I read it also. Yuck. Check out these paragraphs: "In addition, the partisanship that pollutes Washington should be a warning to us about the danger of supporting only those institutions that suit our own ideologies. Conservatives want to strengthen the family and church - institutions they like - but not unions. Liberals talk about the need for stronger unions and communites but are reluctant to endorse traditional families or to rely on religious institutions to further public objectives. We must recognize that for any institution to thrive, all legitimate institutions must thrive. Commitments in one area teach respect for commitments in other areas. Bad families make bad citizens - and vice versa."
So, we should support institutions that don't "suit our own ideologies."? Like the Mafia? Only legitimate ones? Will we feel they are legitimate if they don't suit our own ideologies?
One of the main things these 'civil society' people seem to miss is the problem that George Soros - a civil society guy also, but at least he criticizes the illegitimate power of markets - points out in his Rolling Stone interview with William Greider (found in this month's issue). "... There's a "free rider" problem, because if you are a good citizen, you are carrying somebody else's load. But if you do believe that there is a social interest which does not get taken care of by everybody being out for himself, if you really believe in that, then you really have to act on that belief, even if other people don't. Otherwise it's just hypocritical. Our society, at the present time, is so caught up by the admiration of success that anything people get away with is admired."
In economic jargon, the key term is "externalities." The debate the capitalists and global managers seem to be having now is whether they should consider the infrastructure that enables their profit-taking something to be supported financially, or whether it's just a cost that will cut into their profits and should be externalized.
Free market guru Greenspan, one of People magazine's 25 most intriguing people of the year, forced the banks to internalize the costs of Long Term Capital's debacle in order to save the infrastructure. An anomaly he would argue. Intriguing.
Last paragraph - the thing I find intriguing about Greenspan is that he is considered above politics, a technocrat. (Analogous to Mother Teresa in the religious sphere. She said she was beyond politics and yet had campaigned against Ireland's legalization of divorce, for example.) And yet he will testify before Congress that the problem with the health care system is that most patients suffer from Munchausen's syndrome and desire all sorts of unnecessary treatments.