Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T07:59:29.077Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The National Association of Manufacturers and the Militarization of American Conservatism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2011

Jonathan Soffer
Jonathan Soffer
Affiliation:
JONATHAN SOFFER is assistant professor of history atPolytechnic University in Brooklyn, New York.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) played an important role in the emerging conservative movement in the United States, both before and after World War II, but its contribution to the increasing militarism of that movement has received little scrutiny. Between 1958 and 1975, a combination of organizational changes peculiar to NAM and political pressures from both the right and the left led NAM to adopt and maintain a militaristic posture. In the late 1950s, a decline in the organization's membership resulted in a take over by larger corporations, which purged the board of its ultraconservative leadership. The reorganized board established a National Defense Committee (NDC) in order to promote defense industry membership and, by 1962, had selected a new permanent president, Werner Gullander. Under Gullander, the NDC moved NAM in the direction of support for defense expansion during the early 1960s.

Type
Articles
Information
Business History Review , Volume 75 , Issue 4 , Winter 2001 , pp. 775 - 805
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Dwight D. Eisenhower, “Notes for National Association of Manufacturers,” 7 Dec. 1962, Congress of American Industry Binder, NAM Papers, Series IV, Box 18, Hagley Museum and Library, Wilmington, Del. Eisenhower delivered his Farewell Address on January 17, 1961.

2 Ibid.

3 Collins, Robert M., The Business Response to Keynes. 1929–1964 (New York, 1981), 47.Google Scholar

4 Malcolm Forbes, editorial, Forbes, 25 Aug. 1951, 13. For a good discussion of social consensus and the widespread fear of “extremism” in the 1950s, see Perlstein, Rick, Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus (New York, 2001), 202–7.Google Scholar

5 W. P. Gullander appearance on “Meet the Press,” 6 Feb. 1966, tape available from http://WWW.old-time.com/sponsors/radiomemories/regular/meet_the_press.html.

6 NAM representatives rarely invoked the word “conservative” until the late 1950s. Nonetheless, its anti-union and anti-welfare-state policies provided institutional continuity between the Old Right and the New. On the general continuity of NAM's main goals, see Fones-Wolf, Elizabeth, Selling Free Enterprise: The Assault on Labor and Liberalism, 1945–1960 (Urbana, 1994), 1.Google Scholar By the late 1950s, NAM executive vice president Charles Sligh began to exhort businessmen to get more involved in politics in order to build a “conservative coalition.” Charles R. Sligh Jr., “This is Public Affairs for the Businessman,” 5 Dec. 1958, Box 181, file Charles R. Sligh, Jr. For more on NAM'shistorically conservative polities, see Collins, 47–8. In addition to President Eisenhower, who echoed the theme of getting businessmen into politics, the 1962 convention also featured leading rightist intellectuals and politicians, such as political scientist Felix Morley and economist Friedrich A. Havek. At the previous year's meeting, NAM president John W. McGovern had applauded “the conservative revolution on campus” as he presented speakers from the Young Americans for Freedom and the Intercollegiate Society of Individualists. NAM, “Blueprint for American Strategy,” addresses at the 66th Annual Congress of American Industry, 1962, Box 1 Communism; John W. McGovern, “Address to the Congress of American Industry,” 8 Dec. 1961, NAM Papers, Series I, Box 79, folder McGovern, John W.

7 McGirr, Lisa, Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right (Princeton, 2001), 174–5.Google Scholar

8 Himmelstein, Jerome, To the Right: The Transformation of American Conservatism (Berkeley, 1990), 31–43.Google Scholar

9 NAM's deepening involvement with the military-industrial complex in the 1960s and the role of the National Defense Committee in the shift have not been previously studied. Most recent scholarship has focused on NAM's role in labor relations and in promoting its own economic vision. Elizabeth Fones-Wolf, for example, has argued for the effectiveness of NAM's public relations campaign on behalf of free-market capitalism in the 1940s–1960s. Fones-Wolf, Selling Free Enterprise, 3–5. For a study more skeptical of NAM's power as a lobbying group, see Gable, Richard W., “NAM: Influential Lobby or Kiss of Death?” Journal of Politics 15 (May 1953): 254–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar On the centrality of NAM's anti-union stance to the organization' smission, and its ties to a larger conservative movement, see Jacoby, Sanford, Modern Manors (Princeton, 1999), 232–5.Google Scholar

10 Koistinen, Paul A. C., Planning War, Pursuing Peace: The Political Economy of Ameri can Warfare, 1920–1939 (Lawrence, Kans., 1998), 91.Google Scholar There have been no sustained efforts to assess the place of NAM within the postwar conservative movement. Meg Jacobs's work in progress may help fill some of this void. See “The Politics of Inflation in the Twentieth Century United States,” presented before the Columbia University Seminar for Twentieth Century Politics and Society, 7 Dec. 2000. Partly because most studies have concentrated on the period before the Vietnam War, they have paid little attention to the National Defense Committee or the history of NAM's engagement with the military.

11 Ibid., 96. See also Wilson, Joan Hoff, American Business and Foreign Policy, 1920–1933 (Lexington, Ky., 1971), 48–9Google Scholar; Hawley, Ellis W., The Great War and the Search for a Modern Order: A History of the American People and Their Institutions, 1917–1933, 2nd ed. (New York, 1992), 83–96Google Scholar; Stromberg, Roland, “American Business and the Approach of War,” Journal of Economic History 13 (Winter 1953): 58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 “Arms and the Men,” Fortune, March 1934, 52ff. Reader's Digest, the most widely read magazine in America, serialized the article two months later. See also Engelbrecht, Helmuth C. and Hanighen, Frank C., Merchants of Death: A Study of the International Armament Industry (New York, 1934).Google Scholar On the Senate hearings, see Wiltz, John E., In Search of Peace: The Senate Munitions Inquirty, 1934–36 (Baton Rouge, 1963)Google Scholar; Cole, Wayne S., Senator Gerald P.Nye and American Foreign Relations (Minneapolis, 1962)Google Scholar; Coulter, Matthew W., The Senate Munitions Inquiry of the 1930s: Beyond the Merchants of Death (Westport, Conn., 1997).Google Scholar

13 NAM Newsletter 6, no. 17, 29 Apr. 1939, Hagley Museum and Library.

14 NAM Newsletter 6, no. 2, 14 Jan. 1939, 2; Special Newsletter Supplement on National Defense and Industrial Mobilization, 5 Aug. 1939.

15 On Welch and the John Birch Society, see Perlstein, Before the Storm, 110–19.

16 Hogan, Michael J., A Cross of Iron: Harry S. Truman and the Origins of the National Security State, 1945–1954 (Cambridge, 1998), 18–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For a detailed discussion and comprehensive references on the New Look defense policy, see Soffer, Jonathan, General Matthew B.Ridgway: From Progressivism to Reaganism, 1895–1993 (Wesrport, Conn., 1998), 175–92.Google Scholar On NAM and the New Look, see Fones-Wolf, 4–5; 35. On Eisenhower's strong and consis tent concern about militarism, see Sherry, Michael, In the Shadow of War: The United States since the 1930s (New Haven, 1995), 190–93.Google Scholar

17 Forbes, editorial, 13.

18 Gable, “NAM: Influential Lobby or Kiss of Death?” 254–73, 258–60.

19 Miner, Craig, Greek of Milwaukee (Witchita, 1989), 158–9Google Scholar. See also Burch, Philip H. Jr., “The NAM as an Interest Group,” Politics and Society 4 (Fall 1973): 120–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar On the Manionites, see Perlstein, 4–16.

20 Who's Who in American Commerce and Finance, 11th ed. (Chicago, 1959).

21 Memorandum of Conference with the President, 24 Aug. 1959, AWF, DDE Diary, Box 43, Staff Notes, Aug. 1959 (1) DDE Presidential Library. Obtained from Declassified Documents Reference System database. CDROM ID: 19801010416.

22 Cola G. Parker, “Statement to the Committee on Resolutions, Democratic National Convention,” 1956, Box 5, “National Political Conventions,” NAM Papers, Series I.

23 NAM, “A Platform for Prosperity and Progress,” 1956, Box 5 “National Presidential Conventions,” NAM Papers, Series I.

24 Burch, “The NAM as an Interest Group,” 107, n. 25. In dollar terms, this meant sales volume of over $50 million per annum for the late 1950s, over S75 million for the period 1960–65, and over $100 million from 1965–1971.

25 Ibid., 108; Gable, “NAM: Influential Lobby or Kiss of Death?” 258–60; Burch, “The NAM as an Interest Group,” 122–5. Andrew Workman has shown how staff pragmatism affected NAM policy during World War II: “Manufacturing Power: The Organizational Revival of the National Association of Manufacturers, 1941–1945,” Business History Review 72 (Summer 1998): 279–81.

26 Membership Committee Report to the Board, 17–18 Sept. 1964, Box 54 Bd. of Dir. Mtg., NAM Papers, Series I.

27 Gullander appearance on “Meet the Press,” 6 Feb. 1966; Gable, Richard W., “A Political Analysis of an Employer's Association: The National Association of Manfacturers” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1951)Google Scholar, Appendix I; New York Times, 8 June 1976.

28 Goldberg, Robert Alan, Barry Goldwater (New Haven, 1995), 119Google Scholar; Perlstein, 33.

29 Barry M. Goldwater, “The Preservation of Our Basic Institutions,” speech to Senate United States Senate, Washington, D.C., 8 Apr. 1957; Goldberg, Barry Goldwater, 119.

30 “Businessmen vs. Eisenhower,” Business Week, 18 May 1957; See also Styles Bridges, “Here's How to Cut the Budget,” National Review, 25 May 1957, 493–5, which called for a cut of $750 million from the defense budget increase proposed by the Administration; Bozell, L.Brent, “Budgetary Elephantiasis,” National Review, 2 Feb. 1957, 104–5.Google Scholar

31 Welch, Robert H. W., The Politician (Belmont, Mass., 1964), 6.Google Scholar

32 Kenneth R. Miller to NAM Division and Department Heads, Memorandum dated 4 Apr. 1961, Box 99 Organizations, John Birch Society, NAM Papers, Series I; Bureh, 123–4.

33 Miner, Grede of Milwaukee, 213–20.

34 Burch, “The NAM as an Interest Group,” 129.

35 “NAM Urges Congress to Streamline U.S. Defense Procurement Systems,” NAM News, 7 Aug. 1959, NAM Papers, Box 48, Public Affairs, 1958–1959.

36 C. Stewart Baeder, “The NAM and the East-West Trade Question,” speech to NAM International Economic Affairs Committee, New York, 25 Apr. 1966. NAM Papers, Box 27, File International Economic Affairs Committee, 1966.

37 See Fones-Wolf, 257–62; Victor Riesel, “NAM Seeks to Develop Art of Practical Politics,” Marion Ohio Star, n.d.; Tanzer, Lester, “More Companies Edge Into Politics, Draft Bigger 1960 Ventures, GOP Schools Executives in Electioneering, Stands to Gain Most from the Trend,” Wall Street Journal, 14 Oct. 1958Google Scholar, Box 5, Political, NAM Papers Series 1. On increasing identification of NAM with rhetoric of conservatism after the Republican electoral loss of 1958, see L. R. Boulware, “Politics … The Businessman's Biggest Job in 1958,” Box 5, Political, NAM Papers Series 1; Charles R. Sligh Jr., “This Is Public Affairs for the Businessman,” 5 Dec. 1958; and “Like It or Not, We're in Politics,” 31 Oct. 1958, Box 181, 31 Oct. 1958 folder, NAM Papers, Series I.

38 NAM Press Release, “News from the 67th Congress of American Industry,” 7 Nov. 1962, Binder, Congress of American Industry, NAM Series IV, Box 18.

39 Burch, “The NAM as an Interest Group,” 127.

40 “Meet the Press” interview, 6 Feb. 1966.

41 Ibid.; quoted in Frank J. Prial, “A ‘;New’; NAM? Business Group Edges From Far Right, Pushes Its Own Social Plans.” Wall Street Journal, 31 Max-1966. Box 40, NDC 1966.

42 Cornuelle, Richard C., Reclaiming the American Dream (New York, 1965), 21–8.Google Scholar

43 W. P. Gullander, “Opening Address,” 73rd Congress of Industry, 4 Dec. 1968, Box 178, Gullander File, NAM Papers, Series I.

44 NAM Reports, 2 Aug. 1965.

45 Ibid., see also Michael F. Coady, “Gullander Recasts Image of NAM,” Boston Herald, 7 July 1965, Box 4, NAM Papers, Series IV.

46 Coady, “Gullander Recasts Image of NAM.”

47 Prial “A ‘New’ NAM?”

48 Ibid.

49 “Program for a Strong America,” 1951, Box 6, Programs, NAM Papers, Series I.

50 “NAM Pledges Aid to Out do Russians,” New York Times, 8 Nov. 1957.

51 Aliano, Richard A., American Defense Policy from Eisenhower to Kennedy: The Politics of Changing Military Requirements, 1957–61 (Athens, Ohio, 1975), 58Google Scholar; Borklund, C. W., The Department of Defense (New York, 1968), 74–5.Google Scholar

52 NAM Vice President Stuart Baeder later listed some of the organizations competing for defense industry dollars: the National Security Industries Association; the Aerospace Industries Association; the Electronic Industries Association; the American Ordnance Association; the Machinery and Allied Products Institute; the Council of Defense & Space Industry Associations (CODSIA); the National Defense Department of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; the Manufacturers Aircraft Association; the Strategic Industries Association; the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants; the American Management Association; the Automobile Manufactures Association; the Manufacturing Chemists Association; the National Electrical Manufacturers Association; the National Industrial Conference Board; the National Small Business Association; the Navy League; the Air Force Association; the Property Administration Association; the Stanford Research Institute; the Rand Coqjoration; Arthur D. Little, Inc.; the Hudson Institute; the Center for Strategic Studies at Georgetown University; and the Council on Foreign Relations. C. Stewart Baeder, “The Role of NAM in National Defense,” 24 Sept. 1965, Box 25, NDC 1965.

53 Report On NAM National Defense Committee, prepared for the Economic Advisor)' Committee of the NAM Board of Directors, 19 Apr. 1962. Box 29, folder NDC 1962, NAM Papers, Series I.

54 “Expediting National Defense Procurement,” adopted 25 June 1959; NAM National Defense Committee, “Outlook for 1962,” Box 29, Defense Procurement Subcommittee 1966, NAM Papers, Series I. On the meaning of “military requirements,” see Soffer, 180.

55 “NAM Urges Congress to Streamline U.S. Defense Procurement Systems.”

56 NAM Economic Problems Department, “Report on NAM National Defense Committee: Structure, Objectives and Current Programs. Prepared for the Economic Advisory Committee, NAM Board of Directors,” 13 Feb. 1962, Box 29, NDC 1962, NAM Papers, Series I.

57 Maneschewitz, D.Beryl and Stuart, John A., “Marketing Under Attack,” Journal of Marketing 26 (July 1962): 4Google Scholar; “Advertising: Counterattack on Critics Urged,” New York Times, 6 July 1962.

58 Ibid.

59 Andrew J. Goodpaster, interview with author, 24 June 1994.

60 NAM Economic Problems Department, “Report on the NAM National Defense Committee.”

61 Trudeau obituary, New York Times, 8 June 1991.

62 Who's Who in America 1970–71, v. 36 (Chicago, 1971), 59.

63 Ibid., 2320.

64 Baeder, “The Role of NAM in National Defense.”

65 W. P. Gullander, “Defense and the Free Market,” address delivered to the Association of the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, Washington, 30 Jan. 1964, Box 178, Gullander file, NAM Papers, Series I.

66 NAM Government Economy Committee, “Operation Watchdog,” 1963, Box 24, Government Economy file, NAM Papers, Series I.

67 Minutes of the NAM Government Economy Committee, 7 Feb. 1962; Minutes of the Meeting of the NAM Government Economy Committee, 5 Feb. 1963; Working Draft of the Government Economy Committee Report, 5 Feb. 1963; “The Federal Budget for 1961: Report of the NAM Government Economy Committee,” and “The Federal Budget for 1962: Report of the NAM Government Economy Committee,” Box 24, Government Economy Committee, NAM Papers, Series I.

68 John Stuart, “Forward Plan of the NAM National Defense Committee,” 2 Apr. 1966, Box 29, National Defense Committee, 1970 folder, NAM Papers, Series I. See also Elden L.Auker to Members of the NDC, 11 Apr. 1973, Box 36, Elden Auker folder, NAM Papers, Series IV.

69 Stuart to Baeder, 14 Oct. 1965, Memo re: Potential for NAM Programming, Box 37, folder Fairchild Institute, NAM Papers, Series IV.

70 See also W. R. Peers, “Counterinsurgeney: The Road to Security and Peace,” address given at the 1966 Autumn Conference on National Defense, 25 Oct. 1966, Box 40, NAM Papers, Series IV

71 NAM National Defense Committee, Minutes of the Meeting of the Policy and Program Advisory Committee of the National Defense Committee, 30 Nov. 1965, Box 25, NDC 1965 folder; and Young, Marilyn B., The Vietnam Wars: 1945–1990 (New York, 1991), 150–2.Google Scholar

72 Charles E. Hastings, “Seldom Have Tomorrow's Military Needs Been More Urgent,” address before the 1966 Mid-Winter Conference on National Defense of the NAM NDC. 11 Feb. 1966, Box 29, NAM Papers, Series I.

73 “Meet the Press,” 6 Feb. 1966.

74 Both quotes from John Stuart, “Public Attitudes and the Defense Industry: Suggested Approaches to a Program to Build Public Understanding of the Role of U.S. Industry in Producing for the National Defense,” 10 Mar. 1966, Box 29, National Defense Committee 1966 folder, NAM Papers, Series I.

75 Ibid.

76 “Meet the Press,” 6 Feb. 1966.

77 Bunker to Rusk, Cable 041230Z, Sept. 1967, Declassified Documents Reference System, CDROM ID: 1991090102666. A note on the document reads: “Mr. Rostow—This cable was read to the President at 5:00 a.m.”

78 Frankel, Max, “Observers Tell Johnson South Vietnam's Election Was Fair,” New York Times, 7 Sept. 1967.Google Scholar

79 Robert E. Beach, “War Profiteering—The Oldest Witch is Dead!” address to the NAM NDC, 20 June 1968, Box 29, NAM Papers, Series I.

80 CODSIA to Malloy, 24 Apr. 1968, Box 29, NAM Papers, Series I.

81 Weidenbaum, Murray L., The Economics of Peacetime Defense (New York, 1974), 69–73.Google Scholar

82 McCreery to Stuart, “National Defense Committee Activities Report for Mr. Gullander,” 2 May 1968, Box 40, Business activities folder, NAM Papers, Series IV.

83 Policy and Program Advisory Committee, National Defense Committee Meeting Minutes, New York City, 6 Nov. 1968, Box 40, Policy and Program Advisory Committee 1968–1970 folder, NAM Papers, Series IV.

84 Huntington, Samuel P., “The Defense Establishment: Vested Interests and the Public Interest,” in The Military Industrial Complex and U.S. Foreign Policy, ed. Carey, Omar L. (Pullman, Wash., 1969), 2.Google Scholar

85 Membership List, Policy and Program Advisory Committee of the NAM National Defense Committee, Policy and Program Advisory Committee 1968–1970 folder, NAM Papers, Series IV.

86 Minutes, 1968 Fall Conference on National Defense, NAM NDC, 7 Nov. 1968; and Arden to Leadership Group, “Plan for Selection of Priority Programs,” in NAM NDC, Policy and Program Advisory Committee 1968–1970 folder, NAM Papers, Series IV.

87 See “Report On NAM National Defense Committee,” prepared for the Economic Advisory Committee of the NAM Board of Directors, 19 Apr. 1962, Box 29, folder NDC 1962, NAM Papers, Series I.

88 NAM, “What Eisenhower Really Said About the Military Industrial Complex,” 1969, Box 37, CODSIA, NAM Papers, Series IV. Although NAM documents assert that this ad ran in the Washington Post, I was unable to confirm this—possibly it did not run in the particular edition of the Post that was committed to microfilm.

89 Ibid.

90 The Eisenhower Administration spent $48.1 billion in 1960, the last budget fully under its control. The Kennedy Administration spent $53.4 billion in the 1962 defense budget (the first one fully under JFK's purview). See Executive Office of the President, Budget of the United States Government Fiscal Year 1993, Supplement February 1992 (Washington, D.C., 1992)Google Scholar, Table 6.1. Figures are in contemporary dollars.

91 NAM, “What Eisenhower Really Said About the Military Industrial Complex”; Dwight D. Eisenhower, “Notes for National Association of Manufacturers,” 7 Dec. 1962, Congress of American Industry Binder, NAM Papers, Series IV, Box 18.

92 Edward G. Uhl to All Members, NAM NDC, 20 Nov. 1970, Box 40, “8/14/69 mailing” folder, NAM Papers, Series IV.

93 Gullander to All Members of NAM Staff, 21 May 1970, Box 29, NDC 1970 folder, NAM Papers, Series I.

94 Joseph A. Bailey, obituary, Washington Post, 4 July 1994.

95 Craig S. Powell to Donald C. Foster, 24 Feb. 1971, Box 40, Retired Officers Assn; Edward G. Uhl to All Members, NAM NDC, 20 Nov. 1970; John A. Stuart, Program and Policy Advisory Committee, National Defense Committee Minutes, 18 Mar. 1970; Leo V. Bodine, Joseph A. Bailey, summary of the statement of purpose of the National Defense Committee adopted 18 May 1970, memo dated 22 Oct. 1970, Box 40, Policy and Program Advisory Committee, NAM Papers, Series IV. See also “U.S. Defense Policy and Public Criticism,” 1970 Spring Conference on National Defense, Report and Minutes, 12 May 1970, Box 29, National Defense Committee, 1970, NAM Papers, Series I.

96 Uhl to Gwinn, 11 Feb. 1971, Box 40, NAM Papers, Series IV.

97 New York Times, 7 Dec. 1972.

98 See Vogel, David, Fluctuating Fortunes: The Political Power of Business in America (New York, 1989), 144–8Google Scholar; Lanouette, William J., “Business Lobbyists Hope Their Unity On the Tax Bill Wasn't Just a Fluke,” The National Journal, 24 Oct. 1981, 1896.Google Scholar

99 Auker to Members of the NAM National Defense Committee, 11 Apr. 1973, Box 36, Elden Auker folder, NAM Papers, Series IV.

100 Ibid.

101 “NAM and the Chamber Bid for More Power,” New York Times, 27 June 1976; “NAM Rejects a Merger,” Business Week, 1 Nov. 1976; for claimed membership of 12,000 companies see New York Times, 8 Dec. 1972.

102 Vogel, 199–200; on the Business Roundtable and other new coalitions of business lobbyists in the 1970s, see McQuaid, Kim, “Big Business and Government Policy in Post-New Deal America: From Depression to Détente,” reprinted in Government-Business Cooperation 1945–1964, v. 9, Corporatism in the Postwar Era, ed. Himmelberg, Robert F. (New York, 1994), 279–309Google Scholar; “The Tax Group Without a Name,” The National Journal, 28 June 1980, 1053.