This is especially true of television, which now plays such a predominant role in shaping the thinking, attitudes and emotions of our people. Moreover, much of the media-for varying motives and in varying degrees-either voluntarily accords unique publicity to these “attackers,” or at least allows them to exploit the media for their purposes.
Yet, these often are the most articulate, the most vocal, the most prolific in their writing and speaking. In most of these groups the movement against the system is participated in only by minorities. The most disquieting voices joining the chorus of criticism come from perfectly respectable elements of society: from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians. But they remain a small minority, and are not yet the principal cause for concern. These extremists of the left are far more numerous, better financed, and increasingly are more welcomed and encouraged by other elements of society, than ever before in our history. They include, not unexpectedly, the Communists, New Leftists and other revolutionaries who would destroy the entire system, both political and economic. Rather, the assault on the enterprise system is broadly based and consistently pursued. We are not dealing with sporadic or isolated attacks from a relatively few extremists or even from the minority socialist cadre. Also, there always have been critics of the system, whose criticism has been wholesome and constructive so long as the objective was to improve rather than to subvert or destroy.īut what now concerns us is quite new in the history of America. There always have been some who opposed the American system, and preferred socialism or some form of statism (communism or fascism). This varies in scope, intensity, in the techniques employed, and in the level of visibility. No thoughtful person can question that the American economic system is under broad attack. On social issues, he was a moderate, whose votes often surprised his backers.
Bellotti, a 1978 decision that effectively invented a First Amendment “right” for corporations to influence ballot questions.
Powell did embrace expansion of corporate privilege and wrote the majority opinion in First National Bank of Boston v. So did Powell’s political views influence his judicial decisions? The evidence is mixed. Most notable about these institutions was their focus on education, shifting values, and movement-building - a focus we share, though often with sharply contrasting goals. Their long-term focus began paying off handsomely in the 1980s, in coordination with the Reagan Administration’s “hands-off business” philosophy. The memo influenced the creation of the Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan Institute, the Cato Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Accuracy in Academe, and other powerful organizations. Though Powell’s memo was not the sole influence, the Chamber and corporate activists took his advice to heart and began building a powerful array of institutions designed to shift public attitudes and beliefs over the course of years and decades. Anderson cautioned that Powell, “Might use his position on the Supreme Court to put his ideas into practice… in behalf of business interests.” It was leaked to Jack Anderson, a liberal syndicated columnist, who stirred interest in the document when he cited it as reason to doubt Powell’s legal objectivity. The Powell Memo did not become available to the public until long after his confirmation to the Court. The memorandum was dated August 23, 1971, two months prior to Powell’s nomination by President Nixon to the U.S. In 1971, Lewis Powell, then a corporate lawyer and member of the boards of 11 corporations, wrote a memo to his friend Eugene Sydnor, Jr., the Director of the U.S. The Powell Memo was first published AugIntroduction
0 kommentar(er)
