A Constructive Engagement of the Corporate-Dominated Public Square

Before picking back up where we left off in March on the topic of the short history of the American business corporation, I want to reiterate why this topic is of utmost importance to anyone hoping to engage the public square for the purpose of contributing to positive, sustainable change. To bring change in the political sphere, powers have to be engaged. Before powers can be engaged, it is necessary to first identify the powers. Who (and we can include, What) is the power behind the throne, so to speak? (As opposed to those who speak as if they have power, but in reality are pretenders and amounting to little more than a parade of talking, smiling, hand-shaking puppets.) The most influential force in the affairs of the world today is the global capital market that I will define broadly to include the many equity and commodity exchanges both domestic and abroad [by the way, it also includes the “dark pools,” those markets that are not accessible to the everyday retail investor like you and I, but nonetheless have tremendous weight with over $600 trillion in derivatives traded the last time I checked… in case you are counting, that is a multiple of the size of the total existing public market], as well the myriad of exchange-listed multi-national corporations, from financial and banking institutions, all the way to industrial and consumer goods companies. The corporation’s ascent to the pinnacle of power is a shocking development when you consider that the stock exchange and the limited-liability, enterprise structure (parent-subsidiary model), exchange-traded business corporations, as we know them today, did not surface until the late 1800s [even the simple form, privately held, generally chartered, full liability business corporation did not emerge until the 1830s and 1840s, and even then, only in a handful of states]. In the span of a little more than a century, the corporation went from relative obscurity and a small-time player in public affairs to becoming the most dominant force in the world.

There are many ways that big business exerts influence in the affairs of the world, all of which is only made possible with one thing -- money. At the heart of the corporation’s rise to power is access to enormous levels of capital; as many things change, many things remain the same -- the hand that controls the purse has always ruled the seat of public power. At times prior the crown and the monarchy controlled the money machines (the merchant trading empires, for example, were chartered by the kings and queens of their day, and the money earned from the traders flowed directly back to the crown), at other times religious institutions controlled the money source (recall the story of Christ speaking against the moneychangers in the temple –- Christ’s protest against the powers behind the priesthood had significant implications to the social-, political-, and without question, the economic-order of his day). Christ’s time and context was dealt the Temple; other times, perhaps it was the Monarch; and in other times, the State; in our time it is the Corporation. Because cash is king not only in business but in the halls of power as well, the past 100 years has witnessed the extraordinary development of big business being crowned king of the public square. No, we didn’t vote for them at the ballot box, but we did vote with our dollar bills, lots and lots of dollar bills. To unseat the old and crown the new all that was required was vast sums of capital.

We take the existing world pecking order for grant it given that the only political experience we have all come to know is a public square dominated by corporate symbols. It is as natural to our present existence as the seas are to the fish or the blue sky is to birds. We were in fact born and bred in this new corporate-centric world order. From the cradle we were baptized at infancy into corporate culture while watching Disney (Ticker Symbol: DIS) cartoons. In childhood we learned to walk in the steps of the corporate way as we laced up Nike (Ticker Symbol: NKE) sneakers. Into adulthood we attach helmets of Apple (Ticker Symbol: AAPL) headphones, breastplates of Guess? (Ticker Symbol: GES) attire, and wield swords of Google (Ticker Symbol: GOOG) apps. Every moment of modern human life is touched in one way or another by the almighty hand of the corporation. We are indeed born again corporate hard.

This new life in the corporate world, which again, emerged only since the latter half of the 1800s, brought an unprecedented amount of change. Not long ago the public square was dominated by religious (but politically charged) symbols of the cross and the crescent. At other times it was dominated by ancestral and monarchial symbols. Then with a wave of revolutionary fervor, crosses, crescents, and crowns were toppled, and in their stead nationalistic symbols were hoisted. Finally, with a series of legal developments in the 1800s (from roughly 1819 to 1896), newly-minted nation-states quickly paved way for a third wave of state dominance -- capital markets and the global corporation. Upon the legal foundation laid in 1800s, over the course of the 1900s was built a machine of incomprehensible proportions and influence that radically transformed the nation-state model into what a prominent legal scholar coined, the “market-state model.” In little over one hundred years, we witnessed one of the great developments in history.

These dramatic changes in the public square reflect the ever ebb and flow of societal development over time. It serves as yet another reminder that life, including the organization of human life in community, is not static, but is highly dynamic and constantly changing. Recognition of this reality should result in several conclusions. First, it should put an end to any misguided nostalgia that aims to turn the clock back. I am sure you have heard this argument in one form or another, “If only we would go back to the way it used to be, everything would be so much better.” Recognize that one? Well, it’s total nonsense. It is about as logical as the grand tree in full bloom expressing to another grand tree that if only they could be tiny seedlings again they could avoid being chopped down by the lumberman’s ax. There is no turning back the clock to some rosy-eyed notion of a more idyllic era, and any group that argues as such is a motley crew of delusional nuts. Besides, what one group views as the successes of the “old way” of doing things, I can assure you there is another group of people who do not share the same sense of nostalgia (think African-Americans and 300 years of slavery, or women who were not given equal treatment in the workforce or at the ballot box, or Native Americans and a near complete genocide of their people… and on and on).

This reality should also be a wake up call to the uninformed amnesiacs -- those who have dangerously forgotten historical reality. You understand where you are going, only by first understanding where you have been. Having a rational comprehension of historical development is an absolute requirement to grounding policy discussions in the harshness of every day nuts and bolts of reality. Instead, uninformed amnesiacs constantly rear their ugly head in political airwaves by tossing out policy positions that are completely detached from what is viable, functional, and ultimately sustainable. It is very unfortunate that a quick catch phrase has more political utility than a constructive framework to solve public problems, or that a one-liner TV sound-byte has more influence than intellectual discourse. It is a sad reality of ignorance run rampant in our society. Among the flood of fear mongering commentary in politics these days, I’m not sure who is the most influential, the misguided nostalgic or the uninformed amnesiac. It’s a tie.

Further, the ebb and flow of recent history should shake the do-nothing fatalists from their slothful slumber (here, I am not speaking of the religious-oriented doomsday fatalists that are also in abundance in our public square… although, there are some similarities, as well as in some cases, overlap, between the two). You know the type I speak of –- the ones who view the sad condition of the public square as merely an outcrop of inevitability, and because corporate influence over politics was inevitable, there is nothing that we can do about it to make improvements, so goes the sentiment. As a result, a large segment of our voting population has disengaged from the public square altogether. Our complete immersion into this new corporate world has made it all too easy to fall into this unproductive trap and the belief that the way the world is, is the way it will always be, that a commitment to positive change is futile, that the dominance of public policy by corporate power is eternal and everlasting (until the day the capitalist machine commits mass suicide of itself). But it is not only the disenchanted and disengaged that are beholden to this fatalistic worldview; ironically, I see this perspective creep into the efforts of those tasked with political leadership and is evidenced through a whole range of position papers and talking points by so-called public leaders. Recent shallow attempts to substantially curb the powers of financial institutions, trading houses, healthcare insurers, pharmaceuticals, not to mention failing to curb the influence of every corporation in public elections, all point to a defeated worldview and ultimately impotent leadership. I have two points for the fatalists: first, only a fool would argue that no good has come from the rise of the corporation over the past 120 years. You simply are not weighing things with rational, objective thought if your conclusion is that only bad things have come from the rise of corporate power. There is no question that big business is the culprit of a great deal of the problems facing the world today (environmental destruction, for example), but in an odd twist of reality, its very weaknesses offers to the public its tremendous strengths (technological achievements through research and development, for example) that will finally play a vital role in finding sustainable solutions to the great global issues. Second, the rise of corporate power was no more inevitable than you deciding what to eat for breakfast in the morning. A study of the legal development of the corporation serves as a constant reminder that there was nothing at all inevitable about the current state affairs, that concrete real-life decisions by people in the very recent past ultimately made it possible for the reality we now experience. These decisions were not inevitable, but were in fact among a range of choices; some decisions made with right intentions, some with ill intentions, some with an eye toward the common good, some bent toward self-interests. And today, we face a similar range of choices. Whereas the inevitability of the fatalist can result in only one outcome -- total failure, those of right mind and bearing an ethic of responsibility understand that our generation has before it a range of options, some leading to continued decay of the public square, some leading to constructive improvement for the common good.

Finally (though this is not an all-inclusive list by any means), the ebb and flow of recent history should dispel the silly spell of the utopists. Just as it is the fool who would argue that no good has resulted from global business, only a nut can argue with a straight face that all good has come from these changes – changes that are so good in fact, that they will finally lead to an idealized view of the ultimate good teleological end. Be wary of the one who speaks as though they have uncovered the final solution to solve all of the world’s woes. In recent years, some business writers have with much fervor, embraced the concept of a corporate-based solution to social ills. Obviously, they have not read the same history books that those of reasonable mind have read, an account of century after century where a new path to utopia was revealed, which in reality amounted to a twisted joke at best and a recipe for social catastrophe at worst. The pie-in-the-sky faithfulness and enthusiasm for the capability of the corporation greatly clouds the judgment of some political and social thinkers, and misleads a segment of our population. There is little doubt in my mind that if we ever hope to make any progress on a number of the great global challenges facing our generation, that big business has to be a part of the problem solving process. However, it is unreasonable to believe that by simply letting the corporation to run hog wild over public policy that somehow it is all going to come out smelling roses in the end. Very recent financial history ought to serve as a reminder that in fact, the opposite is true.

As it has been from the beginning, our task is a far simpler one: to daily nurture, preserve, create, grow, and sustain that which has been provided to us in the natural order, to further harness those things that work and discard those things that do not, to use the fullest of our faculties to improve upon those things that are broken and inadequate, to selflessly serve the needs of our brother and of our sister for the purpose of preparing for a better day and a better way for the greater community. Is the way forward, back to a bygone era? Is the way forward, doing nothing? Is the way forward, inventing uninformed, unrealistic and ultimately untenable positions? No! The way forward for our community of people is an every day, laborious process of working out of complex problems with the power of love and of truth and in the spirit of peace, toward a more just, equitable and sustainable future.

One of the primary sources leading to impotent leadership is ignorance; the other is greed. Ignorance is not bliss, folks. Ignorance is terrifyingly dangerous. Humans are charged with the responsibility to use our God-given brain and rationality, to examine why the world is the way it is, and test how it may be improved to better sustain life. This discussion about the rise of corporate power in modern life is exactly that, an examination about why the American public square is the way it is, what decisions were made that made this reality possible, and how can we make new decisions to shape the public into a more constructive, sustainable direction. No, this process is not as easy to do as simply shooting blindly from the hip on some bobble-head babbling political talk radio or TV show. This process requires work and due diligence and tireless effort. But whereas the current atmosphere of ignorant political banter will only lead to more of the same failed public policies and a continued decay of our communities, this form of careful, thoughtful, reasoned examination empowers leaders with knowledge and understanding to boldly shape policy toward a more sustainable future.

I hope to continue the examination of corporate history in the next few days. I hope you will join me then. Be empowered with truth, my friends.

Peace

Jeremy MacNealy