whyroots

 
 

Last spring, one of the consultants at my management consulting firm won an election for part-time office in a south western state. He was elected on a progressive platform. During one of his first post-election meetings back at the firm, a senior executive and one of our clients joked with him that he wasn't sure how he felt about having someone so liberal and "pro-union" consulting for him. Meanwhile, over the course of the election, which included a primary contest, this consultant was criticized for his corporate ties by an opponent on the left. Seems as though no one is comfortable with a progressive in the corporate world.

Naturally so, you might say, given the amount of time prominent progressives spend railing against corporate power, and the huge sums of money corporations have spent lobbying against progressive government reforms. But many self-described progressives have collected a corporate paycheck, or had a parent's corporate paycheck pay their way through school, or at the very least spent money on corporate products. (Your outfit might be head-to-toe American Apparel, but your Converse kicks are as corporate as it gets.) So many progressive Dr. Jekyls with a lurking, corporate Mr. Hyde, eh?

I don't think it can really be any other way. There are bills to be paid, and there are only so many plum non-profit jobs to go around. Besides, someone has to donate something to make those NGOs run. Like it or not, corporations are extremely efficient engines of economic growth (financial meltdown or no meltdown, this point stands). Progressives have every reason to be wary of corporate ambitions to twist public servants to serve their self-interest at the expense of the public good. But corporate self-interest is very often aligned with the public good, not opposed. 

Progressives need to avoid dogmatic opposition to corporations and businesses more generally. Society has too much to gain from efficient, well-run firms of all sizes, small and big alike. Progress demands pragmatism, not tribalism. So when considering the meaning of progressivism, let us define it by its successes, not its conflicts, by its ideals, and not by its caricatured enemies. 

 


Comments

T.E.mpathy

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:29:53

reminds me that you should do things that are rewarding to you in all aspects of your life without judging them or ranking them. real progressives are happy with themselves and their accomplishments

 

T.E.mpathy

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:31:46

oh, and i love the picture :)

 

Daniela Perdomo

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:34:36

Nathan,

I think you're quite right about the instinctual recoil on the left to anything corporate. The problem is that quite a few corporations have given the whole lot of them a bad name. I think what you're calling for—"Progressives need to avoid dogmatic opposition to corporations and businesses more generally."—is starting with the advent of "for benefit" companies. For profit ventures that seek to be of true benefit to greater society, even as they turn a profit. Being socially responsible is trendy, and that's a trend I can believe in.

see: http://www.fourthsector.net/for-benefit-organizations.php

 

Nathan Huttner

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:27:52

Actually, I think profit-seeking (and I know this is controversial on the left) is beneficial to society, if it's regulated effectively, and if the profit-seekers remember that they only get to seek profit because society allows them to, i.e. corporations are legal constructs that we allow to exist. I'd prefer corporations not have any corporate social responsibility programs, and instead submit to regulations and taxes and let the government prevent and solve market failures.

 

Nathan Huttner

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:29:01

Note: Government and NGOs and civic society should all get in on the solving market failures bandwagon. I'm not arguing for a state that crowds out civil society.

 

Daniela Perdomo

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:35:20

Nathan, I wasn't saying that for-profit ventures are <i>not</i> beneficial to society. What I was saying is that I like the way the arc is bending towards social responsibility not just as a plus, but as a requirement. That being said, your argument about corporations simply being regulated more stringently, is also extremely attractive. I am not sure that what we are both saying need be mutually exclusive. :)

 



Leave a Reply