This post is meant for ATHG (Ron Roizen assures me), but I think it came only
to me.  * David Fahey (Miami Univ.) [log in to unmask]
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
     There is much to admire in Andrew Delbanco and Thomas
Delbanco's thought-provoking historical treatment of Alco-
holics Anonymous ("AA at the Crossroads," March 20th,
'95).  As I read it, the authors advanced a two-part argu-
ment:  (1) that AA philosophy is of a piece with an old
strand of American puritanism, as expressed for example in
Jonathan Edwards' call for 24-hour spiritual watchfulness,
and (2) that AA's origins in the Great Depression era al-
lowed the group to draw upon a wider prevailing communi-
tarianism in New-Deal America.  The latter argument prem-
ised their case that AA has more recently experienced--and
will likely continue to experience--hard times in the more
individualistic American zeitgeist of 1980s and 1990s.
I'd like to offer a different take on AA's spiritual foun-
dations--one, as it happens, that also invites a quite
different reading of the group's historical tea leaves.
     Yes, AA was born in the Great Depression, but AA
founder, William Wilson, (as historian John Rumbarger
["The 'story' of Bill W.," Contemporary Drug Problems,
Winter, 1993:780ff] has recently reminded us) was in fact
a staunch anti-New Dealer--given to burning the midnight
oil to compose (but, incidentally, not also send) long,
rambling, and angry letters defending laissez-faire cap-
italism to its arch-foe, F.D.R.  The alcohol issue in
Depression America was anomalous political turf.  The 21st
Amendment (ratified 5 Dec 1933) repealing Prohibition was
the most notable (and celebrated) legislative exception to
that era's otherwise general trend toward increasing the
reach and authority of the federal government.  The
political struggle against Prohibition had, moreover,
provided a favorable context for anti-big-government as
well anti-Prohibitionist sentiment.  Half of the powerful
Association Against the Prohibition Amendment (the
organization largely responsible for leading the campaign
for Repeal's passage) split-off to become the vigorously
anti-New Deal "Liberty League" after Repeal.
     And yes, as Delbanco and Delbanco contended, Bill
W.'s AA was communitarian in orientation.  But AA's ideol-
ogy also represented an embracement and personalization of
laissez-faire capitalism's deepest philosophical commit
ments.  The parallelism is striking.  Adam Smith's "Invis-
ible Hand" (IH) argument held that when people tried to
exercise control over the economy they instead invariab-
ly screwed it up.  The economy was too complex to be mas-
tered by mere human intelligence.  Human economic life was
in any case already quietly under Providence's wise and
benevolent guidance, effected by the IH.  The IH somehow
managed to orchestrate a chorus of unfettered individual
self-interest into an increasingly prosperous common-
wealth.  Economic planning--i.e., the intervention of hu-
man egos--did not solve economic problems but caused them.
Hence, best to butt-out and let the IH run the show.  In
short, Smith's logic offers a remarkable aggregate-level
parallel to the AA's individual-level paradigm of life-
saving egolessness.  AA's notions of "giving it up" and
"turning it over" are calls to surrender the management of
one's personal life to the guidance of a Higher Power--
AA's "Invisible Hand."  In a perspective that focuses on
its marked affinity with laissez-faire thought, AA might
be expected to thrive (not whither, as Delbanco and
Delbanco suggested) in our own era's new enthusiasm for
Smith's venerable political economic philosophy.