|
|
1971 Ataque al sistema norteamericano de libre empresa. Lewis F. Powell, Jr. (El Memorando o Manifiesto Powell). |
Agosto 23 de 1971
Memorando confidencial: ataque al sistema americano de libre empresa Lewis Powell 23/8/1971 Este memorando es presentado a su petición como base para la discusión del 24 de agosto con Mr. Booth (vicepresidente ejecutivo) y otros cargos de la Cámara de Comercio. Su propósito es identificar el problema y sugerir caminos de actuación para su consideración futura.
Dimensión del ataque
Orígenes del ataque Las voces más inquietantes que forman parte del coro de críticos proceden de elementos de la sociedad perfectamente respetables. De los campus universitarios, los púlpitos, los medios, las revistas intelectuales y literarias, las artes, las ciencias y de los políticos. En la mayoría de estos grupos el movimiento contra el sistema está formado sólo por minorías. Sin embargo, muy a menudo son las mejor articuladas, las más ruidosas y las más prolíficas en su hablar y escribir. Además, muchos medios de comunicación -por varios motivos y en distintos grados- o bien otorgan publicidad por voluntad propia a estos «atacantes» o, como mínimo, permiten que éstos utilicen los medios para sus propósitos. Esto es especialmente cierto en la televisión, que juega ahora un papel preponderante en la conformación del pensamiento, las actitudes y las emociones de nuestra gente. Una de las desconcertantes paradojas de nuestro tiempo es la amplitud con que nuestro sistema tolera, o incluso participa, en su propia destrucción. Los campus universitarios de donde emana la mayor parte de la crítica son soportados por 1) impuestos ampliamente generados por las empresas estadounidenses y 2) contribuciones de fondos de capital controlados o generados por empresas estadounidenses. Los claustros de las universidades están compuestos abrumadoramente por hombres y mujeres que son líderes en el sistema. La mayor parte de los medios, incluyendo la red de televisión, pertenece y es teóricamente controlada por empresas que dependen de los beneficios y del sistema de empresa para su supervivencia.
Tono del ataque William Kunstler, calurosamente acogido en los campus y mencionado en una reciente encuesta entre estudiantes como «el abogado estadounidense más admirado» incita a su audiencia de la siguiente forma: «Tenéis que aprender a luchar en las calles, a rebelaros, a disparar con pistolas. Aprenderemos a hacer todo aquello que temen los detentadores de la propiedad». Los nuevos izquierdistas que atendieron los consejos de Kunstler están comenzando a actuar no solo contra oficinas de reclutamiento militar o fabricantes de munición, sino contra una diversidad de empresas: «Desde febrero de 1970, sucursales del Bank of America han sido atacadas 39 veces, 22 veces con artefactos explosivos y 17 con bombas incendiarias». Aunque los portavoces de la Nueva Izquierda están consiguiendo radicalizar a miles de jóvenes, la preocupación principal es la hostilidad de liberales y reformadores sociales respetables. Es la suma total de su visión e influencia lo que de verdad puede debilitar o destruir el sistema. Steward Alsop escribe una descripción aterradora de lo que se está enseñando en muchas de nuestras universidades: «Yale, como todas las universidades más importantes, está graduando a numerosos jóvenes que practican la ‘política de la desesperación’. Estos chicos desprecian profundamente nuestro sistema político y económico… [sus] mentes parecen ser totalmente cerradas. No viven mediante el debate racional sino a través de eslóganes sin sentido». Una encuesta reciente entre estudiantes de doce universidades representativas señaló que «casi la mitad de los estudiantes estaban a favor de la socialización de las industrias básicas». Un catedrático inglés, visitante en el Rockford College, impartió una serie de conferencias tituladas «La guerra ideológica contra la sociedad occidental», en la que documentó la amplitud con la que los miembros de la comunidad intelectual están prosiguiendo la guerra ideológica contra el sistema de empresa y los valores de la sociedad occidental. En un prolegómeno de estas conferencias, el famoso doctor Milton Friedman de Chicago advirtió: «Está meridianamente claro que los fundamentos de nuestra sociedad están siendo sujetos a un amplio y poderoso ataque no por comunistas ni ninguna otra conspiración, sino por individuos descarriados repitiéndose las mismas cosas como loros sin ser conscientes de que están favoreciendo objetivos que nunca promoverían intencionadamente». Tal vez el principal antagonista del sistema estadounidense sea Ralf Neider, quien, gracias en gran parte a los medios de comunicación, se ha convertido en una leyenda de su propio tiempo y en un ídolo de millones de americanos. Un artículo reciente en la revista Fortune describe a Naider en los siguientes términos: «La pasión que lo posee -y él es un hombre apasionado- se orienta a destruir el objetivo de su odio, que es el poder empresarial. Piensa, y dice sin rodeos, que muchos ejecutivos de empresa deberían ser encarcelados por defraudar a los consumidores con mercancías mezquinas, por envenenar los productos alimenticios con aditivos químicos y fabricar a sabiendas productos inseguros que mutilarán o matarán al comprador. Insiste en que no se refiere a ‘charlatanes de feria’, sino a los primeros ejecutivos de las grandes empresas». El catedrático de Yale Charles Reich efectuó un ataque frontal a nuestro gobierno, nuestro sistema de justicia y al sistema de libre empresa en su ampliamente difundido libro «El reverdecimiento de América», publicado el pasado invierno. Las referencias mencionadas ilustran el amplio, directo ataque al propio sistema. Existen incontables ejemplos de disparos de rifle que minan la confianza y confunden al público. Los objetivos favoritos son actualmente propuestas sobre incentivos fiscales mediante cambios en las tasas de depreciación y los créditos a la inversión. Los medios se refieren a estas propuestas como ‘tax breaks’, lagunas o ‘beneficios fiscales’ para beneficio de las empresas. Como se pudo leer de un columnista del Washington Post, estas medidas fiscales beneficiarían «sólo a los ricos», sin beneficiar a «los pobres». El hecho de que se trate de demagogia política o de analfabetismo económico no es consuelo. Confrontar a «los ricos» contra «los pobres», las empresas contra la gente, es la forma de política más barata y peligrosa.
La apatía y la incomparecencia de la empresa Hay que reconocer honestamente que los hombres de empresa no han sido enseñados o equipados para conducir guerras de guerrillas contra quienes realizan propaganda contra el sistema y buscan insidiosa y constantemente sabotearlo. El papel tradicional de los directores generales ha sido gestionar, producir, vender, crear puestos de trabajo, realizar beneficios, aumentar el nivel de vida, ser líderes en sus comunidades, servir en consejos caritativos y educativos y, en general, ser buenos ciudadanos. Por cierto, han realizado esta tarea muy bien. Pero han tenido poca voluntad de enfrentarse con sus críticos, y pocas habilidades para el debate intelectual y filosófico eficaz. En una columna reciente del Wall Street Journal puede leerse: «Nota a General Motors: ¿por qué no defenderse?». Aunque se dirigía a GM por su nombre, el aviso era una advertencia a todas las empresas. El columnista St. John decía: «General Motors, como todas las empresas estadounidenses en general, tiene verdaderos problemas, porque las obviedades intelectuales han sido sustituidas por una sólida exposición intelectual de su punto de vista». St. John se refería a la tendencia de los líderes empresariales al compromiso y al aplacamiento de los críticos. Citaba las concesiones con las que Nader vence a los gestores y hablaba de la visión falaz que muchos hombres de empresa tienen de sus críticos. Dibujaba un paralelismo con la equivocada táctica de muchos administradores universitarios: «Los gestores universitarios aprenden demasiado tarde que este tipo de contemporización sólo sirve para destruir la libertad de expresión, la libertad académica y la libertad de cátedra. Los rectores concedieron una demanda radical que fue seguida por un nuevo cultivo que pronto escaló hasta una demanda de declaración de rendición». No es preciso estar completamente de acuerdo con el análisis de St. John. Pero muchos observadores de la escena política estadounidense coinciden en que la esencia de su mensaje es sólida. Estando la empresa americana con verdaderos problemas, la respuesta al amplio abanico de críticos no ha sido eficaz, y ha incluido negociaciones; ha llegado el momento -de hecho, hace ya tiempo- de reunir la sabiduría, la creatividad y los recursos de las empresas en contra de quienes quieren destruirla.
Responsabilidades de los ejecutivos empresariales Un primer paso significativo para cada empresa podría ser la designación de un vicepresidente ejecutivo cuya responsabilidad fuera la de contrarrestar los ataques al sistema de empresa. El departamento de relaciones públicas podría ser uno de los fundamentos asignados a este ejecutivo, pero su responsabilidad debería abarcar algunas de las actividades a las que nos referiremos en este memorando. Su presupuesto y personal debe ser el adecuado para la tarea.
Posible papel de la Cámara de Comercio Además, existe una comprensible renuencia por parte de una única organización de ir demasiado lejos en el frente y hacerse excesivamente visible como objetivo. El papel de la Cámara de Comercio es pues vital. Otras organizaciones nacionales (especialmente los distintos grupos industriales y comerciales) deben unirse en el esfuerzo, pero ninguna organización parece estar tan bien situada como la Cámara. Disfruta de una posición estratégica, con buena reputación y un amplio soporte de las bases. También -y esto es de un mérito inconmensurable- existen centenares de Cámaras de Comercio locales que pueden jugar un papel de soporte vital. Es apenas necesario señalar que antes de embarcarse en este tipo de programa, la Cámara debe estudiar y analizar posibles caminos de acción y actividades, sopesando los riesgos frente a la posible eficacia y viabilidad de cada una. Consideraciones de coste, el aseguramiento del soporte financiero y de otro tipo por parte de los miembros, la adecuación del personal clave y problemas similares requerirán todas ellas la más atenta consideración.
La Universidad Aunque los orígenes, las fuentes y las causas son complejas y están interrelacionadas, y obviamente es difícil identificarlas, hay razones para creer que la Universidad es la fuente única más dinámica. Las facultades de ciencias sociales suelen incluir miembros que no simpatizan con el sistema empresarial. Desde Herbert Marcuse, un marxista de la Universidad de California en San Diego, y socialistas convencidos, al liberal crítico ambivalente que encuentra más elementos de condena que de acuerdo. No hace falta que estos universitarios supongan una mayoría. Suelen ser personalmente atractivos y carismáticos, influyen en los profesores y su controversia atrae a los estudiantes. Son prolíficos escritores y conferenciantes, autores de muchos de los libros de texto y ejercen una enorme influencia -mucho más allá de su proporción numérica- sobre sus colegas y el conjunto del mundo académico. Las facultades de ciencias sociales (ciencias políticas, económicas, sociólogos y muchos historiadores) tienden a ser liberales incluso sin la presencia de izquierdistas. No se trata de criticismo per se, pues la necesidad del pensamiento liberal es esencial para un punto de vista equilibrado. El problema es que el equilibrio es conspicuo por su ausencia en muchas universidades, con relativamente pocos miembros de convicción conservadora o incluso moderada e, incluso, esos pocos, a menudo menos articulados y agresivos que sus colegas en campaña. La situación se remonta a muchos años atrás y, con el desequilibrio que empeora gradualmente, se ha producido un enorme impacto en millones de estudiantes. En un artículo en Barron’s Weekly, buscando una respuesta a la desafección de tantos jóvenes hasta el punto de convertirse en revolucionarios, se dijo: «Porque fueron educados así». O bien, como escribió el columnista Steward Alsop en referencia a su alma Mater: «Yale, como todas las universidades más importantes, está licenciando a muchos jóvenes brillantes… que desprecian el sistema político y económico estadounidense». A medida que estos «jóvenes brillantes» de las universidades de todo el país buscan oportunidades para cambiar el sistema al que les han enseñado a desconfiar -si no a despreciar- encuentran empleo en los centros de poder e influencia real de nuestro país, a saber: 1) los medios de comunicación, especialmente la televisión; 2) el gobierno, como consultores a varios niveles; 3) en la política; 4) como conferenciantes y escritores; y 5) en las facultades, a distintos niveles. Muchos entran en el sistema de empresa -en negocios o en profesiones- y en la mayor parte de los casos descubren enseguida las falacias que les han enseñado. Pero aquellos que esquivan el centro del sistema permanecen a menudo en posiciones claves de influencia desde donde moldean la opinión pública y conforman, frecuentemente, la acción gubernamental. En muchas ocasiones, estos intelectuales acaban en agencias legislativas o departamentos gubernamentales con gran autoridad sobre el sistema en el que no creen. Si el análisis anterior fuera aproximadamente cierto, una tarea prioritaria para las empresas -y organizaciones como la Cámara- es dedicarse al origen de la hostilidad universitaria. Pocas cosas están más santificadas en la vida de los Estados Unidos que la libertad académica. Sería fatal atacar esto como principio. Pero si la libertad académica supone retener las cualidades de «apertura», «honestidad» y «equilibrio» -que son esenciales por su significación intelectual- existe una gran oportunidad para la acción constructiva. La motivación de esta acción debe ser el restablecimiento de las mencionadas cualidades de la comunidad académica.
¿Qué se puede hacer con el campus? Plantilla de académicos Plantilla de oradores Oficina del Orador Evaluación de libros de texto El objetivo de esta evaluación debería estar orientado a la restauración del equilibrio esencial para la libertad académica genuina. Esto incluiría la garantía de un trato justo y empírico de nuestro sistema de gobierno y de nuestro sistema empresarial, sus logros, su relación fundamental con los derechos y las libertades individuales, así como comparaciones con los sistemas socialista, fascista y comunista. La mayoría de los libros de texto existentes tienen algún tipo de comparaciones, pero muchas son superficiales, sesgadas e injustas. Hemos visto como el movimiento de derechos civiles insiste en volver a escribir muchos de los libros de texto en nuestras universidades y escuelas. Los sindicatos también insisten en que los libros de texto sean justos con los puntos de vista del movimiento obrero. Otros grupos de presión ciudadana no han dudado en revisar, analizar y criticar los libros de texto y los materiales didácticos. En una sociedad democrática, esto puede ser un proceso constructivo y debe considerarse como una ayuda para una auténtica libertad académica y no como una intromisión en ella. Si los autores, editores y usuarios de libros de texto saben que van a ser sometidos -con honestidad, imparcialidad y rigor- a revisión y crítica por parte de eminentes académicos que creen en el sistema estadounidense, se puede confiar en un retorno a un equilibrio más racional. Igualdad de tiempo en el campus La Cámara debe insistir en la igualdad de tiempo en el circuito de conferencias universitarias. El FBI publica cada año una lista de los discursos pronunciados en las universidades por comunistas declarados. El número en el año 1970 superaba los 100. Hubo, por supuesto, varios cientos de intervenciones de progresistas e izquierdistas que impulsan los tipos de puntos de vista indicados anteriormente en este memorándum. No hubo representación correspondiente del mundo empresarial estadounidenses, o incluso de personas u organizaciones que defendieran públicamente el sistema estadounidense de gobierno y de empresa. Cada campus tiene sus propios grupos formales e informales que invitan a oradores. Cada facultad de derecho hace lo mismo. Muchas universidades patrocinan oficialmente programas de conferencias y charlas. Todos conocemos la insuficiencia de la representación empresarial en estos programas. Alguien dirá que se extenderán pocas invitaciones para los oradores de la Cámara. Sin duda, esto será cierto a menos que la Cámara insista agresivamente en el derecho a ser escuchada; a menos que insista, a todos los efectos, en la «igualdad de tiempo». Las autoridades universitarias y la gran mayoría de los comités y de los grupos estudiantiles no vería con agrado que se les colocara en la posición de rechazar públicamente un foro con puntos de vista diversos, de hecho, esta es la excusa clásica para permitir que los comunistas hablen. Los dos ingredientes esenciales son: (i) tener oradores atractivos, elocuentes y bien informados, y (ii) ejercer el grado de presión -pública y privada- que sea necesario para asegurar las oportunidades de hablar. El objetivo debe ser siempre informar y educar, y no sólo hacer propaganda.
Equilibrio entre el profesorado Los métodos a emplear requieren una profunda reflexión, y hay que evitar las trampas evidentes. La presión indebida sería contraproducente. Pero los conceptos básicos de equilibrio, justicia y verdad son difíciles de resistir, si se presentan adecuadamente a los consejos de administración, por escrito y oralmente, así como a través de llamamientos a las asociaciones y grupos de ex alumnos. Este es un camino largo y no es para pusilánimes. Pero si se persigue con integridad y convicción podría conducir a un fortalecimiento tanto de la libertad académica en el campus como de los valores que han hecho de Estados Unidos la más productiva de todas las sociedades.
Escuelas de graduados de negocios
Educación secundaria ¿Qué puede hacerse con la ciudadanía? Televisión Para ser eficaz, este seguimiento requeriría una constante inspección de textos de muestras adecuadas de programas televisivos. Las quejas -a los medios de comunicación y a la Comisión Federal de Comunicaciones- deben hacerse inmediata y enérgicamente cuando los programas sean injustos o inexactos. La igualdad de tiempo se debe exigir cuando sea oportuno. Debería hacerse el esfuerzo de conseguir que los programas tipo foro (Today Show, Meet the Press, etc.) ofrezcan al menos tantas oportunidades de participación a los partidarios del sistema americano como a sus detractores. Otros medios de comunicación Las revistas científicas Se pueden diseñar incentivos para inducir más «publicación» entre los académicos independientes que sí creen en el sistema. Debería haber un flujo bastante constante de artículos académicos presentados a un amplio espectro de revistas y publicaciones periódicas, que van desde las revistas populares (Life, Look, Reader’s Digest, etc.) hasta las más intelectuales (Atlantic, Harper, Saturday Review, New Yorker, etc.), así como las diversas revistas profesionales. Libros, libros de bolsillo y folletos Anuncios pagados La olvidada arena política La doctrina marxista sigue afirmando que los países «capitalistas» están controlados por las grandes empresas. Esta doctrina, que es una parte consistente de la propaganda izquierdista en todo el mundo, cuenta con una amplia audiencia entre los estadounidenses. Sin embargo, como todos los ejecutivos de negocios saben, hay pocos elementos de la sociedad estadounidense de hoy en día que tengan tan poca influencia en el gobierno norteamericano como el hombre de negocios estadounidense, las sociedades anónimas, o incluso los millones de accionistas de las sociedades anónimas. Si alguien lo duda, permítanle asumir el papel de ‘lobbista’ del punto de vista empresarial ante los comités del Congreso. Lo mismo ocurre en las cámaras legislativas de la mayoría de los estados y ciudades importantes. No es exagerado afirmar que, en términos de influencia política con respecto al curso de la legislación y la acción del gobierno, el ejecutivo de negocios norteamericano es el auténtico «hombre olvidado». Ejemplos actuales de la impotencia de los negocios y del casi desprecio con el que se consideran las opiniones de hombres de negocios, son las estampidas de los políticos para apoyar casi toda legislación relacionada con el «consumismo» o el «medio ambiente». Los políticos reflejan lo que ellos creen que es la opinión de la mayoría de sus electores. Por lo tanto, es evidente que la mayoría de los políticos están calculando que la ciudadanía tiene poca simpatía por el empresario o su punto de vista. Los programas educativos propuestos anteriormente estarían diseñados para educar al pensamiento público; no tanto sobre el empresario y su papel individual como sobre el sistema que administra, y que suministra los bienes, servicios y puestos de trabajo de los que nuestro país depende. Pero no se debe posponer la acción política más directa, a la espera de que el cambio gradual en la opinión pública se efectúe a través de la educación y la información. El mundo empresarial debe aprender una lección aprendida hace mucho tiempo por los trabajadores y otros grupos de presión. La lección es que el poder político es necesario; que ese poder debe ser cultivado con perseverancia, y que, cuando sea necesario, se debe usar con agresividad y determinación -sin vergüenza y sin la renuencia que ha sido tan característica del mundo empresarial estadounidense. Por desagradable que le pueda resultar a la Cámara, debería considerar asumir un papel en la arena política más amplio y vigoroso. Oportunidad desaprovechada en los tribunales Habiendo reconocido esto, otras organizaciones y grupos han sido mucho más astutos que los negocios estadounidenses en la explotación de la acción judicial. Tal vez los explotadores más activos del sistema judicial han sido los grupos que, en orientación política, van desde «liberal» hasta la extrema izquierda. La American Civil Liberties Union es un ejemplo. Inicia o interviene en decenas de casos cada año, y presenta numerosos amicus curiae ante el Tribunal Supremo de Justicia. Los sindicatos, grupos de derechos civiles y ahora los bufetes de abogados de interés público son sumamente activos en el ámbito judicial. Su éxito, a menudo a expensas de la empresa privada, no ha sido intrascendente. Se trata de una vasta área de oportunidad para la Cámara, si se está dispuesto a asumir el papel de portavoz de las empresas estadounidenses y si, a su vez, las empresas están dispuestas a proporcionar los fondos. Al igual que con respecto a los académicos y los oradores, la Cámara necesitaría una plantilla de abogados sumamente competente. En situaciones especiales debería estar autorizada para contratar a abogados de reconocido prestigio y reputación nacional que comparecieran como amicus curiae ante el Tribunal Supremo. En la selección de los casos en los que participar o en los pleitos a iniciar, se debería ejercer el mayor cuidado posible. Pero la oportunidad bien merece el esfuerzo necesario. El olvidado poder de los accionistas La cuestión que merece un examen más completo es cómo se puede movilizar el peso y la influencia de los accionistas -20 millones de votantes- para apoyar (i) un programa educativo y (ii) un programa de acción política. Las sociedades anónimas están ahora obligadas a elaborar numerosos informes para los accionistas. Muchas sociedades anónimas también tienen revistas caras de «noticias» destinadas a empleados y accionistas. Estas oportunidades de comunicación se pueden utilizar con mucha más eficacia como medios educativos. La sociedad anónima como tal debe actuar con moderación en la realización de la acción política y debe, por supuesto, cumplir con las leyes pertinentes. ¿Pero acaso no es factible -a través de una filial de la Cámara o de otra manera- establecer una organización nacional de los accionistas norteamericanos y darle suficiente fuerza como para ser influyente? Una actitud más agresiva Como se sugiere en el artículo de The Wall Street Journal, ha sido bastante característico del hombre de negocios promedio el ser tolerante -por lo menos, en público- con los que atacan a su empresa y al sistema. Muy pocos empresarios u organizaciones empresariales responden con la misma moneda. Ha habido una disposición a la contemporización, a considerar que la oposición estaba dispuesta a hacer concesiones, o que, de forma igualmente probable, esta oposición se desvanecería en su debido tiempo. El mundo de los negocios ha esquivado la política de la confrontación. Comprensiblemente, ha sido ahuyentado de esta política por la multiplicidad de «exigencias» innegociables formuladas constantemente por grupos de interés de todo tipo. Si bien ni los intereses de empresas responsables, ni los de la Cámara de Comercio de los Estados Unidos, se involucrarían en las tácticas irresponsables de algunos grupos de presión, es esencial que los portavoces del sistema de libre empresa -a todos los niveles y a cada oportunidad- sean mucho más agresivos que en el pasado. No debería haber ninguna vacilación en atacar a los Naders, los Marcuses y otros que persiguen abiertamente la destrucción del sistema. No debería haber el menor titubeo para presionar con fuerza en todos los ámbitos políticos para que se apoye al sistema empresarial. Tampoco debería haber renuencia en sancionar políticamente a quienes se le oponen. En este sentido se pueden aprender lecciones de los sindicatos. Puede que, a los empresarios, el jefe de la AFL-CIO [la principal organización sindical estadounidense] no les resulte el ciudadano más modélico y más preocupado por el interés general del país. Sin embargo, durante muchos años, los jefes de las organizaciones sindicales nacionales han hecho el trabajo por el que se les paga de manera muy eficaz. Quizás no hayan sido muy queridos, pero han sido respetados -donde más cuenta- por los políticos, en los campus y en los medios de comunicación. Es hora de que el sector empresarial estadounidense -que ha demostrado la mayor capacidad de toda la historia para producir y para influir en las decisiones del consumidor- aplique enérgicamente sus grandes talentos en la preservación del propio sistema. El coste La plantilla de la Cámara tendría que aumentarse significativamente, estableciendo y manteniendo la más alta calidad. Los salarios tendrían que estar en niveles totalmente comparables a los que se pagan a ejecutivos de negocios clave y a los académicos más prestigiosos. Habría que reclutar a profesionales de gran talento en la publicidad y en el trabajo con los medios de comunicación, oradores, abogados y otros especialistas. Es posible que la organización de la propia Cámara se beneficiaría de la reestructuración. Por ejemplo, tal como sugiere la experiencia sindical, el cargo de presidente de la Cámara podría ser un puesto de carrera profesional a tiempo completo. Para asegurar la máxima eficacia y continuidad, el director ejecutivo de la Cámara no se debería cambiar cada año. Las funciones que ahora desempeña en gran parte el presidente de la Cámara podrían ser transferidas a un presidente de la Junta directiva, elegido anualmente por los miembros. La Junta, por supuesto, seguiría ejerciendo el control político. El control de calidad es esencial Relación con la libertad Parece que hay poca conciencia de que las únicas alternativas a la libre empresa son diversos grados de regulación burocrática de la libertad individual -desde el socialismo moderado hasta el talón de hierro de la dictadura de izquierda o de derecha-. Nosotros, en Estados Unidos, en realidad ya nos hemos acercado mucho hacia algunos aspectos del socialismo de Estado, ya que las necesidades y complejidades de una vasta sociedad urbana exigen tipos de regulación y control, que eran bastante innecesarios en tiempos anteriores. En algunos ámbitos, dicha regulación y control ya ha perjudicado gravemente la libertad de las empresas y de la mano de obra, y, de hecho, de la ciudadanía en general. Pero la mayoría de las libertades esenciales se mantienen: la propiedad privada, el beneficio privado, los sindicatos, la negociación colectiva, la elección del consumidor y una economía de mercado en la que la competencia determina en gran medida el precio, la calidad y la variedad de los bienes y servicios prestados a los consumidores. Además del ataque ideológico contra el propio sistema (examinado en el presente memorándum), sus esencias también se ven amenazadas por una tributación injusta, y -más recientemente- por una inflación que ha parecido incontrolable. Pero cualesquiera que sean las causas de la disminución de la libertad económica, la verdad es que la libertad como concepto es indivisible. Como demuestra la experiencia de los países socialistas y totalitarios, a la contracción y la negación de la libertad económica les siguen inevitablemente las restricciones gubernamentales sobre otros derechos preciados. Éste es el mensaje, por encima de todos los demás, que debe llevarse de vuelta a casa para el pueblo estadounidense. Conclusión Tomado de: rebelion.org
Confidential Memorandum: Attack of American Free Enterprise System DATE: August 23, 1971 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.” [2] 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.” [3] 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.” [4] A recent poll of students on 12 representative campuses reported that: “Almost half the students favored socialization of basic U.S. industries.” [5] 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.” [6] 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.” [7] 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.” [8] 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?” [9] 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.” [10] 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. [11] 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. [12] 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.) [13] 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. [14] 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. Footnotes:
|