The Foundation for Economic Education: Successs or Failure? B. Rogge

The reason I can give you four answers to this one question is that the phrase, "succeeded in its mission," is capable of at least four meaningful interpretations, each calling for its own answer. One possible interpretation is that the mission of any organization, at first in stance, is quite simply to survive. That FEE has survived is testified to by our presence here tonight. Nor should any of us think lightly of this accomplishment. Given the general social and economic climate of the immediate postwar period, the survival chances of any organization committed to individual freedom and limited government could well have been described in 1946 as two in number: slim and none. So much, you might think, for the crite rion of mere survival-but survival is not Dr. Rogge (1920-1980) was Dean and Professor of Economics at Wabash College in Indiana and a longtime trustee of FEE. This essay is an adaptation of his remarks at FEE's twenty fifth anniversary celebration in 1971.

as "mere" as you might think. Never un derestimate the significance of the simple fact of the continuing existence of an island of sanity in an increasingly insane world. Whether this sanity can eventually turn the battle is still moot and will be discussed in a moment, but its simple existence is a very present help in time of trouble. I am reminded of Tolstoy's description of the role of the Russian commander, Prince Bagration, in the battle of Schon Grabem. Although himself in doubt of the outcome and aware of how little he really knew of the battle's progress, the Prince stood serene and confident in the view of all, answering each report of the action, whether encour aging or discouraging, with a sonorous, "Very good!" -as if even the local defeats were part of an overall pattern of events that foretold ultimate victory. As Tolstoy put it: Prince Andrew noticed that . . . though what happened was dlJe· to chance and was inde pendent of the commander's will, his [Bagra tion's] presence was very valuable. Officers who approached him with disturbed counte nances became calm; soldiers and officers greeted him gaily, grew more cheerful in his presence, and were evidently anxious to dis play their courage before him.1 As with these soldiers, we grow more cheerful in the presence of FEE and Leon ard Read, more anxious to display our limited courage. Believe me, this is some thing; even though the battle itself were to 380 381 Summer seminar group picture, July 1966. Lecturers and FEE staff (front row, left to right): W. M. Curtiss, George Roche (director of seminars), Edmund Opitz, Percy L. Greaves, Jr., Bettina Bien Greaves, Ben Rogge, Paul Poirot, and Leonard Read.

be already lost, as it well may be, FEE as the island of sanity to which we repair for warmth and comfort, may still be counted a great and significant success. A second way to evaluate an organization is to examine its chances for survival in the long run. Do we have here an organization so significant and successful that it will live through the centuries (or at least the de cades) ahead? Not only do I answer, "Probably no," to this question but I add "and I hope not" to that answer. The real danger to an organi zation of this kind is not that it will simply disappear, but that itsform willlong survive its soul. Do not misunderstand me; I am not fore casting an early end to FEE. It is true that even Leonard Read is not immortal, but Read's leaving will not mean the end of this organization. It will carryon, and for x number of years continue to be a center of strength in the cause of freedom.

But times change, and people change, and institutions change; it is as certain as death itself that sooner or later FEE will be, in spirit, something quite different from what it now is. Moreover, the chances are that that spirit will be significantly alien to the spirit that now moves this organization. When that day comes, if any of us are still around, let us have the courage and good sense to give FEE a decent burial, rather than yield to a pagan attachment to a body from which the spirit has already fled. The world of organizations is cluttered with de formed and defaming relics of noble causes; let FEE not be one of them. Turning the Tide We turn now to a third possible interpre tation of success as it relates to the work of FEE. Has FEE succeeded in its mission in the sense of being a part of an action that promises to actually turn the tide of battle in the direction of freedom? My answer to this is, "almost certainly no."

I offer this not as a criticism of the work of FEE but as what seems to me to be the only realistic appraisal of where the current of events is tending in this world. The 382 THE FREEMAN • MAY 1996 situation in this world, as it relates to indi vidual freedom, is almost certain to become much worse, before and if it ever becomes any better. Why must I adopt this appar ently defeatist line and on this should-be gladsome occasion in particular? My own none-too-original analysis of the trend of events tends to bring me into agreement with the many friends and foes of capitalism alike who believe that the odds are very much against the survival of capi talism in the decades immediately ahead of us. This is not the time or the place for a detailed presentation of the analysis that leads me to this conclusion. Moreover, my thesis has been more cogently reasoned and more ably presented in the works of Schum peter, Mises, Hayek, Popper, and others.

I offer only the following straws in the wind. First, there is the incredible recrudes cence of the most primitive forms of utopi anism. Young people (and old) possessed of superior intellectual equipment (as mea sured by aptitude tests) are every day re peating to me, in one form or another, the chiliastic musings of Marx in his German Ideology: In communist society, where nobody has an exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general produc tion and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind. I am not surprised to find that the young are enchanted by visions of a do-your-own thing New Jerusalem, complete with almost continuous love-play; after all, even the brightest of the young tend to think largely with the heart and the loins. What shocks me is that supposedly mature scholars either encourage them in their daydreaming or hesitate to bring their schemes to full and vigorous and rational challenge.

Nowhere is this denial of reason, of pro cess, of rational choice more clearly re vealed than in the approach of the more demented environmentalists. In one of the best critiques of this approach I know, an article in The Public Interest, the author writes as follows: "Those who call for immediate action and damn the cost, merely because the spiney starfish and furry crab populations are shrinking, are putting an infinite marginal value on these creatures. This strikes a disinterested observer as an overestimate. ,,2 But the voice ofreason is rarely raised and is shouted down by the new romantics (and the new barbarians) as soon as it is raised. Lady Chatterley's lover, once a hero of the young and the teachers of English liter ature for his sexual acrobatics, is now their hero as the man who said, "It's a shame, what's been done to people these last hun dred years: men turned into nothing but labor-insects, and all their manhood taken away.... I'd wipe the machines offthe face of the earth again, and end the industrial epoch absolutely, like a black mistake."

It is symptomatic of the times that a call like this for over 90 percent of those now living in the Western world to be wiped out (for such would be· the effect of such a proposal) is hailed as a voice of humanitar ianism and love, while those who dare to offer even gentle caveats are derided as gross and disgusting materialists. So much for the treason of the intellectu als, a treason that Mises and Hayek and Schumpeter forewarned us of, and one that is now largely a fact. If FEE is to be judged by its success in swinging the intellectual vote, then it has failed indeed. What of the businessman? Surely FEE and its companion organizations have been able to make secure for freedom this section of the American public! At this point, it is difficult to know whether to laugh or cry. There is not one piece oflunacy put on paper by some academic scribbler or spoken by some public demagogue that is not to be found in at least one, if not more, of the published statements of the self-designated spokesmen for the business community. For reasons that I don't have time to develop here, it is also clear that the larger the firm, the more certain is its leaders' commitment or at least lip service to the philosophy of THE FOUNDATION FOR ECONOMICEDUCATION:SUCCESS OR FAILURE? 383 On an airplane trip in 1980, Ronald Reagan took time to read The Freeman, while Mrs. Reagan napped.

statism. Study the changing character of the business firms that have contributed to FEE over the last twenty-five years. In the first years, at least a dozen of the largest, best known firms in this country were making direct contributions to FEE. Less than a handful are still on the list of donors. Those socialists and those defenders of capitalism who expect the average American business man to put up a desperate fightin defense of the system are simply out of touch with the situation as it really is. Yes, even the businessman is more likely to be a part of the problem than a part of the solution, and FEE's failure, so judged, could not be more obvious or complete. But of course, contrary to the popular impres sion, there is no reason to expect the busi nessman to be more committed to the sys tem of economic freedom than anyone else. Not only is he not the greatest beneficiary of that system-he is not even the principal beneficiary. Again contrary to the popular impression, it is the "little man," the mem ber of the masses who, far from being the exploited victim under capitalism, is pre cisely its principal beneficiary. Under all other arrangements, those possessed of in telligence, high energy, and a strong desire to achieve (Le., precisely those who tend to become the entrepreneurs, the businessmen under capitalism) get ahead by using their positions in the political or caste or religious hierarchy to exploit the masses. Only under capitalism can the stronger get ahead only by serving the weaker-and as the weaker wish to be served! (Ralph Nader to the contrary.) The strong tend to survive and prosper under any system, and strength does not necessarily carry with it a sophisticated understanding of systems. The American businessman has probably been, on balance (wittingly or unwittingly), the most impor tant single force working against the capi talist system.

384 THE FREEMAN • MAY 1996 This brings us to another of the straws in the wind. If further evidence of where we seem to be headed is needed, I offer you the current [Nixon] administration in Wash ington, D.C. It is manned by a number of intelligent, capable public servants of roughly conservative outlook and headed by an intelligent, well-meaning man of sound conservative instincts [sic]. Yet I am pre pared to wager that history will reveal that no administration in modem times did more to move the country away from freedom and toward socialism and authoritarianism than the one now in power. I say this in sorrow, not anger, sorrow at the fact that the prevailing ideology of the day traps even the apparent foes into serving its cause, once they acquire political power. If the prevailing climate is interventionist, a con servative administration will not only be compelled to serve that climate of opinion but will be able to command a larger con sensus for interventionist actions than an openly left-wing administration could ever command. In addition, the man on the street (who, in my opinion, also has generally conservative instincts) is less on his guard when a group identified as conservative is in power-and is thus largely unaware as one socialist scheme after another is imposed upon him.

In other words, wherever we look-to the intellectuals, to the businessmen, to the political leaders-we find the score to be Lions, 100; Christians, Zero. If FEE's mis sion has been to win such games in the here and now, then it is indeed a one-hundred carat failure. Not only has FEE not turned the tide of battle, the situation in this coun try has gotten steadily worse in everyone of the last twenty-five years and promises to get even worse in the next twenty-five. Am I predicting that we are inevitably headed for a great, all-encompassing crisis at some time in the next few decades? I am not. In the first place, nothing is inevitable. What has happened has happened because of decisions made by human beings and could be undone by the decisions of human beings in the years ahead. I am simply saying that if things continue to go as they have been going (as ~eems likely), we are goingto move further and further away from reasonable prosperity and substantial free dom, and toward stagnation and authoritar ianism.

If any of you have seen FEE's mission as that of winning now and winning big, then you have no choice but to label it a failure. But as I have understood him, his thinking, and the organization he brought into being, I have always believed that Leonard Read saw his mission as something quite different from (and quite superior to) that of winning tomorrow's election or next week's idea popularity poll. He seems little interested in triumphs as spectacular and as shortlived as the hula hoop. Again let us be honest with each other. I suspect (I know) that this aspect of FEE's thinking has been occasionally irritating to many of you and particularly to the more activist-minded of you. Read must have been about as satisfying to you at times as would be a football coach at your alma mater who asked for fifty years to do a rebuilding job with the team. Who knows, they might not even be reporting the scores to the local papers where Rogge and Read and many of you will be fifty years from now. You would like to see (and in person) the old scoreboard light up and read, Christians, 100; Lions, Zero. If that really is your goal, then you are at the wrong dinner for the wrong man..

Not only does Read not promise us a win in the near future; not only does he not guarantee us a win in the distant future; he has the unmitigated gallto tell us that we still don't even fully understand the game or how to recognize a win when we see one. Finally, he refuses us even the consolation of the assurance that while we may not know the full truth, he does and will tell us all about it. Stop worrying about such things, he tells us; "the readiness is all." Here are some typical statements from this strange and difficult man: Not a man among us is entitled to look down his nose at any other; scarcely anyone has more than scratched the surface. And there are reasons aplenty: the complexities of this sub ject are akin to the mysteries of Creation.

THE FOUNDATION FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATION: SUCCESS OR FAILURE? 385 Always skeptical of activist efforts, I have, until this moment, agreed that our own work has only long-range prospects-preserving the remnant, as it were. Now I see it the other way around; the chance of getting results here and now lies exclusively in the study and exposi tion of ideas on liberty. The freedom idea is in fact a recent, ideal istic, elevated acquisition of the human mind. Not being rooted in tradition and having little in the way ofsecond-nature behaviors working for its security, it lacks stability; it is easily lost; freedom concepts are fragile, wonderful ideas, few of which we've yet embraced by second nature within our relatively uncondi tioned consciousness. Freedom will always be insecure; it will forever be touch-and-go. Even eternal vigi lance and devoted effort can do no more than to set the trend aright, as high an aim as we should embrace. And this expectation is war ranted only if we view our problem realisti cally, see it as profound and difficultas it really is. To assess it superficially, to think of it as requiring anything less than practices conso nant with freedom becoming second nature, is to waste our time and energy, to spin our wheels, as the saying goes.

Is this too dismal a prospect? Not to those among us who enjoy a challenge; it's magnif icent! How can he call magnificent a challenge where the odds-makers have installed the Lions as tOO-pointfavorites? Because, he tells us, "it is the effort, not the outcome, that counts in the life of the human being." "Cervantes' 'The road is better than the inn,' should serve to remind aspiring men that there isn't any inn for them, but only the road, now and forever. It is the effort along the trail that matters." The Measure of Success And now the final interpretation of the phrase "succeeded in its mission": Leonard Read's own definition of how the success of a FEE (of a Leonard Read) should be measured: "To measure a teacher's success, to eval uate his work, one must ask: Does the teaching induce in others what Aristotle termed 'activity of soul'?" It is to this question that the final and unqualified and only significant "yes" can be given. Throughout this country, through out the world there is "activity of soul"

underway that would never have been un dertaken but for the work and the inspiration of Leonard Read and the Foundation for Economic Education. Some of it all of us in this room know about and can identify with FEE; some of it is known to only one or two of those in this room; the greater part, and probably the most important part, is totally unknown as yet to any of us (including Leonard Read) and willcome to light only in the decades and centuries ahead-and much of it will be done by people who will never have heard of this foundation and will have no awareness that the activity of soul in which they are involved is the last link in a long chain that goes back to something that was started by this foundation in the middle of the twentieth century. I close with a piece of verse that seems to me to capture what I have been trying to say. It is from the remarkable poem by W. H. Auden, "September 1, 1939," written at another dark moment in the history of the Western world. Here is the final stanza: Defenceless under the night Our world in stupor lies; Yet dotted everywhere, Ironic points of light Flash out wherever the Just Exchange their messages: May I, composed like them Of Eros and of dust, Beleaguered by the same Negation and despair, Show an affirmingflame.

For these twenty-five years of showing a brilliant and never-failing and affirming flame, our most serious and total apprecia tion, Mr. Leonard Read. D 1. Tolstoy, War and Peace, Inner Sanctum ed., p. 193. 2. Larry Ruff, "The Economic Common Sense of Pollu tion," The Public Interest, Fall 1970, p. 74.

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 The Foundation for Economic Education, Trustees and Staff, 1946--1996 The names of current trustees and staff members are asterisked (*). The names of those who are deceased are italicized. Daggers (t) signify honorary trustees. Trustees Paul L. Adams Robert G. Anderson Dominick T. Armentano John S. Autry *Manuel F. Ayau *Edward Barr Olive Ann Beech William B. Bell Ezra Taft Benson Henry T. Bodman Isaiah Bowman Karl Brandt Donaldson Brown Yale Brozen Levin H. Campbell, Jr. tJohn Chamberlain George Champion Norton Clapp J. Reuben Clark, Jr. J. W. Clise Joseph E. Coberly, Jr. William Coberly, Jr. T. Jefferson Coolidge Herbert C. Cornuelle Jasper E. Crane F. C. Crawford Herrell DeGraff Gottfried Dietze u. G. Dubach E. W. Dykes Bruce M. Evans Fred R. Fairchild Lawrence Fertig Lamar Fleming, Jr. William H. Fletcher *Ridgway K. Foley, Jr.

Don L. Foote Richard R. Gallagher *E. A. Gallun, Jr. Clayton R. Gaylord Robert M. Gaylord P. W. Gifford David M. Goodrich Pierre F. Goodrich Laurence M. Gould Perry E. Gresham H. Frederick Hagemann, Jr. ErIe P. Halliburton Henry Hazlitt Wesley H. Hillendahl *Harry H. Hoiles Paul E. Holden Wayne J. Holman, Jr. *John S. Howell A. R. Huckins, M.D. *Ethelmae Humphreys J. P. Humphreys Samuel H. Husbands B. E. Hutchinson J. Hugh Jackson Whipple Jacobs C. L. Kay Arthur Kemp *David H. Keyston Russell Kirk Israel M. Kirzner Vincent Lanfear *H. F. Langenberg William D. Laurie, Jr. William L. Law James H. Lorie Robert D. Love Harold W. Luhnow *Gregg C. MacDonald He·nry G. Manne Thomas W. Martin William Mathews A. C. Mattei 388 Hughston M. McBain James E. McCarthy John T. McCarty James A. McConnell Glenn McHugh Donald H. McLaughlin Donald R. McLennan, Jr. Robert A. Millikan Roger Milliken tMargit von Mises Martin J. Moore *Paige K. Moore Ben Moreell Robert M. Morris W. C. Mullendore Gary North *Edmund A. Opitz Bernard L. Orell *Jane M. Orient, M.D.

David H. Padden· Thomas I. Parkinson W. A. Paton *Ron Paul, M.D. *Lovett C. Peters Sylvester Petro J. Howard Pew Clarence E. Philbrook Paul L. Poirot *J. S. Pritchard, M.D. Eugene C. Pulliam Leonard E. Read *Lawrence W. Reed John T. Rettaliata Donald R. Richberg . Claude Robinson George C. Roche, III Benjamin A. ~ogge Herbert H. Rogge tP. Dean Russell *Ronald A. Schiavone TRUSTEES AND STAFF 389 A 1990 meeting of FEE's trustees in the library-boardroom. *Hans F. Sennholz t Mary Sennholz C. H. Shaver J. Nelson Shepherd Charles B. Shuman John Slezak *Ralph Smeed Robert B. Snowden Franklyn Bliss Snyder *Mark Spangler Bertel M. Sparks John C. Sparks Willard A. Speakman, Jr. *Willard A. Speakman, III *Philip M. Spicer Celestin J. Steiner, S .J. Thomas C. Stevens Arthur W. Stewart Robert W. Stoddard *Steve D. Symms *Don L. Taylor *Thomas C. Taylor, Jr. *John B. Threlfall Miller Upton *John C. Van Eck *Sally von Behren W. Allen Wallis John P. Weyerhaeuser, Jr.

Charles M. White Ernest L. Wilkinson John Dana Wise Leo Wolman David McCord Wright Henry M. Wriston Ben E. Young Staff Robert G. Anderson Joan Astuto Howard Baetjer Jr. Margaret Battaly *Harriet Bender Katherine Benson Ivan R. Bierly Irving Borders Scott Brokaw Shirley Brokaw Stanley Brokaw James H. Brown *Janette Brown Muriel Brown Eleanor Buckhout Helen Bucklew F. Reid Buckley Bella Campbell Elizabeth Campbell Helen Cartier John Chamberlain Frank Chodorov Russell J. Clinchy Herbert C. Cornuelle Richard Cornuelle Vernelia Crawford Mallory Cross W. M. Curtiss *Helen Dalzell Dominick D'Ambrosio Michael Darcy Jeannette Morrison Davies *Barbara Dodsworth Roger Duclos Lonnie Dufford Helen Dumich Elizabeth Glenn Eastburn 390 THE FREEMAN • MAY 1996 Bruce M. Evans M. Stanton Evans Nick Fesij Margaret Fitzsimons Bette Fletcher William Fox Samuel T. Gilchrist Sandy Goldberg Amy Van Laar Gordon *Bettina Bien Greaves Percy L. Greaves, Jr.

Perry E. Gresham Charles H. Hamilton James Hance Drew Hansen F. A. Harper *Beth A. Hoffman Jacob G. Hornberger Evelyn Hough Mary Housman Madelyn Shepard Hyde *Royce Janszen A. Ranney Johnson Howard Johnson William Johnson Peter Jones Zelda Kapner George Koether Mike Krenza Ellis Lamborn Don Lipsett Jean Liptak *Felix R. Livingston Martha Reilly Livingston Robert D. Love Margaret Kramer Lundy Ellen McGregor Laurel Mascola Rose Mazacone E. Victor Milione William Miller Ludwig von Mises *Kevin Morrissey *Linda Morrissey *Mary Ann Murphy Florence Murray Marion S. Norrell Gary North *Renate Oechsner Edmund A. Opitz Eleanor Orsini *Gregory P. Pavlik Samuel Pettengill Paul L. Poirot Harry Price Angelina Raimondo Leonard E. Read Dorothy Reale Roger R. Ream Lauren Regan Gregory F. Rehmke Anna Reilly Mary Reilly John Robbins George C. Roche, III James M. Rogers P. Dean Russell Frances DiChiara Scapperata *Thomas Schrader *Hans F. Sennholz *Mary Homan Sennholz *Marion Sheehan Thomas J. Shelly Ann Simonelli Elizabeth Smith Valerie Smith Mark Spangler John C. Sparks Jane Stark James Stover Brian Summers Kyle S. Swan Joan Kennedy Taylor *Kathleen Walsh *William J. Watkins, Jr.

v. Orval Watts John K. Williams Alvin Wingfield, Jr. Charles H. Wolfe Laura Zabaronick THEFREEMAN IDEASON UBERTY The Literatureof Liberty by Edmund A. Opitz and Robert Batemarco Part I W ords were the tools of Leonard Read's trade-spoken words, and words written. He was a gifted platform man, and starting in the mid-1930s became much in demand as a speaker before all kinds of audiences, large and small, in all parts of the nation. The Chamber of Commerce was his primary base of operation until he estab lished the Foundation for Economic Edu cation in 1946. Lecture engagements multi plied, and he continued to speak at FEE functions until shortly before his death, four months before his 85th birthday. Despite Leonard's facility with words and his knack for establishing an empathic bond with audiences, he would often say that "public speaking is just about the most useless activity I know of." He put a speech in the same category as an advertising pitch or the spiel of the barker outside the side show-an inducement to buy a product or a ticket. Or it's a morale booster or a locker room pep talk.