, Equal Rights reprints a condensed version of his commentary for thoughtful reconsideration by current Georgists. Hoover, as some may recall, was an economics professor at Mills College, and a strong supporter of Henry George's proposals throughout his life.

Selling Georgism

Because the social appropriation of economic rent is the greatest step that can be taken in the direction of social justice and economic abundance, I should like to see The Freeman the most effective periodical in the United States. It cannot achieve this position unless it merits the respect of those, who, for lack of a better word, may be called "intellectuals." Circulation in not enough. The Hearst papers, Ham & Eggs, Huey Long and countless other persons and organizations have achieved an imposing circulation, but their influence was limited because they were a joke or worse to the more rational of our citizens. While their antics made the unthinking laugh, they also made the judicious grieve.

To attain such respect, The Freeman should guard against two tendencies. It should not make excessive claims for the results that would follow the socialization of rent, and it should avoid errors of fact. …

In the editorial entitled "Gambling With Freedom," the writer contends that "war must ultimately benefit privilege." As proof of that statement he reminds us that "Every war results in an increased burden of taxation, as well as an increased revenue for bondholders." The plain inference is that prospective bondholders favor war as likely to increase their opportunity to purchase government 'bonds. This I think is contrary to fact, Opportunity to purchase government bonds arises from an unbalanced budget, whether in time of peace or war. It is a matter of common observation that it is the investors who in season and out of season are most vigorous in condemning' governmental borrowing.

As further proof that it is the "privileged" who benefit from and presumably favor war, the same paragraph continues:

"Our tariff walls started to rise to their present "protection' proportions after the Civil War."

The statement is true but the inference that the Civil War caused the increase in tariff rates is, I think, unwarranted. This is the old post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. After the Civil War we raised our tariffs. After the Napoleonic Wars, England lowered her tariffs. So what?

The Northern manufacturers who benefited from the tariff (which I admit is a privilege) were always opposed by the "privileged" land holders of the South. The under-privileged and non-privileged farmers and industrial workers of the North rejected the views of Henry George on both the tariff and the land question, for no better reason, as I see it, than that they couldn't see what was good for them, and don't yet see it. …When we attribute to the selfish motives of the few what is due to the economic illiteracy of the many we at once commit an injustice and, what is more important, demonstrate bur incapacity for formulating programs.

Earlier in this article I objected to the excessive claims that are made for the benefits to be derived from land value taxation. I have already suggested that to claim it would end all wars, is to resort to pretty wobbly logic. When we contend that free trade would make for international peace we are on much stronger ground. Personally I cannot accept the Marxian view that wars always result from economic causes. In any event free trade and the appropriation of rent are such desirable programs that they should be urged on their merits. They are sound programs, whether or not they completely banish war from the earth, and they should be defended as such.

In conclusion, I think we will affront the intelligent citizens if we present our program as a nostrum that will cure all ills. Let us leave to the itinerant quack all remedies for dandruff, unhappiness in love, bellicosity and general cussedness believe that for every convert we make with such claims we will lose another, and much more intelligent and influential prospect.


***
The Freeman, as a major voice of the Georgist movement was brief, just a few years. No equivalent publication emerged to carry on the objective of movement rebuilding by emphasizing and debating Georgist principles, applied to ongoing societal issues. A new direction was taken when Will Lissner brought the American Journal of Economics and Sociology into existence to fill the need for an interdisciplinary academic journal encouraging submissions examining the body of work created by Henry George. Despite the 65-year history of the American Journal, however, many "intellectuals" still have little or no familiarity with the writings of Henry George or the many other writers -- increasingly in possession of educational and academic credentials George lacked -- who have followed in George's footsteps. The competition for the minds and hearts of people of all stations in life has proven to be stiff, and no strategy has resulted in an avalanche of public awareness, support and action.

We do stand on the shoulders of those who came before. The prejudice against our ideas remains entrenched. However, opposition no longer comes in the form of assaults on what we propose as ideas designed to solve problems that no longer exist. Scientists and the facts increasingly support us.