The New Conservatism (1956)

A different way of thinking on business(es):<p>&gt; <i>Most modern businessmen agree with Crown Zellerbach President J. D. Zellerbach: “The majority of Americans support private enterprise, not as a God-given right but as the best practical means of conducting business in a free society. They regard business management as a stewardship, and they expect it to operate the economy as a public trust for the benefit of all the people.” Industry’s emphasis on human values has also been prompted by self-interest. Says Banker Smith: “In the 1925 most business leaders stubbornly refused to recognize the nature of the consumer function in the economy. Then the emphasis was: ‘Sales means jobs.’ Today the situation is reversed.”</i><p>&gt; <i>Though businessmen fought a long delaying action against the growth of labor unions, against Government intervention in economic affairs, against social legislation, the majority now realize that welfare programs help store up purchasing power in the hands of the consumer. Says Gaylord A. Freeman Jr., vice president of the First National Bank of Chicago: “I think social security is good. I think unions are good. Unemployment compensation is desirable. Social legislation can add to the totality of freedom, increase the dignity of the individual.”</i><p>&gt; <i>In a complex, fast-moving technology, the businessman can no longer afford the classic conservative’s wait-and-see attitude, or his desire to build a fence around his markets and corporate position. Industry today must keep spending and keep growing. The U.S. is pouring $5 billion a year into research whose outcome, years distant, can seldom be gauged in terms of dollar returns. More than ever, the businessman must rely on scientists and economists and be ready to gamble on their projections. Says Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. Vice President Leland Hazard: “Too many people and facilities are at stake for management to be timid, cautious, slow, antiquated.” General Electric Co. President Ralph Cordiner estimates that up to 90% of his time is spent on projects that will not come to fruition until after he has retired.</i><p>Oh how things have changed since the 1970s:<p>* <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Friedman_doctrine" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Friedman_doctrine</a>

&gt; conservatism “takes an organic view of society as something that has grown up over time and cannot be arbitrarily changed. It puts more stock in experience than in abstract reasoning. It is skeptical of broad solutions, preferring to go step by step<p>This is close to my conservative viewpoint:<p>Historically, rapid change in society has been a net negative. When faced with crisis or even simply legitimate grievance, reactionaries are mistakenly labeled conservative. This article says it out loud.<p>Historically, benefits like the peace dividend under Eisenhower, or the parts of the New Deal that Eisenhower continued, are best-spent by the most boring people. The largest cross-section of our society can see something there to conserve.<p>The USA has some liberal triumphs, too. The second amendment mandates a government which does not select certain groups for gun ownership. Then and now a magnificently liberating idea.<p>The words neoliberal and neoconservative are more like alt-liberal and alt-conservative. Distinguishing those from their classical counterparts is interesting to me (but evidently not always the average American) in the abstract.

Let&#x27;s also remember the historical context: In 1956 these ideas are being constructed as a way to de-fang the competing appeal of Communism, which means proponents had to care--or at least pretend to care--about how the system affected the average worker.