A few years later at a meeting of elite corporate executives called by a well connected business organization, The Conference Board, the businessmen expressed horror as a series of disasters, scandals, and injustices shook public confidence in business. One displayed proper gallows humor, lamenting: "At this rate business can expect support from the environmentalists. We can get them to put the corporation on the endangered species list" (Vogel and Silk 1976, p. 71).
Others expressed their fears in a more straightforward manner, exclaiming, "The American capitalist system is confronting its darkest hour" (Vogel and Silk 1976, p. 71). The participants voiced their skepticism for democratic solutions. One executive warned that "the dolts have taken over the power structure and the capacity of the nation in the US" (Vogel and Silk 1976, p. 189). Another asked, "Can we still afford one man, one vote? We are tumbling on the brink." Still another warned: "One man, one vote has undermined the power of business in all capitalist countries since World War II" (Vogel and Silk 1976, p. 75). Ominously, a number of the assembled executives spoke vaguely of the need for "war time discipline" and "a more controlled society" (Vogel and Silk 1976, p. 76).
The Trilateral Commission, an organization of elites in the United States, Europe, and Japan commissioned a volume entitled, The Crisis of Democracy: Report on the Governability of Democracies. The author of the contribution on the United States, Samuel P. Huntington, an influential professor at Harvard, complained:
The vigor of democracy in the United States in the 1960s thus contributed to a democratic distemper, involving the expansion of governmental activity, on the one hand, and the reduction of governmental authority, on the other. [Huntington 1975, p. 102] According to Huntington, "Some of the problems of governance in the United States today stem from an excess of democracy .... the effective operation of a democratic political system usually requires some measure of apathy and noninvolvement on the part of some individuals and groups (Huntington 1975, p. 114). So, for Huntington, if only people would become more apathetic and uninvolved in the political process, a stunted democracy would work to the satisfaction of conservatives.
Although the executives vented their frustration at the environmentalists and other social activists, they probably realized that the real threat that they faced was something far more dangerous: the economy was rapidly deteriorating. This weakening of the economy in the late 1960s came as a complete shock. People had been taking prosperity for granted. Now, with its enviable conditions rapidly eroding, business was unlikely to sit by for long, especially while it faced severe challenges to its privileges and power.
Attacking social movements and policies might have given some satisfaction to business executives, but the social movements, in themselves, did not directly threaten business, except to the extent that they indirectly undermined the ability to discipline workers. The underlying problem was the built in tendency for market economies to fall into deep recessions or even depressions.
In any case, business launched an aggressive offensive in an effort to regain control of the situation. Control remained illusive, but at least business could shore up its profits by curtailing wages, regulations, and taxes. In this respect, business was successful. The redistribution of income toward the rich reflects the extent of their success, although their policies have already proven destructive for the majority of society and ultimately will even harm the interests that business executives hold most dear.
-- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu michaelperelman.wordpress.com