Business Interests and the Development of the Modern Welfare State by Taylor & Francis Group

Author:Taylor & Francis Group [Taylor & Group, Francis]
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9781032091044
Google: QjtmzgEACAAJ
Publisher: Taylor & Francis Group
Published: 2021-06-30T06:52:30+00:00

7.8. Conclusion: Continued misrepresentation

In 1935, President Franklin Roosevelt took business organizations’ opposition to Social Security legislation with a grain of salt, thinking that many of their activists were “inclined to be ignorant and hysterical.” Quoted in a New York Times article entitled “Chamber Distorts Voice of Business,” Roosevelt opined that “in all too many cases the general views of business did not lend themselves to expression through its organizations.” Roosevelt’s pronouncement cannot be dismissed as rhetorical bluster. The Chamber had recently flipped away from supporting Social Security, according to Newsweek, because of a “maneuver by that body’s way-right wingers.” Many members present did not understand fully what they were voting for (Schlesinger 1959: 497; “Chamber Distorts Voice of Business” 1935; “The Chamber of Commerce” 1935; “The Big Fight” 1935; “The Big Fight” 2002: 224; Collins 1981: 38–39, 225–226). Clearly, American business was far from unified against the nascent welfare state. After passage of the 1939 Social Security Act, Fortune reported that its survey of businesses “belied the theory that the business community . . . is ready with one accord to scuttle the whole New Deal and set up a regime of black reaction the moment it gets a chance.” Of those surveyed, 72.2 percent favored keeping or adjusting Social Security (“What Business Thinks” 1939: 52–53, 90–98).

Politicians’ and journalists’ observations in the 1930s, the 1960s, and beyond recommend a new research agenda for future scholarship on business and the politics of welfare state development. In current scholarship, unrepresentative organizations professing to speak for all of business continue to confuse scholars and their readers. For example, in their discussion of health reform efforts during the Obama administration, Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson let organizations like the Chamber and the NFIB do practically all the speaking for business, small and large, making the passage of the Affordable Care Act look like another victory of liberal forces over capital. But the Chamber is still an unreliable source. In fact, since the late 1990s, under the forceful and creative leadership of Thomas Donahue, the Chamber has become even less of a representative institution than ever. No longer wishing to rely entirely on membership fees, it dramatically increased its revenue by selling special political services to high-paying customers. For example, tobacco, coal, and insurance firms and groups have secretly commissioned the Chamber to sponsor their special projects in order to give them the veneer of broad business support (Vandehei 2001; Hakim 2015a; Hakim 2015b; Davenport and Hirschfeld David 2015). In the fall of 2009, when big health insurers decided that they were no longer getting their way in the design of health reform, they secretly funneled millions of dollars to the Chamber to serve as its attack dog, all the while maintaining a posture of openmindedness (Connolly 2009; Stone 2010). In such acts, the Chamber violates its own bylaws requiring it to take stands only of broad significance to business and industry. By contrast, many state chambers of commerce have acted in line with members’

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.