[TheClimate.Vote] August 23, 2020 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/*August 23, 2020*/

[10 to 15% contained]
*'The Worst Is Not Behind Us': California Wildfires Continue To Burn**
*August 22, 20205
MATTHEW S. SCHWARTZ
Hundreds of buildings have been destroyed, close to a million acres of 
land have been scorched and at least six people have died in one of the 
worst series of wildfires in California's history.

More than 13,700 firefighters are battling nearly two dozen major fires 
throughout the state, fire officials said Saturday. Five broad areas of 
the state are on fire, and the largest blazes remain mostly uncontained.

"The worst is not behind us," tweeted Thom Porter, chief of Cal Fire, 
the state's firefighting agency. "We are in a battle rhythm. New 
lightning activity is expected across the state. Double your efforts, to 
lookout for yourselves and each other."

The fires were sparked by nearly 12,000 lightning strikes in a dry 
California terrain that hasn't seen much rain. The "lightning siege" 
created close to 600 new wildfires, said Jeremy Rahn, a public 
information officer for Cal Fire, at a briefing Saturday...
- -
Two of the fire systems now raging are among the five largest wildfires 
in California history, Cal Fire reports. More than 100,000 people face 
evacuation orders as fires have ravaged over 900,000 acres -- an area 
larger than Rhode Island.

"We understand that many people are stressed and anxious," Sonoma County 
Sheriff Mark Essick said. "We ask that you please rely on each other. 
Help each other. Check on your neighbors. Stay calm."

Most of the deaths throughout the state have come from a set of fires 
known as the L.N.U. Lightning Complex, covering an area of 314,000 acres 
around Napa Valley. It's the second-largest fire in the state's history. 
These fires have killed four people and destroyed more than 560 
structures, state officials said. As of Saturday afternoon, the blaze 
was only 15% controlled.

Moving south, approximately 20 different fires merged into three major 
fires that now comprise the S.C.U. Lightning Complex, which is around 
Santa Clara and Alameda counties. This series of fires has burned over 
291,000 acres, and as of Saturday morning had destroyed 10 structures -- 
though more than 20,000 structures were at risk, according to Cal Fire. 
It's the third largest wildfire in the state's history.

The fires burned actively through the night, and officials expect fire 
activity to increase later today as smoke clears the area.

"The protection of sensitive wildlife and critical power and 
communication infrastructure remains a top priority," Cal Fire said in a 
statement. The agency said these fires were approximately 10% contained.

Fires also rage in Northern California. The C.Z.U. Lightning Complex 
fire, concentrated in San Mateo and Santa Cruz counties, has so far 
consumed over 63,000 acres, Cal Fire reports. As of Saturday morning 
only 5% of the fire was contained. Smoke from the fires is limiting 
visibility and hampering aircraft operations, officials said. 
Approximately 77,000 people in the area have been evacuated.

More lightning is expected over the next few days, which could spark 
more wildfires.

"Incoming weather is concerning to us," said Cal Fire's Ian Larkin, unit 
chief for San Mateo and Santa Cruz counties, the San Francisco Chronicle 
reported.
https://www.npr.org/2020/08/22/905099950/the-worst-is-not-behind-us-california-continues-to-burn



[USA Today opinion]
*Wildfires, blackouts, anger: California shows us the future of climate 
change*
The damage we've done through greenhouse gas emissions is not something 
we can turn off. It's done. We can only act so it doesn't get worse than 
this.
David Callaway
- -
Climate scientists point to the turmoil this year as proof that the 
changes aren't just coming, they're here. The damage we've done through 
greenhouse gas emissions is not something we can turn off. It's done. We 
can only hope to act so that it won't get worse than this...
- -

Joe Biden's climate plan, highlighted this week during the Democratic 
National Convention, is a potpourri of ambitious ideas designed to 
appease the progressive wing of the party while not completely 
alienating the moderate Republicans. There is no ban on fracking, nor on 
fossil fuel subsidies for example. But it is a plan and something to 
build on, compared to the alternative of more denial, drilling, and auto 
emission rollbacks.

Climate change: Put a price on carbon pollution, then refund the money 
to consumers

 From Wall Street to Silicon Valley, though, there is a rising wave of 
money making its way toward sustainable investments -- some $1 trillion 
in sustainable funds, according to UBS. That money will be aimed at 
companies trying to cut their carbon footprints, and seeking solutions 
such as electric vehicles and energy efficient buildings. The idea of 
doing good and making profit at the same time is catching like a, uh, 
wildfire.

This week marks the second anniversary of Greta Thunberg's Friday school 
strikes to promote fighting climate change. She wrote in The Guardian 
that most of the world's governments remain "in a state of denial."

A California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection firefighter 
initiates a backburn down the Yuba River Canyon toward the flames of the 
Jones Fire, Tuesday morning, Aug. 18, 2020, near Grass Valley, Calif.
That denial is real. And with it comes apathy, which is probably more 
dangerous. The climate debate will be an important part of the coming 
election. Even more so afterward, no matter who wins. The time to solve 
it has long passed. It's a matter of survival now. Our new climate 
reality is here, and it's getting worse.

David Callaway is a former Editor-in-Chief of USA TODAY and the founder 
of Callaway Climate Insights, a newsletter business dedicated to climate 
finance.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2020/08/21/california-forest-fires-storm-climate-change-david-callaway-column/3404346001/





[Politics from the Nation]
*When It Comes to Climate Change, It's Joe Biden Versus the DNC*
The Democratic presidential nominee knows that halting fossil fuel 
subsidies is imperative. Why doesn't the DNC?
By Tamara Toles O'LaughlinTwitter

The Democratic National Convention this week played against the backdrop 
of compound crises: Covid-19 and climate change, economic instability 
and racial injustice. Our country is dying, literally, for change, and 
the current president cannot deliver. So it's up to the Democratic Party 
and its nominees, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, to tackle this mess--and 
they're off to a good start.

Biden's climate plan is the strongest of any presidential nominee in 
history. And polls show that 70 percent of the electorate favors strong 
federal climate action. So, as a climate activist, I can't help but 
wonder: Why on earth is the Democratic National Committee fighting its 
own nominee's climate policies?

Climate change received a number of mentions during the Democratic 
convention; an entire segment Wednesday night was dedicated to the 
importance of climate action, and Biden also listed the crisis in his 
acceptance speech as one of the most urgent issues facing us. This is a 
testament to the energy and force of the climate movement. Yet, earlier 
in the week, the Democratic National Committee quietly removed some of 
the most foundational climate language from the party's 2020 platform: a 
commitment to eliminate subsidies to fossil fuels.

When confronted by a HuffPost reporter about the removal, a DNC 
spokesperson said that including the language in the first place had 
been a procedural "error." But John Laesch, a member of the DNC platform 
committee, responded that the DNC's claim was "100 percent false," 
adding that he gave "no consent" to scrap the language in question, 
which, he said, had already been approved.
To its credit, the Biden campaign quickly reaffirmed its commitment to 
eliminating fossil fuel subsidies. Yet the DNC has remained silent. This 
is unacceptable. The DNC platform is a statement of the party's vision 
for the next four years. It must be in alignment with the stronger 
vision that Biden and Harris have campaigned on, including an end to 
fossil fuel subsidies.

Now, to be sure, Biden doesn't yet have a clear plan to phase out fossil 
fuels. Ending subsidies was itself a significant addition, in that it 
signaled a willingness to listen to and work with communities on the 
ground--but it's just a first step. Next needs to come a plan to phase 
out fossil fuels...
In the lead-up to the convention, we saw many thoughtful proposals aimed 
at reshaping the Democratic Party's approach to the climate crisis. The 
Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force, established to craft a common approach 
on climate (and other issues), led Biden's campaign to unveil a Clean 
Energy Plan. Among other things, that plan charts a path to net-zero 
emissions in the country's electricity sector by 2035, while earmarking 
40 percent of federal climate spending for communities of color and 
others that have long suffered disproportionately from fossil fuel 
production and climate impacts. The plan also pledged to end subsidies 
for fossil fuel production, an obvious and necessary step in the shift 
to a fossil-free economy. After all, why should tax dollars be used to 
destroy our climate even further?...
But the Democratic Party platform outlines a different, significantly 
weaker vision of climate action. In particular, it includes no tangible 
commitment to phasing out fossil fuel production--a policy that is 
essential to any credible approach to curbing the worst impacts of 
climate change while also addressing environmental injustice. By evading 
the need to stop fossil fuel subsidies and phase out fossil fuel 
extraction, the DNC leadership is avoiding the root causes of climate 
change and environmental injustice.

The entire business model of fossil fuel corporations relies on 
extraction, pollution, and exploitation, while ignoring the impact this 
has on human health and safety. It concentrates harm in many vulnerable 
communities and wealth within a small number of corporations. The worst 
of those companies invest their dirty profits in disinformation 
campaigns to cover their tracks, and seed partisan fighting about the 
awful truth of climate change. Leadership in the Democratic Party must 
focus on repairing the damage to communities caused by fossil fuel 
extraction, storage, and transportation, rather than obscuring the reality.

There are ambitious measures included in proposals from Biden's 
campaign, the Unity Task Force, and the DNC's own climate and 
environment committee. But the DNC adopted next to none of these 
proposals in its final platform, and now, adding insult to injury, it 
has deleted one of the strong provisions it did adopt.

It's time for the Democratic Party to unite around the reality that we 
must fully transform our energy system to protect people and the planet. 
Biden's climate plan leaves a lot to be desired, and come January, we'll 
need to push him on it. Right now, the Democratic Party should have two 
goals when it comes to climate policy: winning the election, and then 
governing to solve the crisis. That crisis cannot be solved without 
phasing out the extraction of fossil fuels, and the essential first step 
is to stop subsidizing that extraction. Both Biden and Harris have 
campaigned on that promise, and we will hold them to it. The Democratic 
National Committee needs to get on the same page, now
https://www.thenation.com/article/environment/biden-climate-platform/
Tamara Toles O'LaughlinTWITTERTamara Toles O'Laughlin is the North 
America director for 350 Action, the sister organization of the global 
climate campaign 350.org.


[Gerrymandering is the worst]
YaleNews
*Study: Americans prize party loyalty over democratic principles*
By Mike Cummingsaugust 11, 2020
It is conventional wisdom that Americans cherish democracy -- but a new 
study by Yale political scientists reports that only a small fraction of 
U.S. voters are willing to sacrifice their partisan and policy interests 
to defend democratic principles.

The study, published in the American Political Science Review, found 
that only 3.5% of U.S. voters would cast ballots against their preferred 
candidates as punishment for undemocratic behavior, such as supporting 
gerrymandering, disenfranchisement, or press restrictions.

"Our findings show that U.S. voters, regardless of their party 
affiliation, are willing to forgive undemocratic behavior to achieve 
their partisan ends and policy goals," said Milan Svolik, professor of 
political science in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences and co-author of 
the study. "We find that polarization raises the stakes of elections 
and, in turn, the price of prioritizing democratic principles over 
partisan interests. Voters' willingness to sacrifice democratic 
principles may not be desirable in terms of protecting democracy, but it 
has an intuitive political logic: They are trading off one political 
interest against another."...
- -
"Conventional measures don't capture people's willingness to act on 
their commitment to democratic values when doing so is politically 
costly," Svolik said. "If, as we found, only a small percentage of 
voters are willing to punish undemocratic behavior by their favored 
candidates in one of the world's oldest democracies, then we shouldn't 
be surprised by voters' failure to stop aspiring autocrats in younger 
democracies like Turkey, Hungary, or Venezuela."

Yale's Institution for Social and Policy Studies and MacMillan Center 
for Area and International Studies supported the research.
https://news.yale.edu/2020/08/11/study-americans-prize-party-loyalty-over-democratic-principles 




[This important history is a long read]

[Digging back into the internet news archive for an important document]
*On this day in the history of global warming - August 23, 1971 *

Attorney and future Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. writes a 
memo to the US Chamber of Commerce urging a greater special-interest 
pushback against public-interest groups. The memo becomes the template 
for efforts by the fossil-fuel industry to generate faux-outrage over, 
and ginned-up opposition to, efforts to regulate greenhouse gases.

http://web.archive.org/web/20120129225919/http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/The-Lewis-Powell-Memo/ 


*The Lewis Powell Memo - A Corporate Blueprint to Dominate Democracy*
Written in 1971 to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Lewis Powell Memo 
was a blueprint for corporate domination of American Democracy.
A typescript PDF copy of the original Powell Memo, with footnotes, can 
be downloaded from the Greenpeace Investigations website. For more, see 
Greenpeace analyses of how Lewis Powell's suggestions have impacted the 
realms of politics, judicial law, communications and education.

The full text of the Powell Memo is below:
-----

*CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM**
**Attack on American Free Enterprise System*

DATE: August 23, 1971
TO: Mr. Eugene B. Sydnor, Jr., Chairman, Education Committee, U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce
FROM: Lewis F. Powell, Jr.
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." 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." 
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." A recent poll of students on 12 
representative campuses reported that: "Almost half the students favored 
socialization of basic U.S. industries."

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."

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."

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."

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?" 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." 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. 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. 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.) 
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. 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.

-----

*Additional Resources:*
The Powell Memo with an introduction and Lewis Powell's footnotes is 
available on the Reclaim Democracy website.

Other overviews of the Powell Memo can be found at the following sources:

Lee Drutman and Charlie Cray, The People's Business: Controlling 
Corporations and Restoring Democracy. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 
2004. More information available at: 
http://www.bkconnection.com/ProdDetails.asp?ID=1576753093.

Kim Phillips-Fein, Invisible Hands: The Making of the Conservative 
Movement from the New Deal to Reagan. New York: Norton, 2009. More 
information available at: 
http://books.google.com/books/about/Invisible_hands.html?id=CcU7z9jLqXcC.

Jerry Landay, "The Powell Manifesto: How A Prominent Lawyer's Attack 
Memo Changed America," Media Transparency, August 20, 2002. Available 
at: http://old.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=21.

Lewis H. Lapham, "Tentacles of Rage: The Republican propaganda mill, a 
brief history," Harpers Magazine, Vol. 309, No. 1852, September, 2004. 
Available at: 
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Republican-Propaganda1sep04.htm.

Mark Schmitt, "The Legend of the Powell Memo," American Prospect, April 
25, 2005. Available at: http://prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=9606.

Chip Berlet, "Right-Wing Rollback: The Powell Memo," Z Magazine, October 
2009. Available at: 
http://www.zcommunications.org/right-wing-rollback-the-powell-memo-by-chip-berlet.

Dave Wheelock, "The Pencil Warrior: Lewis Powell's Memorandum was a 
Blueprint for Corporate Takeover," Common Dreams, February 23, 2006. 
Available at: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0223-25.htm.

Henry A. Giroux, "The Powell Memo and the Teaching Machines of 
Right-Wing Extremeists," the Commonweal Institute/Truthout, October 1, 
2009. Available at: 
http://commonwealinstitute.org/archive/the-powell-memo-and-the-teaching-machines-of-right-wing-extremists.

John Amato, "The Powell Memo," Crooks and Liars, June 23, 2011. 
Available at: http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/powell-memo.

"40 Years Since 'Powell Memo' Laid out Corporate Agenda," Institute for 
Public Accuracy, August 30, 2011. Available at: 
http://www.accuracy.org/release/40-years-since-powell-memo-laid-out-corporate-agenda/.

"Attack on American Free Enterprise System: Background," Media 
Transparency, December 12, 2008. Available at: 
http://old.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=22.

"The Powell Memo," Twink.org. Available at: 
http://www.thwink.org/sustain/manuscript2/PowellMemo.htm.


/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/

/Archive of Daily Global Warming News 
<https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html> 
/
https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote

/To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe 
<mailto:subscribe at theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request> 
to news digest./

*** Privacy and Security:*This is a text-only mailing that carries no 
images which may originate from remote servers. Text-only messages 
provide greater privacy to the receiver and sender.
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain must be used for democratic 
and election purposes and cannot be used for commercial purposes. 
Messages have no tracking software.
To subscribe, email: contact at theclimate.vote 
<mailto:contact at theclimate.vote> with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe, 
subject: unsubscribe
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at 
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for 
http://TheClimate.Vote <http://TheClimate.Vote/> delivering succinct 
information for citizens and responsible governments of all levels. List 
membership is confidential and records are scrupulously restricted to 
this mailing list.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/attachments/20200823/bc7895a6/attachment.html>