Among corporations today, there is growing acceptance for the business model demonstrated by WholeFoods and other civic-minded companies, who place their social contributions on the same plane as their earnings. John Mackey, founder and CEO of WholeFoods, believes in a holistic approach to business that creates “value for all of its constituencies.” In a debate on ReasonOnline, he maintains that the title of “stakeholder” applies to more than just the investors: there are customers, employees, suppliers, and the local community itself who each help define the nature and purpose of the business. By listening closely to the needs and desires of these interested parties, Mackey has built a multi-billion dollar company in less than 30 years. He believes that the happiness of his constituents can be pursued with “greater interest, passion, and empathy” than a business solely motivated by profit. His reasoning follows the line of thought of Adam Smith, one of the fathers of free-market economics, who explains in his book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, that human nature is not tied simply to self-interest. It expands to include sympathy, empathy, friendship, love, and the desire for social approval. Mackey’s vision for “a new form of capitalism” pushes for corporate social responsibility as a means of repairing capitalism’s negative image created by “selfish, greedy, and uncaring” companies. He maintains that to do so would both fulfill our human nature and give us financial independence.
If Mackey is correct, he is putting a marketing face on a position that has many similarities to that taken by Milton Friedman. In 1962, he wrote the first edition of his book, Capitalism and Freedom, in an attempt to encourage a free society of men to take responsibility for themselves. His opinion of social responsibility on the part of a corporation is that:
“This view shows a fundamental misconception of the character and nature of a free economy. In such an economy, there is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition, without deception or fraud” (p. 133).
In fact, Friedman employs another work of Adam Smith to describe the way an individual pursuing his own interest is “led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest, he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it” (p. 421). Friedman minces no words in decrying the modern tendency to accept the shift in responsibility: “Few trends could so thoroughly undermine the very foundations of our free society as the acceptance by corporate officials of a social responsibility other than to make as much money for their stockholders as possible” (p. 133). The truth is that our nation was established with a clear system of checks and balances that allow redistribution decisions to be made by an elected body with clear guidelines. To do otherwise is an “inappropriate use” of corporate funds (p. 135). It depends on a powerless party of investors, whose only choice in the matter of where their social contributions go is to pull out of corporate America. Companies such as WholeFoods look at the entrepreneur as the decision-maker; since he took the majority of responsibility for founding a company, he should choose how the profits are divided. If he wants 5% to go to charities, so be it. Live with it or go elsewhere. If this is true, how does he decide what amount is proportional? By arbitrary guesswork and blanket approval, the way WholeFoods did? Friedman’s critique is that “the direction in which policy is now moving…is a step in the direction of creating a true divorce between ownership and control and of undermining the basic nature and character of our society. It is a step away from an individualistic society and toward the corporate state” (pp. 135-136). His view is that businessmen advocating this strategy are “unwitting puppets of the intellectual forces that have been undermining the basis of a free society these past decades.”
His take on WholeFoods’ success is that the corporate mantra of responsibility to all constituencies is just a mask for holding profit as the bottom line. Any other tactic in such a competitive market would have put them out of business or forced them to sell. For instance, Friedman agrees that it may be in the best interests for a major employer in a small town to provide amenities for the townspeople or to improve their government, but that is because it will benefit the company long-term, not as a pure act of goodwill. It is one method a company can use to overcome the negative labels of “profiteering,” “soulless capitalism,” and “greedy management,” often leveled against corporate America. Friedman exposes this trick without condemning it: “If our institutions and the attitudes of the public make it in their self-interest to cloak their actions in this way, I cannot summon much indignation to denounce them.” He goes on to explain that WholeFoods’ core competencies are in enhancing the experience of grocery shopping, not in allocating part of their profits to society. Why couldn’t they build up equity by reinvesting profits in the company, or by paying it out as dividends to their stockholders to dispose of? A system of private property and free markets is a means of allowing people to freely cooperate in their activities to ensure that all of their resources are used in the most efficient and valuable way. It should not be handed off to a few corporate executives and entrepreneurs to distribute according to their limited interests and knowledge: namely, a monopoly.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Sunday, December 2, 2007
What to Require? What to Even Ask?
POL 213: In a Washington Post article last week, Peggy Noonan postulated about the recent focus on politicians’ faith, and especially in the presidential race:
"There are some people who believe faith doesn't belong in politics. But it does, and it is there inextricably. The antislavery movement, the temperance movement, the civil rights movement, the antiabortion movement, all were political movements animated in large part by religious feeling. It's not that it doesn't matter. You bring your whole self into the polling booth, including your faith and your sense of right and wrong, good and bad, just as presidents bring their whole selves into the Oval Office. I can't imagine how a president could do his job without faith.
But faith is also personal. You can be touched by a candidate's faith, or interested in his apparent lack of it. It's never wholly unimportant, but you should never see a politician as a leader of faith, and we should not ask a man who made his rise in the grubby world of politics to act as if he is an exemplar of his faith, or an explainer or defender of it."
I tend to agree with her conclusions. I too believe that religion is a bias or point of view that is inherent in each individual. It cannot be excluded from our consideration of a candidate or from his view of the world.
Just today an announcement was made that Mitt Romney would speak about his faith in relation to his political ambitions and decision-making processes. According to the statement released by his campaign, the speech “is an opportunity for Governor Romney to share his views on religious liberty, the grand tradition religious tolerance has played in the progress of our nation and how the governor's own faith would inform his Presidency if he were elected. Governor Romney understands that faith is an important issue to many Americans, and he personally feels this moment is the right moment for him to share his views with the nation."
Romney is walking in John F. Kennedy’s steps with this decision. Before the 1960 election, Kennedy took time to speak about his Catholic faith and reassure potential voters of his ability to govern well regardless of his religious beliefs. His attempt to assuage their fears appears to have worked! For months now, Romney has avoided the issue, choosing to ignore the fact that some voters may be alienated by his divergence from a mainstream faith. I wonder if the other polarizing candidates (Obama and Clinton, for instance) will choose to address race or gender concerns, or if those have been addressed to the satisfaction of the American public.
"There are some people who believe faith doesn't belong in politics. But it does, and it is there inextricably. The antislavery movement, the temperance movement, the civil rights movement, the antiabortion movement, all were political movements animated in large part by religious feeling. It's not that it doesn't matter. You bring your whole self into the polling booth, including your faith and your sense of right and wrong, good and bad, just as presidents bring their whole selves into the Oval Office. I can't imagine how a president could do his job without faith.
But faith is also personal. You can be touched by a candidate's faith, or interested in his apparent lack of it. It's never wholly unimportant, but you should never see a politician as a leader of faith, and we should not ask a man who made his rise in the grubby world of politics to act as if he is an exemplar of his faith, or an explainer or defender of it."
I tend to agree with her conclusions. I too believe that religion is a bias or point of view that is inherent in each individual. It cannot be excluded from our consideration of a candidate or from his view of the world.
Just today an announcement was made that Mitt Romney would speak about his faith in relation to his political ambitions and decision-making processes. According to the statement released by his campaign, the speech “is an opportunity for Governor Romney to share his views on religious liberty, the grand tradition religious tolerance has played in the progress of our nation and how the governor's own faith would inform his Presidency if he were elected. Governor Romney understands that faith is an important issue to many Americans, and he personally feels this moment is the right moment for him to share his views with the nation."
Romney is walking in John F. Kennedy’s steps with this decision. Before the 1960 election, Kennedy took time to speak about his Catholic faith and reassure potential voters of his ability to govern well regardless of his religious beliefs. His attempt to assuage their fears appears to have worked! For months now, Romney has avoided the issue, choosing to ignore the fact that some voters may be alienated by his divergence from a mainstream faith. I wonder if the other polarizing candidates (Obama and Clinton, for instance) will choose to address race or gender concerns, or if those have been addressed to the satisfaction of the American public.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Looking back?
POL 213: In “Obama's Amnesia Problem,” Peter Beinart writes about a trend among American citizens, and notably the youngest generation of Americans, toward forgetting the past. He considers this a problem that specifically affects Barack Obama’s candidacy for president. The senator from Illinois stated his opposition to the Iraq war more than five years ago, at the same time that Hillary Clinton voted for it. This should be giving him a lift in popular opinion among the denouncers of the war today, but it seems that his record has been forgotten, or conveniently swept under the rug and out of sight. In fact, the Los Angeles Times reports that, “likely Democratic primary voters who say they want U.S. troops out of Iraq "as soon as possible" choose Clinton over Obama by more than 2 to 1.”
This phenomenon is occurring partly because of Clinton’s political maneuvering to position herself exactly where many Americans find themselves: originally willing to support a war effort, they’re now looking for someone who will stand up to the Bush administration and put an end to the war. Obama, on the other hand, is attempting to focus attention on his track record. He is implying that his qualifications to lead are based on his correct judgment back in 2002, and that her dissenting opinion shows a weakness that shouldn’t be present in the Commander in Chief of the United States. Even though Hillary has no plans to immediately withdraw troops from the region, making her little different from the current administration, she is considered as antiwar as any of the other candidates.
This is the point where American indifference to the past comes most into play. Time and time again we have elected officials who were completely opposed to a plan at the beginning, but changed their tune later on instead of going with the first opponent of an idea. This speaks to our tendency to look forward rather than back. To our self-interest manifesting itself in the willingness to change sides of an idea. To make up our minds as we go along. It may also be a sign of stubborn refusal to learn from past mistakes, or to even admit them. Or of being so interested in the present circumstances that we fail to adequately plan or foresee the consequences of our actions. May this tendency to ignore the past serve as a cautious warning to Americans, and may the best possible leader be elected next fall.
This phenomenon is occurring partly because of Clinton’s political maneuvering to position herself exactly where many Americans find themselves: originally willing to support a war effort, they’re now looking for someone who will stand up to the Bush administration and put an end to the war. Obama, on the other hand, is attempting to focus attention on his track record. He is implying that his qualifications to lead are based on his correct judgment back in 2002, and that her dissenting opinion shows a weakness that shouldn’t be present in the Commander in Chief of the United States. Even though Hillary has no plans to immediately withdraw troops from the region, making her little different from the current administration, she is considered as antiwar as any of the other candidates.
This is the point where American indifference to the past comes most into play. Time and time again we have elected officials who were completely opposed to a plan at the beginning, but changed their tune later on instead of going with the first opponent of an idea. This speaks to our tendency to look forward rather than back. To our self-interest manifesting itself in the willingness to change sides of an idea. To make up our minds as we go along. It may also be a sign of stubborn refusal to learn from past mistakes, or to even admit them. Or of being so interested in the present circumstances that we fail to adequately plan or foresee the consequences of our actions. May this tendency to ignore the past serve as a cautious warning to Americans, and may the best possible leader be elected next fall.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
The Job at Hand
POL 213: Our nation’s Supreme Court recently decided to hear a case to decide the decades-old question of whether or not the Second Amendment applies to individuals, or to the government as a collective whole. Their decision will affect states’ rights to impose gun controls or bans on their citizens. The amendment states: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The current question lies in the meaning of the phrase “the right of the people.” It was decided by the District of Columbia’s Circuit Court of Appeals that the phrase meant the individual, and the ruling in D.C. vs. Heller was overturned to allow possession of handguns. It is this decision that is being appealed to the Supreme Court, and it is their responsibility to interpret carefully.
In the article, “Guns and the Constitution,” the author states that the ambiguity lies in the phrase, “A well-regulated militia.” The judge in this case argued with historical evidence that the Framers of the Constitution had able-bodied men in mind when they wrote this phrase, and not the National Guard of today. In fact, throughout the Bill of Rights, “the right of the people” was used to refer to individual rights and liberties. The First Amendment speaks of their right to assemble, the Fourth to their right to be secure in their possessions, the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth speak of protecting a defendant’s rights. In “Second Amendment Showdown,” Mike Cox writes of Madison’s intent: “Madison's draft borrowed liberally from the English Bill of Rights of 1689 and Virginia's Declaration of Rights. Both granted individual rights, not collective rights.” Madison meant to protect against infringement against the citizen by a large government. He sought to bridge the gap between the Federalists, who favored a central government, and the Anti-Federalists, who feared the corrupting influence of power.
The social culture at the time the Second Amendment was penned lent itself to an idea of the right of the individual as well. Homes were spread out across great expanses of unsettled land. There was no central army to call on in time of need. Instead, the young nation relied on volunteers and minutemen to come to its defense. This doesn’t speak of a centralized “militia,” or of a collective body, but again of an individual citizen.
There is no historical or written evidence to suggest that the Framers had any other idea in mind than to protect the individual liberties of America’s citizens. Because of this fact, I believe that the Supreme Court should uphold the Court of Appeals’ decision to overrule the District’s ban on handguns.
Cox, Mike. “Second Amendment Showdown.” Wall Street Journal Online. 23 November 2007. 25 November 2007.
“Guns and the Constitution.” Wall Street Journal Online. 24 November 2007. 25 November 2007.
In the article, “Guns and the Constitution,” the author states that the ambiguity lies in the phrase, “A well-regulated militia.” The judge in this case argued with historical evidence that the Framers of the Constitution had able-bodied men in mind when they wrote this phrase, and not the National Guard of today. In fact, throughout the Bill of Rights, “the right of the people” was used to refer to individual rights and liberties. The First Amendment speaks of their right to assemble, the Fourth to their right to be secure in their possessions, the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth speak of protecting a defendant’s rights. In “Second Amendment Showdown,” Mike Cox writes of Madison’s intent: “Madison's draft borrowed liberally from the English Bill of Rights of 1689 and Virginia's Declaration of Rights. Both granted individual rights, not collective rights.” Madison meant to protect against infringement against the citizen by a large government. He sought to bridge the gap between the Federalists, who favored a central government, and the Anti-Federalists, who feared the corrupting influence of power.
The social culture at the time the Second Amendment was penned lent itself to an idea of the right of the individual as well. Homes were spread out across great expanses of unsettled land. There was no central army to call on in time of need. Instead, the young nation relied on volunteers and minutemen to come to its defense. This doesn’t speak of a centralized “militia,” or of a collective body, but again of an individual citizen.
There is no historical or written evidence to suggest that the Framers had any other idea in mind than to protect the individual liberties of America’s citizens. Because of this fact, I believe that the Supreme Court should uphold the Court of Appeals’ decision to overrule the District’s ban on handguns.
Cox, Mike. “Second Amendment Showdown.” Wall Street Journal Online. 23 November 2007. 25 November 2007
“Guns and the Constitution.” Wall Street Journal Online. 24 November 2007. 25 November 2007
Sunday, November 4, 2007
A Platform of Trust
POL 213: As I looked at the race shaping up for next fall’s Presidential election, something about the field of potential candidates struck me. I wondered where the sense of trust and dependability in my elected officials had gone. Is it simply my increasing maturity that allows me to see things as they really are, or are politicians really becoming more corrupt? At this point in my life, I can only imagine the multiplied pressures, strains, and temptations that public life can place on an individual. I doubt that I could stand untainted were I to be elected either. But I also recognize an inseparable truth: public officials should hold the trust of their constituents.
Their role is to be one of advocate and representative for the people. If they are going to give an accurate an unbiased consideration to the thoughts of their fellow citizens, they need to have a firm foundation from which to speak. This platform should not be compromised by teetering on both sides of an issue, or by waffling about the specifics of a potential solution. Only when Americans place enough faith in the person representing them in office can they then give credibility to government and our system of representation and choose to honor and obey their direction.
In an article for “World” magazine, Joel Belz brings up the issue of Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith. He wonders, “When, in a relatively short space of time, he seems to be on both sides of the same issue—and when such a deviously confusing approach seems to be consistent with his faith rather than counter to it—that sets off alarm bells for me” (Belz 5). This trend is troubling to me in more than Romney’s situation. It speaks of hypocrisy and political maneuvering. Romney needs to firmly base his campaign in truth by standing by his word. He shouldn’t look to past tendencies to pander to lobbyists or to trivialize constituents’ genuine concerns. Only by establishing a basis for trust can he hope to win a majority of votes on that decisive November day.
Belz, Joel. “Trifling with the Truth.” World. 10 November 2007: 5.
Their role is to be one of advocate and representative for the people. If they are going to give an accurate an unbiased consideration to the thoughts of their fellow citizens, they need to have a firm foundation from which to speak. This platform should not be compromised by teetering on both sides of an issue, or by waffling about the specifics of a potential solution. Only when Americans place enough faith in the person representing them in office can they then give credibility to government and our system of representation and choose to honor and obey their direction.
In an article for “World” magazine, Joel Belz brings up the issue of Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith. He wonders, “When, in a relatively short space of time, he seems to be on both sides of the same issue—and when such a deviously confusing approach seems to be consistent with his faith rather than counter to it—that sets off alarm bells for me” (Belz 5). This trend is troubling to me in more than Romney’s situation. It speaks of hypocrisy and political maneuvering. Romney needs to firmly base his campaign in truth by standing by his word. He shouldn’t look to past tendencies to pander to lobbyists or to trivialize constituents’ genuine concerns. Only by establishing a basis for trust can he hope to win a majority of votes on that decisive November day.
Belz, Joel. “Trifling with the Truth.” World. 10 November 2007: 5.
Monday, October 22, 2007
A Time for Action
POL 213: In an article entitled, “Graduating to Public Service,” Stephen Barr attempts to alert Americans to a growing trend among young college graduates: they don’t have the sense of civic duty, undying patriotism, optimism in the character of men, or financial incentive to motivate them to apply for positions in the federal government. This is a concern for both government officials and for the average citizen because of the imminent shortage of employees to fill critical roles. The Baby Boomer generation is entering the retirement phase of their lives in droves. Who will step up to take control of our nation as they vacate official positions? This question also begs another, deeper uncertainty looming over the American psyche. Namely, why is there such a disconnection between the younger generations and the federal government? And how can we bridge this gap?
The writers of the Anti-Federalist Papers once advocated for individual states that would hold more power than a federal government. For the most part, their opinion reigned during the Constitutional convention. As a result, a national government was formed that required the input of the individual citizen to make it function well. Over the last two centuries, the size of our government has grown exponentially. No longer does an average citizen feel that his vote holds a sway in the direction of our country. In fact, he more often feels that it won’t matter if he votes or not, the decision is made by an electorate far removed from everyday realities. Or why should he petition his congressman, or call his legislator? They are too entrenched in the concerns of lobbyists and campaign contributors to listen to the voice of an individual constituent. Some of this may be due to the population growth of our country. It is true that legislators today represent a much larger number of citizens. Perhaps we do need to modify the required number of representatives. But at what cost? Would the legislature be able to function properly with more than 435 representatives, or would it bog down in committees, party politics, and hidden agendas? As the nation considers its future, there are several citizens finally sounding the alarm. I believe our past actions in allowing big government and its accompanying distance from the individual citizen has contributed to the attitude of apathy among our youth. If we continue to allow this trend, we deserve to suffer the consequences of our actions. I, for one, would hate to see the results of an overextended and understaffed bureaucracy. Or am I staring it in the face?
Monday, October 15, 2007
An indecent proposal
POL 213: I was shocked and taken completely off guard this week. It doesn't often happen that I fail to respond to a situation with words, but this time I was left with none. It happened Monday night, as a co-worker and I left work after our shift at one of the thousands of restaurants in New York. He began, hesitatingly, to tell me his story. How he had come from an Eastern European country with $150 in his pocket and was now attending school and working fulltime to support himself. His story continued with his portrayal of himself as a hard-working individual who lives according to the law and even pays taxes, but is viewed as an illegal alien by the authorities. Evidently his work visa had run out before his student visa application could be properly processed, and now he remained in the United States on the slim hope that he could work something out to be able to stay permanently.
"Mike," as I'll call him here, continued his conversation with me by broaching a subject I'd never have expected. I could tell he was struggling for words and for courage as he finally suggested an arranged marriage between us in an attempt to gain legal status, and possibly even his permanent green card. The price he was willing to pay? $10,000.
I was dumfounded. How was this possible? My response was that no man should ever have to resort to such a desperate measure in order to stay under the law. I told him that I would look into an appeal, and that perhaps my legislative representatives would be able to help.
This scenario again brought the immigration problem to the front of my consciousness. What IS the best way to integrate newcomers to our country? Do our laws serve as aids or hindrances to this process? It is time to review them and discuss our options and responsibilities as citizens of the United States. President Bush has introduced several initiatives. Let's analyze them fairly, apart from our party and personal agendas, and create a workable solution to this problem.
As we do so, we'll need to take several aspects of the debate into consideration. We need to realize that immigration is not going to go away. It's with us for better or for worse. Congress could sign a bill tomorrow granting universal amnesty for all illegal aliens, or they could choose to erect a 2,000 mile wall. Day labor, falsified papers, and arranged marriages will remain a fact of life for thousands of individuals.
Amity Shlaes addresses Mitt Romney's attack on supporters of immigrants in an article entitled Romney Ignores Blessings of New York's Immigrants by stating that historically, "New York may have served as a sanctuary for illegal immigrants, but it is illegal immigrants who have blessed the city, not the other way around." My friend Mike seems to confirm this sentiment with his story, and even though I'm not willing to compromise my moral stand on the sacredness of marriage, I'd like to see him succeed in his quest for citizenship or legal status in my country.
"Mike," as I'll call him here, continued his conversation with me by broaching a subject I'd never have expected. I could tell he was struggling for words and for courage as he finally suggested an arranged marriage between us in an attempt to gain legal status, and possibly even his permanent green card. The price he was willing to pay? $10,000.
I was dumfounded. How was this possible? My response was that no man should ever have to resort to such a desperate measure in order to stay under the law. I told him that I would look into an appeal, and that perhaps my legislative representatives would be able to help.
This scenario again brought the immigration problem to the front of my consciousness. What IS the best way to integrate newcomers to our country? Do our laws serve as aids or hindrances to this process? It is time to review them and discuss our options and responsibilities as citizens of the United States. President Bush has introduced several initiatives. Let's analyze them fairly, apart from our party and personal agendas, and create a workable solution to this problem.
As we do so, we'll need to take several aspects of the debate into consideration. We need to realize that immigration is not going to go away. It's with us for better or for worse. Congress could sign a bill tomorrow granting universal amnesty for all illegal aliens, or they could choose to erect a 2,000 mile wall. Day labor, falsified papers, and arranged marriages will remain a fact of life for thousands of individuals.
Amity Shlaes addresses Mitt Romney's attack on supporters of immigrants in an article entitled Romney Ignores Blessings of New York's Immigrants by stating that historically, "New York may have served as a sanctuary for illegal immigrants, but it is illegal immigrants who have blessed the city, not the other way around." My friend Mike seems to confirm this sentiment with his story, and even though I'm not willing to compromise my moral stand on the sacredness of marriage, I'd like to see him succeed in his quest for citizenship or legal status in my country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)