|
Ivan W.
Parkins |
|
To order Dr. Parkins book, Perspectives For
American Society Contact |
|
©Ivan W. Parkins 2010, All articles, text, web pages property of
Ivan W. Parkins. Use of any material
requires permission of the author
and can be obtained by contacting,
info@americanpoliticalcommentary.com |
|
About Ivan W. Parkins: Dr. Parkins is a retired professor of
Political Science from Central Michigan University. He received his PhD from the University of
Chicago and is a graduate of the United States Naval Academy. Dr. Parkins served as a naval officer
during WWII aboard the battleship Alabama.
He is a recent widower with three daughters, 3 grand children and 2
great grand children. Dr. Parkins has
written extensively, having authored 3 books and a newspaper opinion column
for many years. |
|
Front Page |
|
In This Issue: · OUR NATIONAL POLITICAL TURMOIL · “NOVEAU SAVANTS” Wage Cultural War · AN IMPORTANT FREEDOM |
|
AN IMPORTANT FREEDOM By Ivan W. Parkins
Most Americans today are unaware that the legally created freedom to
incorporate a for-profit enterprise is largely a product of Jacksonian
Democracy (late 1820s-1840). Incorporation
permits a few people to create an organization having some of the legal
identity and rights of a person. A
major advantage is that those who invest in the organization will then be
responsible only to the extent of their investment, i.e. not be individually
liable for all that the organization does.
Blackstone lamented that the corporations had neither souls to be
damned nor bodies to be kicked. He,
like Adam Smith, of Wealth of Nations fame, wrote in a period when profitable
business was not the usual purpose cited to justify incorporation. Those corporations that existed-- Professor
E. Merrick Dodd wrote that he had found evidence of 310 in the United States
in 1800--were largely for public or eleemosynary purposes. They were created individually by acts of
legislative bodies. Historically, they
had been cities, universities, etc. In
the early United States they included increasing numbers of banks, toll
bridges and roads, and other often profitable enterprises, but were still
created individually to serve an alleged public need.
Persuading a legislative body to incorporate your particular
enterprise usually required special influence, often bribery. Jacksonian Democrats regarded that as a
major injustice, even as a form of theft.
But, once in power, they found that the most practical solution was to
make the incorporation privilege a right of everybody. General incorporation laws were enacted,
permitting any small group who met minimal qualifications and paid a small
fee to incorporate their own enterprise.
That greatly facilitated raising capital for larger businesses. The practice spread rapidly, here and in
Europe.
Railroads were our first great industrial corporations. Often they were corruptly managed. Substantial portions of our western lands were
given to the railroads by the federal government as subsidies for their
construction. In spite of such
matters, the railroads probably did as much as any other factor to facilitate
rapid settlement, widespread homestead ownership, and general prosperity. By
the late nineteenth century America was beginning to legislate seriously
against monopolistic and other abuses of corporate enterprise. Various forms of government intervention
spread rapidly with WWI, the Great Depression/ New Deal, and WWII.
Since WWII the older, nonprofit, types of corporate endeavor have
become more significant, especially in American politics. Universities, foundations, public interest
organizations, research institutes, etc. have multiplied and grown
rapidly. The larger universities rival
some federal departments in their largely taxpayer funded budgets and their
technical resources. Yet, public
attitudes and laws usually treat these non-profit corporations very
differently than incorporated business ventures, especially where their
political activities are concerned. Why
should the freedoms of non-profit corporations be greatly different than
those of their for-profit counterparts?
Are not both legitimate means by which people, of different talents
and ambitions, contribute to the welfare of society? |
|
OUR NATIONAL POLITICAL TURMOIL By Ivan W. Parkins President Obama says that he was swept into
the Presidency by the same public reaction that made a Republican, Scott
Brown, the new Senator from the very blue state of Massachusetts. Ridiculous?
Mostly so, but not entirely.
America’s confusion has roots deeper than most Americans, especially
those who’ve become voters since the 1960’s are likely to be aware of. We have suffered more antagonism than is
necessary between private and public sectors. In the PUBLIC OPINION QUARTERLY, fall 1944,
journalism professor Frank Luther Mott wrote that the reason for so much
to-do about the press is that Franklin D. Roosevelt was the only President in
the last fifty years to have ridden a big popular wave without corresponding
support from a majority of newspapers.
That was soon followed by The Commission on
Freedom of the Press, composed mainly of leading academics, and by a SELL
AMERICA Campaign organized by major business advertisers, and promising to
sell America and its bulwark American business back to the people. Neither of those accomplished much except
to bracket the problem. For a couple
of generations the growing mass media, mostly print, had been deeply
influenced politically by its corporate ownership and major advertisers. Political parties were beginning to lose
influence, but the media were political and heavily Republican. Change was not far away. Part of FDR’s success was due to the new
medium, radio, and he used that very effectively. Television was the rapidly growing gorilla.
As a Democrat seeking nomination to the House of Representatives, in 1954,
one problem I (we) faced was that the closest major television station with
an audience of consequence was in Cleveland, and prohibitively expensive
because most of its audience were outside our district. Mrs. Dorothy Fuldheim, “First Anchor Lady
of Television,” invited each of us for a brief interview. Other than her courtesy, I was most
impressed by the very shabby facilities of WEWS, then, the only major station
between New York City and Chicago. A
larger surprise came later. I had had
good local press coverage, but seldom encountered persons who mentioned
it. Long after I had lost the election
, however, I was still meeting people who remarked “I know you; I saw you on
Mrs. Fuldheim’s program.” By the 1960s, a sharp reversal in the partisan
and economic slant of the press was becoming obvious. After the 1936 election, a popular joke was
that FDR had found a way to balance the budget. He would sell Maine and Vermont (the only
states that voted against him) to Canada.
Perhaps Nixon could have done something similar after 1972. Only Massachusetts, plus D.C. and both
Houses of Congress went against him. |
|
The
article below is a reprint from the Detroit News, October 9, 1992-editor |