Yesterday in class I was talking about Japan in the 1990s, the persistent economic stagnation and the cultural pessimism it spawned (the pessimism is expressed in this article by Masaru Tamamoto, "The Uncertainty of the Self: Japan at Century's End").   As I listened to myself and answered questions from students, I couldn't help but realize the similarities with the US of right now.  The economic crisis has deepened (will Citibank be nationalized?) and questions of how people will materially get through the next year or two are becoming ever more pressing.  

Under the circumstances we might ask: what would Mencius do?

I think a Mencian response would operate on two levels: the personal and the governmental.

On the personal level he might recommend that we focus on the maintenance of our closest loving relationships.  This might entail an acceptance of a lowered standard of living, a more modest material life, but can be tolerable if we are able to continue to conscientiously perform our duties to family, friends, neighbors and acquaintances.  This could suggest a localized response to economic crisis.  Our primary efforts should come at home: make sure our parents and children and relatives are safe and secure.  If someone in that most immediate social circle should run into trouble – not enough food, problems with shelter or other necessities – then we should respond.  We should not wait for others or for government but, rather, we should assume personal responsibility for the economic conditions of our family members.  Humanity starts at home:

"The Way is like a great highway," replied Mencius.  "It's easy to find.  People just don't bother to look.  Go back to your home.  Look for it there, and you'll find teachers aplenty." (12.2)

But acceptance and enactment of personal responsibility does not mean that government has no role to play.  Quite to the contrary, government should wield power in a manner that facilitates individuals doing right by their families.  Here's what Mencius says to a political leader who asks him for policy advice:

"If you want to put my words into practice, why not return to fundamentals?  When every five-acre farm has mulberry trees around the farmhouse, people wear silk at fifty.  And when the proper seasons of chickens and pigs and dogs are not neglected, people eat meat at seventy.  When hundred-acre farms never violate their proper seasons, even large families don't go hungry.  Pay close attention to the teaching in village schools, and extend it to the child's family responsibilities – then, when their silvers hair glistens, people won't be out on the roads and paths pulling heavy loads.  Our black-haired people free of hunger and cold, wearing silk and eating meat in old age – there have never been such times without a true emperor." (1.7)

In other words, the job of a true emperor is to make sure that people have the material means necessary to live up to their responsibilities to one another.  When they have sufficient food, our elders are respected.

But what does this mean in the current crisis?

Would Mencius bail out GM and Citibank?  Maybe, if it could be shown that these large corporate entities might truly serve average people in their pursuits of Duty and Humanity.  But I think higher priority would be given to direct aid to families in distress.  Increases in unemployment insurance; renegotiation of distressed mortgages (to keep people in their homes); maintenance of education funding (which no one seems to be talking about); perhaps another direct payment stimulus package: these would be Mencius priorities. 

The current bias in US policy toward finanance capital, and the concomotant hesitation to reach down with government assistance to the population at large would be resisted by Mencius.  Better to err on the side of directly serving the people than proping up big financial institutions and then hoping that prosperity will trickle down to the middle class and working class.