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.