On 11/19/2010 1:36 PM, Michael Pollak wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2010, SA wrote:
>
>> A good friend worked at NAM as a graphic designer during the Bush
>> years. He said there's a permanent struggle between the big
>> free-trade multinationals that provide most of the money and get most
>> of the say and the far more numerous smaller members that lean more
>> protectionist.
>
> So what during the progressive era was a battle between the NAM and
> the National Civic Foundation is now a battle within the NAM?
Oh I don't think the conflict today has much in common with the NAM-NCF conflict of yore. Both factions in the NAM today take the old NAM line on labor, which was the focus of the Progressive era rivalry. It's just a trade fight now. By the way, there's a smaller protectionist business association, the U.S. Business & Industrial Council, which has gained membership from NAM defectors.
Also, you might be interested to know that historians have determined that most companies in the NCF were also members of NAM. The real rivalry wasn't between different firms, but between the different ideological activists (Ralph Easley vs. Dave Parry) who ran the competing associations. Firms joined one or the other (or both) based on their shifting hunches about which approach was more efficacious.
SA