Ever wonder how 'of, by, and for the people' got subverted into 'he who has the money and influence makes the rules'? After all, that is the paradigm for governance that dominates contemporary politics in America.
At least part of the culpability may lie with a memo written by attorney
Lewis F. Powell to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 1971. It is a reflection of corporate conservative hand wringing about the threat of liberal politics to the future of free enterprise. The Chamber of Commerce subsequently took a much more strident role in opposing labor unions and liberal politics.
Richard Nixon later elevated Lewis Powell to the U.S. Supreme Court. Powell was a Democrat and ended up often being a moderate on the court's decisions. He was part of the majority opinion on Roe vs. Wade, which affirmed reproductive choice and a woman's right to choose.
But when Lewis Powell wrote the seminal memo below, he provided inspiration for the dysfunctional brand of economics and governance at work in America today.
______________________
CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM
Attack on American Free Enterprise
System
DATE: August 23, 1971
TO: Mr. Eugene B. Sydnor, Jr., Chairman, Education
Committee, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
FROM: Lewis F. Powell, Jr.
This memorandum is submitted at your request as a basis for the discussion on
August 24 with Mr. Booth (executive vice president) and others at the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce. The purpose is to identify the problem, and suggest
possible avenues of action for further consideration.
Dimensions of the Attack
No thoughtful person can question that the American
economic system is under broad attack. This varies in scope,
intensity, in the techniques employed, and in the level of visibility.
There always have been some who opposed the American system, and preferred
socialism or some form of statism (communism or fascism). Also, there always
have been critics of the system, whose criticism has been wholesome and
constructive so long as the objective was to improve rather than to subvert or
destroy.
But what now concerns us is quite new in the history of America. We are not
dealing with sporadic or isolated attacks from a relatively few extremists or
even from the minority socialist cadre. Rather, the assault on the enterprise
system is broadly based and consistently pursued. It is gaining momentum and
converts.
Sources of the
Attack
The sources are varied and diffused. They
include, not unexpectedly, the Communists, New Leftists and other
revolutionaries who would destroy the entire system, both political and
economic. These extremists of the left are far more numerous, better financed,
and increasingly are more welcomed and encouraged by other elements of society,
than ever before in our history. But they remain a small minority, and are not
yet the principal cause for concern.
The most disquieting voices joining the chorus of criticism come from
perfectly respectable elements of society: from the college campus, the pulpit,
the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and
from politicians. In most of these groups the movement against the system is
participated in only by minorities. Yet, these often are the most articulate,
the most vocal, the most prolific in their writing and speaking.
Moreover, much of the media -- for varying motives and in
varying degrees -- either voluntarily accords unique publicity to these
"attackers," or at least allows them to exploit the media for their purposes.
This is especially true of television, which now plays such a predominant role
in shaping the thinking, attitudes and emotions of our people.
One of the bewildering paradoxes of our time is the extent to which the
enterprise system tolerates, if not participates in, its own destruction.
The campuses from which much of the criticism emanates are supported by (i)
tax funds generated largely from American business, and (ii) contributions from
capital funds controlled or generated by American business. The boards of
trustees of our universities overwhelmingly are composed of men and women who
are leaders in the system.
Most of the media, including the national TV systems, are owned
and theoretically controlled by corporations which depend upon profits, and the
enterprise system to survive.
Tone of the
Attack
This memorandum is not the place to document
in detail the tone, character, or intensity of the attack. The following
quotations will suffice to give one a general idea:
William Kunstler, warmly welcomed on campuses and listed in a recent student
poll as the "American lawyer most admired," incites audiences as follows:
"You must learn to fight in the streets, to revolt, to shoot guns. We will
learn to do all of the things that property owners fear." The New
Leftists who heed Kunstler's advice increasingly are beginning to act -- not
just against military recruiting offices and manufacturers of munitions, but
against a variety of businesses: "Since February, 1970, branches (of Bank of
America) have been attacked 39 times, 22 times with explosive devices and 17
times with fire bombs or by arsonists." Although New Leftist
spokesmen are succeeding in radicalizing thousands of the young, the greater
cause for concern is the hostility of respectable liberals and social reformers.
It is the sum total of their views and influence which could indeed fatally
weaken or destroy the system.
A chilling description of what is being taught on many of our campuses was
written by Stewart Alsop:
"Yale, like every other major college, is graduating scores of bright young
men who are practitioners of 'the politics of despair.' These young men despise
the American political and economic system . . . (their) minds seem to be wholly
closed. They live, not by rational discussion, but by mindless slogans."
A recent poll of students on 12 representative campuses reported that:
"Almost half the students favored socialization of basic U.S. industries."
A visiting professor from England at Rockford College gave a series of
lectures entitled "The Ideological War Against Western Society," in which he
documents the extent to which members of the intellectual community are waging
ideological warfare against the enterprise system and the values of western
society. In a foreword to these lectures, famed Dr. Milton Friedman of Chicago
warned: "It (is) crystal clear that the foundations of our free society are
under wide-ranging and powerful attack -- not by Communist or any other
conspiracy but by misguided individuals parroting one another and unwittingly
serving ends they would never intentionally promote."
Perhaps the single most effective antagonist of American business is Ralph
Nader, who -- thanks largely to the media -- has become a legend in his own time
and an idol of millions of Americans. A recent article in Fortune speaks of
Nader as follows:
"The passion that rules in him -- and he is a passionate man -- is aimed at
smashing utterly the target of his hatred, which is corporate power. He thinks,
and says quite bluntly, that a great many corporate executives belong in prison
-- for defrauding the consumer with shoddy merchandise, poisoning the food
supply with chemical additives, and willfully manufacturing unsafe products that
will maim or kill the buyer. He emphasizes that he is not talking just about
'fly-by-night hucksters' but the top management of blue chip business."
A frontal assault was made on our government, our system of justice, and the
free enterprise system by Yale Professor Charles Reich in his widely publicized
book: "The Greening of America," published last winter.
The foregoing references illustrate the broad, shotgun attack on the system
itself. There are countless examples of rifle shots which undermine confidence
and confuse the public. Favorite current targets are proposals for tax
incentives through changes in depreciation rates and investment credits. These
are usually described in the media as "tax breaks," "loop holes" or "tax
benefits" for the benefit of business. * As viewed by a columnist in the Post,
such tax measures would benefit "only the rich, the owners of big
companies."
It is dismaying that many politicians make the same argument that tax
measures of this kind benefit only "business," without benefit to "the poor."
The fact that this is either political demagoguery or economic illiteracy is of
slight comfort. This setting of the "rich" against the "poor," of business
against the people, is the cheapest and most dangerous kind of politics.
The Apathy and Default of
Business
What has been the response of business to
this massive assault upon its fundamental economics, upon its philosophy, upon
its right to continue to manage its own affairs, and indeed upon its
integrity?
The painfully sad truth is that business, including the boards of directors'
and the top executives of corporations great and small and business
organizations at all levels, often have responded -- if at all -- by
appeasement, ineptitude and ignoring the problem. There are, of course, many
exceptions to this sweeping generalization. But the net effect of such response
as has been made is scarcely visible.
In all fairness, it must be recognized that businessmen have not been trained
or equipped to conduct guerrilla warfare with those who propagandize against the
system, seeking insidiously and constantly to sabotage it. The traditional role
of business executives has been to manage, to produce, to sell, to create jobs,
to make profits, to improve the standard of living, to be community leaders, to
serve on charitable and educational boards, and generally to be good citizens.
They have performed these tasks very well indeed.
But they have shown little stomach for hard-nose contest with their critics,
and little skill in effective intellectual and philosophical debate.
A column recently carried by the Wall Street Journal was entitled: "Memo to
GM: Why Not Fight Back?" Although addressed to GM by name, the article was a
warning to all American business. Columnist St. John said:
"General Motors, like American business in general, is 'plainly in trouble'
because intellectual bromides have been substituted for a sound intellectual
exposition of its point of view." Mr. St. John then commented on the tendency of
business leaders to compromise with and appease critics. He cited the
concessions which Nader wins from management, and spoke of "the fallacious view
many businessmen take toward their critics." He drew a parallel to the mistaken
tactics of many college administrators: "College administrators learned too late
that such appeasement serves to destroy free speech, academic freedom and
genuine scholarship. One campus radical demand was conceded by university heads
only to be followed by a fresh crop which soon escalated to what amounted to a
demand for outright surrender."
One need not agree entirely with Mr. St. John's analysis. But most observers
of the American scene will agree that the essence of his message is sound.
American business "plainly in trouble"; the response to the wide range of
critics has been ineffective, and has included appeasement; the time has come --
indeed, it is long overdue -- for the wisdom, ingenuity and resources of
American business to be marshalled against those who would destroy it.
Responsibility of Business
Executives
What specifically should be done? The
first essential -- a prerequisite to any effective action -- is for businessmen
to confront this problem as a primary responsibility of corporate
management.
The overriding first need is for businessmen to recognize that the ultimate
issue may be survival -- survival of what we call the free enterprise system,
and all that this means for the strength and prosperity of America and the
freedom of our people.
The day is long past when the chief executive officer of a major corporation
discharges his responsibility by maintaining a satisfactory growth of profits,
with due regard to the corporation's public and social responsibilities. If our
system is to survive, top management must be equally concerned with protecting
and preserving the system itself. This involves far more than an increased
emphasis on "public relations" or "governmental affairs" -- two areas in which
corporations long have invested substantial sums.
A significant first step by individual corporations could well be the
designation of an executive vice president (ranking with other executive VP's)
whose responsibility is to counter-on the broadest front-the attack on the
enterprise system. The public relations department could be one of the
foundations assigned to this executive, but his responsibilities should
encompass some of the types of activities referred to subsequently in this
memorandum. His budget and staff should be adequate to the task.
Possible Role of the Chamber of
Commerce
But independent and uncoordinated activity
by individual corporations, as important as this is, will not be sufficient.
Strength lies in organization, in careful long-range planning and
implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in
the scale of financing available only through joint effort, and in the political
power available only through united action and national organizations.
Moreover, there is the quite understandable reluctance on the part of any one
corporation to get too far out in front and to make itself too visible a
target.
The role of the National Chamber of Commerce is therefore vital. Other
national organizations (especially those of various industrial and commercial
groups) should join in the effort, but no other organizations appear to be as
well situated as the Chamber. It enjoys a strategic position, with a fine
reputation and a broad base of support. Also -- and this is of immeasurable
merit -- there are hundreds of local Chambers of Commerce which can play a vital
supportive role.
It hardly need be said that before embarking upon any program, the Chamber
should study and analyze possible courses of action and activities, weighing
risks against probable effectiveness and feasibility of each. Considerations of
cost, the assurance of financial and other support from members, adequacy of
staffing and similar problems will all require the most thoughtful
consideration.
The
Campus
The assault on the enterprise system was not
mounted in a few months. It has gradually evolved over the past two decades,
barely perceptible in its origins and benefiting (sic) from a gradualism that
provoked little awareness much less any real reaction.
Although origins, sources and causes are complex and interrelated, and
obviously difficult to identify without careful qualification, there is reason
to believe that the campus is the single most dynamic source. The social science
faculties usually include members who are unsympathetic to the enterprise
system. They may range from a Herbert Marcuse, Marxist faculty member at the
University of California at San Diego, and convinced socialists, to the
ambivalent liberal critic who finds more to condemn than to commend. Such
faculty members need not be in a majority. They are often personally attractive
and magnetic; they are stimulating teachers, and their controversy attracts
student following; they are prolific writers and lecturers; they author many of
the textbooks, and they exert enormous influence -- far out of proportion to
their numbers -- on their colleagues and in the academic world.
Social science faculties (the political scientist, economist, sociologist and
many of the historians) tend to be liberally oriented, even when leftists are
not present. This is not a criticism per se, as the need for liberal thought is
essential to a balanced viewpoint. The difficulty is that "balance" is
conspicuous by its absence on many campuses, with relatively few members being
of conservatives or moderate persuasion and even the relatively few often being
less articulate and aggressive than their crusading colleagues.
This situation extending back many years and with the imbalance gradually
worsening, has had an enormous impact on millions of young American students. In
an article in Barron's Weekly, seeking an answer to why so many young people are
disaffected even to the point of being revolutionaries, it was said: "Because
they were taught that way." Or, as noted by columnist Stewart Alsop, writing
about his alma mater: "Yale, like every other major college, is graduating
scores' of bright young men ... who despise the American political and economic
system."
As these "bright young men," from campuses across the country, seek
opportunities to change a system which they have been taught to distrust -- if
not, indeed "despise" -- they seek employment in the centers of the real power
and influence in our country, namely: (i) with the news media, especially
television; (ii) in government, as "staffers" and consultants at various levels;
(iii) in elective politics; (iv) as lecturers and writers, and (v) on the
faculties at various levels of education.
Many do enter the enterprise system -- in business and the professions -- and
for the most part they quickly discover the fallacies of what they have been
taught. But those who eschew the mainstream of the system often remain in key
positions of influence where they mold public opinion and often shape
governmental action. In many instances, these "intellectuals" end up in
regulatory agencies or governmental departments with large authority over the
business system they do not believe in.
If the foregoing analysis is approximately sound, a priority task of business
-- and organizations such as the Chamber -- is to address the campus origin of
this hostility. Few things are more sanctified in American life than academic
freedom. It would be fatal to attack this as a principle. But if academic
freedom is to retain the qualities of "openness," "fairness" and "balance" --
which are essential to its intellectual significance -- there is a great
opportunity for constructive action. The thrust of such action must be to
restore the qualities just mentioned to the academic communities.
What Can Be Done About the
Campus The ultimate responsibility for intellectual
integrity on the campus must remain on the administrations and faculties of our
colleges and universities. But organizations such as the Chamber can assist and
activate constructive change in many ways, including the following:
Staff of Scholars
The Chamber should consider establishing a staff of
highly qualified scholars in the social sciences who do believe in the system.
It should include several of national reputation whose authorship would be
widely respected -- even when disagreed with.
Staff of Speakers
There also should be a staff of speakers of the
highest competency. These might include the scholars, and certainly those who
speak for the Chamber would have to articulate the product of the scholars.
Speaker's Bureau
In addition to
full-time staff personnel, the Chamber should have a Speaker's Bureau which
should include the ablest and most effective advocates from the top echelons of
American business.
Evaluation of
Textbooks The staff of scholars (or preferably a
panel of independent scholars) should evaluate social science textbooks,
especially in economics, political science and sociology. This should be a
continuing program.
The objective of such evaluation should be oriented toward restoring the
balance essential to genuine academic freedom. This would include assurance of
fair and factual treatment of our system of government and our enterprise
system, its accomplishments, its basic relationship to individual rights and
freedoms, and comparisons with the systems of socialism, fascism and communism.
Most of the existing textbooks have some sort of comparisons, but many are
superficial, biased and unfair.
We have seen the civil rights movement insist on re-writing many of the
textbooks in our universities and schools. The labor unions likewise insist that
textbooks be fair to the viewpoints of organized labor. Other interested
citizens groups have not hesitated to review, analyze and criticize textbooks
and teaching materials. In a democratic society, this can be a constructive
process and should be regarded as an aid to genuine academic freedom and not as
an intrusion upon it.
If the authors, publishers and users of textbooks know that they will be
subjected -- honestly, fairly and thoroughly -- to review and critique by
eminent scholars who believe in the American system, a return to a more rational
balance can be expected.
Equal Time on the Campus
The Chamber should insist upon equal time on the
college speaking circuit. The FBI publishes each year a list of speeches made on
college campuses by avowed Communists. The number in 1970 exceeded 100. There
were, of course, many hundreds of appearances by leftists and ultra liberals who
urge the types of viewpoints indicated earlier in this memorandum. There was no
corresponding representation of American business, or indeed by individuals or
organizations who appeared in support of the American system of government and
business.
Every campus has its formal and informal groups which invite speakers. Each
law school does the same thing. Many universities and colleges officially
sponsor lecture and speaking programs. We all know the inadequacy of the
representation of business in the programs.
It will be said that few invitations would be extended to Chamber speakers.
This undoubtedly would be true unless the Chamber aggressively insisted upon the
right to be heard -- in effect, insisted upon "equal time." University
administrators and the great majority of student groups and committees would not
welcome being put in the position publicly of refusing a forum to diverse views,
indeed, this is the classic excuse for allowing Communists to speak.
The two essential ingredients are (i) to have attractive, articulate and
well-informed speakers; and (ii) to exert whatever degree of pressure --
publicly and privately -- may be necessary to assure opportunities to speak. The
objective always must be to inform and enlighten, and not merely to
propagandize.
Balancing of Faculties Perhaps
the most fundamental problem is the imbalance of many faculties. Correcting this
is indeed a long-range and difficult project. Yet, it should be undertaken as a
part of an overall program. This would mean the urging of the need for faculty
balance upon university administrators and boards of trustees.
The methods to be employed require careful thought, and the obvious pitfalls
must be avoided. Improper pressure would be counterproductive. But the basic
concepts of balance, fairness and truth are difficult to resist, if properly
presented to boards of trustees, by writing and speaking, and by appeals to
alumni associations and groups.
This is a long road and not one for the fainthearted. But if pursued with
integrity and conviction it could lead to a strengthening of both academic
freedom on the campus and of the values which have made America the most
productive of all societies.
Graduate Schools of Business
The Chamber should enjoy a particular rapport with the
increasingly influential graduate schools of business. Much that has been
suggested above applies to such schools.
Should not the Chamber also request specific courses in such schools dealing
with the entire scope of the problem addressed by this memorandum? This is now
essential training for the executives of the future.
Secondary Education
While the
first priority should be at the college level, the trends mentioned above are
increasingly evidenced in the high schools. Action programs, tailored to the
high schools and similar to those mentioned, should be considered. The
implementation thereof could become a major program for local chambers of
commerce, although the control and direction -- especially the quality control
-- should be retained by the National Chamber.
What Can Be Done About the
Public?
Reaching the campus and the secondary
schools is vital for the long-term. Reaching the public generally may be more
important for the shorter term. The first essential is to establish the staffs
of eminent scholars, writers and speakers, who will do the thinking, the
analysis, the writing and the speaking. It will also be essential to have staff
personnel who are thoroughly familiar with the media, and how most effectively
to communicate with the public. Among the more obvious means are the
following:
Television
The national television networks should be monitored in the same
way that textbooks should be kept under constant surveillance. This applies not
merely to so-called educational programs (such as "Selling of the Pentagon"),
but to the daily "news analysis" which so often includes the most insidious type
of criticism of the enterprise system. Whether this criticism results from
hostility or economic ignorance, the result is the gradual erosion of confidence
in "business" and free enterprise.
This monitoring, to be effective, would require constant
examination of the texts of adequate samples of programs. Complaints -- to the
media and to the Federal Communications Commission -- should be made promptly
and strongly when programs are unfair or inaccurate.
Equal time should be demanded when appropriate. Effort should be made to see
that the forum-type programs (the Today Show, Meet the Press, etc.) afford at
least as much opportunity for supporters of the American system to participate
as these programs do for those who attack it.
Other Media
Radio and the press are also important, and every available means
should be employed to challenge and refute unfair attacks, as well as to present
the affirmative case through these media.
The Scholarly Journals
It is especially important for the Chamber's
"faculty of scholars" to publish. One of the keys to the success of the liberal
and leftist faculty members has been their passion for "publication" and
"lecturing." A similar passion must exist among the Chamber's scholars.
Incentives might be devised to induce more "publishing" by independent
scholars who do believe in the system.
There should be a fairly steady flow of scholarly articles presented to a
broad spectrum of magazines and periodicals -- ranging from the popular
magazines (Life, Look, Reader's Digest, etc.) to the more intellectual ones
(Atlantic, Harper's, Saturday Review, New York, etc.) and to the various
professional journals.
Books, Paperbacks and Pamphlets
The news stands -- at airports, drugstores, and elsewhere -- are
filled with paperbacks and pamphlets advocating everything from revolution to
erotic free love. One finds almost no attractive, well-written paperbacks or
pamphlets on "our side." It will be difficult to compete with an Eldridge
Cleaver or even a Charles Reich for reader attention, but unless the effort is
made -- on a large enough scale and with appropriate imagination to assure some
success -- this opportunity for educating the public will be irretrievably
lost.
Paid Advertisements
Business pays hundreds of millions of dollars to the media for
advertisements. Most of this supports specific products; much of it supports
institutional image making; and some fraction of it does support the system. But
the latter has been more or less tangential, and rarely part of a sustained,
major effort to inform and enlighten the American people.
If American business devoted only 10% of its total annual advertising budget
to this overall purpose, it would be a statesman-like expenditure.
The Neglected Political
Arena In the final analysis, the payoff -- short-of
revolution -- is what government does. Business has been the favorite
whipping-boy of many politicians for many years. But the measure of how far this
has gone is perhaps best found in the anti-business views now being expressed by
several leading candidates for President of the United States.
It is still Marxist doctrine that the "capitalist" countries are controlled
by big business. This doctrine, consistently a part of leftist propaganda all
over the world, has a wide public following among Americans.
Yet, as every business executive knows, few elements of
American society today have as little influence in government as the American
businessman, the corporation, or even the millions of corporate stockholders. If
one doubts this, let him undertake the role of "lobbyist" for the business point
of view before Congressional committees. The same situation obtains in the
legislative halls of most states and major cities. One does not exaggerate to
say that, in terms of political influence with respect to the course of
legislation and government action, the American business executive is truly the
"forgotten man."
Current examples of the impotency of business, and of the near-contempt with
which businessmen's views are held, are the stampedes by politicians to support
almost any legislation related to "consumerism" or to the "environment."
Politicians reflect what they believe to be majority views of their
constituents. It is thus evident that most politicians are making the judgment
that the public has little sympathy for the businessman or his viewpoint.
The educational programs suggested above would be designed to enlighten
public thinking -- not so much about the businessman and his individual role as
about the system which he administers, and which provides the goods, services
and jobs on which our country depends.
But one should not postpone more direct political action, while awaiting the
gradual change in public opinion to be effected through education and
information. Business must learn the lesson, long ago learned by labor and other
self-interest groups. This is the lesson that political power is necessary; that
such power must be assidously (sic) cultivated; and that when necessary, it must
be used aggressively and with determination -- without embarrassment and without
the reluctance which has been so characteristic of American business.
As unwelcome as it may be to the Chamber, it should consider
assuming a broader and more vigorous role in the political arena.
Neglected Opportunity in the Courts
American business and the enterprise system have
been affected as much by the courts as by the executive and legislative branches
of government. Under our constitutional system, especially with an
activist-minded Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most important
instrument for social, economic and political change.
Other organizations and groups, recognizing this, have been far more astute
in exploiting judicial action than American business. Perhaps the most active
exploiters of the judicial system have been groups ranging in political
orientation from "liberal" to the far left.
The American Civil Liberties Union is one example. It initiates or intervenes
in scores of cases each year, and it files briefs amicus curiae in the Supreme
Court in a number of cases during each term of that court. Labor unions, civil
rights groups and now the public interest law firms are extremely active in the
judicial arena. Their success, often at business' expense, has not been
inconsequential.
This is a vast area of opportunity for the Chamber, if it is willing to
undertake the role of spokesman for American business and if, in turn, business
is willing to provide the funds.
As with respect to scholars and speakers, the Chamber would need a highly
competent staff of lawyers. In special situations it should be authorized to
engage, to appear as counsel amicus in the Supreme Court, lawyers of national
standing and reputation. The greatest care should be exercised in selecting the
cases in which to participate, or the suits to institute. But the opportunity
merits the necessary effort.
Neglected Stockholder Power
The
average member of the public thinks of "business" as an impersonal corporate
entity, owned by the very rich and managed by over-paid executives. There is an
almost total failure to appreciate that "business" actually embraces -- in one
way or another -- most Americans. Those for whom business provides jobs,
constitute a fairly obvious class. But the 20 million stockholders -- most of
whom are of modest means -- are the real owners, the real entrepreneurs, the
real capitalists under our system. They provide the capital which fuels the
economic system which has produced the highest standard of living in all
history. Yet, stockholders have been as ineffectual as business executives in
promoting a genuine understanding of our system or in exercising political
influence.
The question which merits the most thorough examination is how can the weight
and influence of stockholders -- 20 million voters -- be mobilized to support
(i) an educational program and (ii) a political action program.
Individual corporations are now required to make numerous reports to
shareholders. Many corporations also have expensive "news" magazines which go to
employees and stockholders. These opportunities to communicate can be used far
more effectively as educational media.
The corporation itself must exercise restraint in undertaking political
action and must, of course, comply with applicable laws. But is it not feasible
-- through an affiliate of the Chamber or otherwise -- to establish a national
organization of American stockholders and give it enough muscle to be
influential?
A More Aggressive
Attitude
Business interests -- especially big
business and their national trade organizations -- have tried to maintain low
profiles, especially with respect to political action.
As suggested in the Wall Street Journal article, it has been fairly
characteristic of the average business executive to be tolerant -- at least in
public -- of those who attack his corporation and the system. Very few
businessmen or business organizations respond in kind. There has been a
disposition to appease; to regard the opposition as willing to compromise, or as
likely to fade away in due time.
Business has shunted confrontation politics. Business, quite understandably,
has been repelled by the multiplicity of non-negotiable "demands" made
constantly by self-interest groups of all kinds.
While neither responsible business interests, nor the United
States Chamber of Commerce, would engage in the irresponsible tactics of some
pressure groups, it is essential that spokesmen for the enterprise system -- at
all levels and at every opportunity -- be far more aggressive than in the
past.
There should be no hesitation to attack the Naders, the Marcuses and others
who openly seek destruction of the system. There should not be the slightest
hesitation to press vigorously in all political arenas for support of the
enterprise system. Nor should there be reluctance to penalize politically those
who oppose it.
Lessons can be learned from organized labor in this respect. The head of the
AFL-CIO may not appeal to businessmen as the most endearing or public-minded of
citizens. Yet, over many years the heads of national labor organizations have
done what they were paid to do very effectively. They may not have been beloved,
but they have been respected -- where it counts the most -- by politicians, on
the campus, and among the media.
It is time for American business -- which has demonstrated the greatest
capacity in all history to produce and to influence consumer decisions -- to
apply their great talents vigorously to the preservation of the system
itself.
The Cost
The type of program described above (which includes
a broadly based combination of education and political action), if undertaken
long term and adequately staffed, would require far more generous financial
support from American corporations than the Chamber has ever received in the
past. High level management participation in Chamber affairs also would be
required.
The staff of the Chamber would have to be significantly increased, with the
highest quality established and maintained. Salaries would have to be at levels
fully comparable to those paid key business executives and the most prestigious
faculty members. Professionals of the great skill in advertising and in working
with the media, speakers, lawyers and other specialists would have to be
recruited.
It is possible that the organization of the Chamber
itself would benefit from restructuring. For example, as suggested by union
experience, the office of President of the Chamber might well be a full-time
career position. To assure maximum effectiveness and continuity, the chief
executive officer of the Chamber should not be changed each year. The functions
now largely performed by the President could be transferred to a Chairman of the
Board, annually elected by the membership. The Board, of course, would continue
to exercise policy control.
Quality Control is Essential
Essential ingredients of the entire program must be
responsibility and "quality control." The publications, the articles, the
speeches, the media programs, the advertising, the briefs filed in courts, and
the appearances before legislative committees -- all must meet the most exacting
standards of accuracy and professional excellence. They must merit respect for
their level of public responsibility and scholarship, whether one agrees with
the viewpoints expressed or not.
Relationship to Freedom
The threat to the enterprise system is not merely a
matter of economics. It also is a threat to individual freedom.
It is this great truth -- now so submerged by the rhetoric of the New Left
and of many liberals -- that must be re-affirmed if this program is to be
meaningful.
There seems to be little awareness that the only alternatives to free
enterprise are varying degrees of bureaucratic regulation of individual freedom
-- ranging from that under moderate socialism to the iron heel of the leftist or
rightist dictatorship.
We in America already have moved very far indeed toward some aspects of state
socialism, as the needs and complexities of a vast urban society require types
of regulation and control that were quite unnecessary in earlier times. In some
areas, such regulation and control already have seriously impaired the freedom
of both business and labor, and indeed of the public generally. But most of the
essential freedoms remain: private ownership, private profit, labor unions,
collective bargaining, consumer choice, and a market economy in which
competition largely determines price, quality and variety of the goods and
services provided the consumer.
In addition to the ideological attack on the system itself (discussed in this
memorandum), its essentials also are threatened by inequitable taxation, and --
more recently -- by an inflation which has seemed uncontrollable. But whatever
the causes of diminishing economic freedom may be, the truth is that freedom as
a concept is indivisible. As the experience of the socialist and totalitarian
states demonstrates, the contraction and denial of economic freedom is followed
inevitably by governmental restrictions on other cherished rights. It is this
message, above all others, that must be carried home to the American people.
Conclusion
It
hardly need be said that the views expressed above are tentative and suggestive.
The first step should be a thorough study. But this would be an exercise in
futility unless the Board of Directors of the Chamber accepts the fundamental
premise of this paper, namely, that business and the enterprise system are in
deep trouble, and the hour is late.
