Op Ed: Chips Fall Where They May Reagan-Era Union-Attacks Set Hurtful Standards

Reagan abandoned his own views while with GE, shifting from determined Democratic union leader to equally persuasive Republicanism.

(BEND, Ore. ) - Most union workers today, mired in the mess made meaningful by Reagan-era union-attack and corporate-interest confrontation by his Presidency, little realize how their lives --and that of most in this nation--have been shaped and distorted by that historic situation.

New evidence has now emerged from Ronald Reagan’s eight years as national spokesperson for General Electric, involving hundreds of visits across the nation in determined corporate contacts not only with GE employees but through them with their community and other controlling groups; with 250,000 unionized workers at 139 plants, in forty states.

During all that time he was also appearing as GE spokesperson in a Sunday-night television program General Electric Theater; with one-fourth of his working time, by contract, spent in the conviction-shaping plant visits and community-pulpit appearances, sharpening his already considerable skill as a communicator.

It was that combination of experiences, which persuaded later-President Reagan to shift his personal political views from staunch, determined Democratic union leader to equally persuasive Republicanism.

The dual-role made him an integral part of one of the most ambitious and effective corporate political initiatives ever fashioned in our nation, setting the corporate pattern for full political persuasion; preceding his political career and his unprecedented Presidency.

Here we do not question the shaping impacts of that experience, only “why was politics ‘the business of business’ in the first place?” (See Reader’s Note for major source-documentation.)

Here we do not dispute nor deny Reagan’s large measure of sometimes masterful contributions in other areas of influence granted to him by history; nor any blame for Iran-Contra perversion, either.

He, in large part, helped end the Cold War and bring on the overwhelmingly significant collapse of the vaunted communistic states.

His historic demand: “Tear down that wall!” addressed to Russian leader-premier Gorbashev, is deservedly famous for its impact and the consequences, shaping and concluding the Berlin Wall controversy.

Our purpose is simply to illuminate --in revealing terms-- the known facts; now well documented in new professional studies, surely showing an historic shift most certainly the foundation for decades of so-called “conservative” and “supply-side” approach to national policies; with heavily consequential impacts on not only our nation but the world-order just then developing.

The (very) plain fact of the historical evidence involved is that they now show Ronald Reagan as an actor, becoming a leader in then-controversial union-action shaping Hollywood working situations and compensations; then deeply departing from a career, noted for broad union activism --including exceptionally strong union-negotiating leadership-- to become national spokesperson for the then-world/leading corporate conglomeration.

The essential fact here is that GE was then noted for determined confrontation with union leadership, in every way possible to prevent then-widespread worker compensation and working-condition change and positive development; through “the most comprehensive and elaborate program” for political initiatives in our nation, setting that pattern at a crucial time.

His mentor and supervisor for hundreds of visits over eight years (1954-1962) was Lemuel Boulware, then nationally-noted as GE’s vice-president and labor strategist.

“Boulwareism” has since become a synonym for perhaps the most determined and detailed negotiation-shaping philosophy, designed to derail and destroy union efforts to win, in ongoing confrontation over every level and kind of worker advance.

There is simply no possible question that the GE years shaped Ronald Reagan to a new-and-different profile and deeply-changed personal beliefs; and was among the most important life-experiences impacting on his now historic role as President.

His embrace of “supply-side” economics, and even more importantly his administration’s approach to “the business of business”, with also-historic impacts on union development and detailed destruction developing ever since, is unquestionable and exceptionally important now.

The recurring cycle of combat, still continuing between so-called “conservatism” and so-called “liberalism”, reflects precisely the same kind of confrontations observed and detailed throughout this new study, from Columbia University Press. (See Reader Note below.)

Details given in this outstanding new reference also complete the picture of how corporation-controlled public relations efforts are now, more than ever built into the huge impact of dollar-power to shape and perhaps distort, even pervert, the ongoing developments of what we perhaps mistakenly term “our democracy”. For us in Oregon --watching quite closely while our Legislators try to put back the wings which allow Oregon “To Fly!!” after some thirty years of denuding not only dollars but other determinants of that possibility for all-- this single new flash of documenting detail may be most useful. It can surely help determine what we as responsible citizens must nowadays contend against in our own ongoing efforts to achieve that democracy in which we all place our discretion, our hopes --and the fate of family, friends and ourselves.

Truly we need to determine what is “the real business of business” --and what we can to establish those parameters once-and-for all --and then make sure we make our governing agencies conform to that demanded set of decisions.
--------------------
Reader’s Note:
The historical facts related here are in large part taken from: “The Education of Ronald Reagan: The General Electric Years and The Untold Story of His Conversion to Conservatism”; Thomas W. Evans; Columbia University Press: 2006; ISBN 0-231-13860-1.
The book is based on newly-discovered private papers as well as new interviews and legally-recorded company documents now available.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

rewilding LA: Matilija Dam History and Ecosystems

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Albert Marnell May 18, 2007 8:33 pm (Pacific time)

9/11 was just an intelligence blowback. Our leaders are at fault for not telling the American people that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, our leaders in banking, industry and government started full force-the plan to dominate the world. The world does not want the U.S. and the U.K. to dominate them. People want Freedom, that is why they fight the United States and the United Kingdom. They do not want to be our slaves and have their countries taken over.

Rosenberg May 18, 2007 12:55 pm (Pacific time)

Rockefeller's real name is Kerry. Before that it was Kohn.

Albert Marnell May 18, 2007 10:43 am (Pacific time)

Rosenberg is working for the government to silence the Truth. He is on the payroll. It figures.

Albert Marnell May 18, 2007 10:18 am (Pacific time)

The term means just what it says. Anti-semitism came from your head not mine. Rockefeller is a money changer---big time.

Rosenberg May 18, 2007 7:44 am (Pacific time)

Marnell your use of the term "money-changers" now makes it crystal clear about you...anti-Semetic are you?

Albert Marnell May 18, 2007 5:12 am (Pacific time)

Reagan or Carter; they are just camouflage for the bankers that own the country. "Give me control of a country's money and I care not who it's government is" -- Mayer Rothchild. These money changers from centuries ago create boom and bust cycles. Either way they profit; then people give or take credit from an existing figurehead.

Rosenberg May 17, 2007 3:30 pm (Pacific time)

HR no doubt people who do not understand how you simply misrepresented my clearly stated position , or e.g. , understand something so clear as say the APA format or what plagiarism means in the academic world "may" buy into your interpretation, and that takes me back to the failing public school system. A system (which you defend not unlike someone who says the Titantic is unsinkable even after it has sunk) which is perpetuated by those who like to keep the people "smart-stupid". Smart clear-thinking people know better than to buy into your smear HR, and those who back you up do it for agenda reasons...and as you know I became wise to your agenda immediately, though frankly speaking, I have been quite entertained by it...so thank you HR. Still, as usual you fail to address the point of my primary observations, why is that HR? You dislike Reagan, but the majority of the voter's do not care. He will go down in history as a great one, something that no doubt is anathema for you. Boo hoo.

Hank Ruark May 17, 2007 2:28 pm (Pacific time)

To all: There's arrogance, and then there is that special kind of arrogance built directly on assumed superiority without any kind of documentation for it. That's what we encounter in anyone capable of making this statement, even when hidden behind no-ID'ing information on this or any other channel: "I certainly see that we approach some issues from entirely different perspectives HR; whereas my positions are essentially based on an "interactive" level of empirical experience, yours seems to come from an observational level, and I respect that HR". Don't be deluded by last few words; respect ain't included in his statement, for sure. My "checkered career" is well laid out for all to see in STAFF, surely showing full absurdity of his "observational" observation, intended of course to undercut anyone not taking bloody full-contact with life as full basis for "observation". For the record, check mine out. Then seek for his...and if and when ever supplied, let us see who has had more than observational contact and in what areas entirely pertinent here. But that only proves my previous "observation" re people, pattern, policies and ongoing damages-done re those types in Reagan Era and onwards. See for instance one named Wolfowitz, now in news re force-out for moral and method delinquency at World Bank. We could fill this whole page with others, including Bush I --and still not make a dent in Rosy's irrrational responses.

Hank Ruark May 17, 2007 1:01 pm (Pacific time)

Rosy et al: Re plagiarism, any sensitive writer ever so-accused will read what you said as I did. Here it is: "...many decades ago I spent some time with Irv Janis, his writings were always based on other people's writings. I really did not find him to be what I call an original thinker, but for my purposes as a reference (see below post), I used 'Victim's of Groupthink.' As I mentioned, HR, I used Janis' paper simply as an outline for analysis, and it fits quite well for my purposes." From necessity, since all Op Eds and Edits, too come from combined experiences, I use rewrite allatime. To me this is direct accusation of what-I-stated, and yrs further re yr use, surely implying selection to suit only yr own purposes, makes case that much stronger, it doth seem. But then that happens constantly in all writing as selection and "adaptation" take place, built on values and ethical judgements. On that basis, yr public ID is surely now demanded to protect and preserve what small level of credibility you may still have with this critical reader group. I suggest --for sixth time now !!--direct ID with Editor, so we can put this dialog to sleep face-to-face, or should I write keyboard to keyboard ?

Rosenberg May 17, 2007 11:40 am (Pacific time)

HR you kind of stepped over the line here, I did not accuse anyone of plagiarism, that is a very serious charge that maybe Jason Blair of the New York Times (and other's similar to him) might not care about, but I do. My opinion on Irv, is based simply on my individual opinion, which has quite a bit of academic and "real world" experience behind it. I certainly see that we approach some issues from entirely different perspectives HR; whereas my positions are essentially based on an "interactive" level of empirical experience, yours seems to come from an observational level, and I respect that HR. It's always good to hear from the observers...

Hank Ruark May 17, 2007 10:56 am (Pacific time)

To all: Pls note that in latest Rosy now accuses Janis --worldfamed original thinker in this area--not only of plagiarism but also denies "original work" for which Janis is famed. THAT should tell u something very pertinent here, and add still further to reasons he refuses direct-contact where statements are not only open to full check but can also be held legally vulnerable if shown to be falsely stated. I repeat: Come direct, Rosy, if you wish to continue. Apologies to all...this sequence now self-proven for all to "see with own eyes". Let's clear-deck and get on with important stuff...

Hank Ruark May 17, 2007 10:50 am (Pacific time)

To all: Please note we still have nothing but Rosy's words-here. NO ID, NO public info (as in STAFF-here), NO documentation OR sources-cited OR details on publications-provided. SO, again, I invite him to ID with Editor for solid ongoing exchange of open, public documentation and professional analysis. With proof of authorship, on his side; mine already established by Editor visits. What's yr problem, Rosy ? What's fairer than face-ON, esp. with yr openly expressed self-superiority ??

Rosenberg May 17, 2007 10:30 am (Pacific time)

HR, using Stockman is like asking Bill Clinton to tell you the reasons he does not like Rush Limbaugh, or why he and Monica were simply in a platonic relationship. Ergo, you dislike Reagan, so what! You are in the minority, but that's okay, you continue to express the attitude I was pointing out earlier in my below post(s) as per the treatment of information that does not fit that ol' template. In fact speaking of Rush HR, you probably could learn something from him, maybe clear up some issues for you (I'm kidding of course!). Also HR, many decades ago I spent some time with Irv Janis, his writings were always based on other people's writings. I really did not find him to be what I call an original thinker, but for my purposes as a reference (see below post), I used "Victim's of Groupthink." As I mentioned, HR, I used Janis' paper simply as an outline for analysis, and it fits quite well for my purposes, even though it does not fit your gestalt, so to speak...watch out for that water!

Hank Ruark May 17, 2007 9:57 am (Pacific time)

To all and Rosy: Here's more history for Rosy, to make sure he can answer on definitive points you all will understand: (From Wikipedia) Office of Management and Budget: "Stockman emerged as one of the most powerful and controversial OMB directors ever during a tenure that lasted until his resignation in August 1985. Committed to the doctrine of supply-side economics, Stockman took the lead in directing passage of the "Reagan Budget" (the Gramm-Latta Budget), which Stockman hoped to be a serious curtailment of the "welfare state", gaining a reputation as a tough negotiator with House Speaker Tip O'Neil's Democratic-controlled House of Representatives and Majority Leader Howard Baker's Republican-controlled Senate. During this period, although only in his early 30s, Stockman played a central and highly visible role as the ultimate "budget guru" in the fierce debate and contentious political wrangling over the future direction of the role of the federal government in American society. Stockman's power within the Reagan Administration waned after the Atlantic Monthly magazine published the famous article, "The Education of David Stockman",[1] in its December 1981 issue based on lengthy interviews Stockman gave to reporter William Greider. It led to Stockman being "taken to the woodshed by Reagan" as the White House's PR team tried to deal with the article's damage to Reagan's perceived fiscal leadership skills. Stockman was quoted as referring to the Reagan Revolution's legacy tax act as: "I mean, Kemp-Roth [Reagan's 1981 tax cut] was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate.... It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down.' So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory." Of the budget process in his first year on the job, Mr. Stockman is quoted as saying: "None of us really understands what's going on with all these numbers.", which turned out to be the subtitle of the 1981 Atlantic Monthly article. After his first year at OMB and on the heels of 'being taken to the woodshed by the president' over his candor with Atlantic's William Greider, Stockman became disillusioned with the projected trend of increasingly large federal deficits and the rapidly expanding national debt as a result of the Reagan tax cut. On 1 August 1985, he left OMB and later wrote a memoir of his experience in the Reagan Administration titled The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed that, in part, specifically criticized the failure of Congressional Republicans to support a reduction in government spending as necessary offsets to the large tax cuts that would have avoided the creation of large deficits and an exploding national debt." Takes definite demeaning attitude to challenge ongoing famous historian (see book reviews cited from others-also-famous) and also the Internet encyclopedia. But then one must accept that attempt to mislead and malignly persuade in pursuit of overweening personal purposes...or is it paid-attack ?

Hank Ruark May 17, 2007 9:46 am (Pacific time)

Rosy et al: Yr latest is excellent example of distortion taken to heights. Had seminar with Janis, so can speak to point: You either misunderstand OR distort purposely re "groupthink" which designed for specific use with tightly-connected group such as cabinet for President, and does NOT -repeat, DOES NOT- apply as you indicate. IF you desire dialog, ID to Editor and save ennui for others here. IF you wish only to "confuse issue" for malign persuasion, you will keep on here. IF you know better book, why not name it ? IF you can, that is...from list you stated exists in depth re Presidency.

Rosenberg May 17, 2007 9:00 am (Pacific time)

HR I respect your passion for unions and conservative philosophy. Once again I mention Irving Janis and his treatment of "Victims of Groupthink" as primarily as an outline for analysis. One area of concern is how new information is treated: If it does not fit the existing template so to speak, it is rejected. So here in this incredible Information Age, we actually have individuals and groups sinking deeper and deeper into the abyss of parochial ignorance because they reject any info that does not fit their gestalt, so to speak; or in a more familar phrase for your consumption HR: You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink it!

Rosenberg May 17, 2007 8:47 am (Pacific time)

Tim I agree with much of what you said. It's so unfortunate that our society has not been able to create some solutions to deal with our homeless population that has no doubt existed throughout our country's existence. Protestor's during the mid-60's to the 70's were quite violent in California, and much of this violence was directed towards returning Vietnam veterans. I could not imagine the financial trade offs and compromising that happened behind the scenes to get any type of productive legislation during the Reagan administration. The economy was pretty bleak when he came into office. There will always be people and various groups that will get screwed, but was malice involved or were there other considerations involved? Again it depends on the sources you go to, and Reagan has plenty of supporters and detractors. I have tried to familiarize myself with all interpretations, good and bad. Personally I found him, as did the majority of Americans to have done a good job. It's always wise to evaluate one in terms of the "climate of the times" in contrast to applying a contemporary assessment to an historical event(s). The homeless situation for veterans (all people actually) just breaks my heart! It would be great if the Hollywood crowd developed a fundraising program for them like they did for the 911 survivor's and other groups...why do you think they haven't done so Tim? I put the below web address on another topic here but I'll do it again for you and others who may find it informative as an objective or more factual address of Vietnam issues:
http://www.nam-vet.net/ptsd_help.htm Scroll to the bottom of the page and try clicking on topics like Walter Cronkite, Myths and Facts, etc. .

Hank Ruark May 17, 2007 8:11 am (Pacific time)

To all: As "added convenience" for S-N readers, will gladly send PDF of Stockman information to anyone ID-ing self to Editor ...including our friend Rosy, who has never yet accepted my standing invitation for direct contact.

Hank Ruark May 17, 2007 7:38 am (Pacific time)

To all: Early-on Rosy stated many books available re Presidency, but avoids naming any of his choice, to offset my choice here. SO, to assist him, I suggest you simply go to the worldfamed Wikipedia available easily in Internet, and seek out key information re David Stockman, very key figure in Reagan go-round esp. on "supply side" economics. IF Rosy has other information re Stockman, his gives him perfect chance to cite it in detail -- OR shut up !

Hank Ruark May 17, 2007 6:47 am (Pacific time)

Al et al: Appreciate your kind sharing which reflects my own memory. Here we dealing with those who NOW deny history for their own ongoing malign and anti-democratic purposes, as driven by neocon assassination of a proud old American party.

Albert Marnell May 16, 2007 11:20 pm (Pacific time)

Hank, People were relatively easily flooding out of East Europe before the wall came down. I remember Reagan's speach but he deserves no credit for something that was occuring on it's own. The wall was just a remaining symbol. It's inevitable dismantling had nothing to do with Reagan. I was hearing about and talking to many people at that time that said it was not easy to leave the east but nothing like trying to get through the wall which was a last remaining symbol about to fall. It's dismantling was purely symbolic and the last curtain of the iron curtain. East Europeans had alternative routes that may have been a long detour but it was there. If you had any sense you would not just past through this last piece of STASI and SOVIET repression. So people went through a different door before Reagan's speech and before the wall came down. The beginning of the wall was August 13th, 1961.....my mother's 40th birthday and very upseting to her and her parents who were born in and near Hamburg.

Albert Marnell May 16, 2007 6:31 pm (Pacific time)

When the New World Order takes over Tara II, they are going to turn it into a Salsa Dance Club. People can dance till dawn. Rosenberg can clean the kitchen and make Margaritas. Confiscate Tara II now! Tax it out of existence.

Hank Ruark May 16, 2007 4:16 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Just checked: Reagan deficits were then highest on U.S. record. Tax slashes, supply side economy economy failure, big anti-union drive are all U.S. historical facts. Expert sources now show same people then, same policies, same pattern, same impotence, and same disastrous consequences as we now finding in following same-GOPster incompetence, Bush II. THAT is historical fact, too, and one reason I shared information from this book --which I DID read, twice !!

Hank Ruark May 16, 2007 2:54 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Single simple question for Rosy: Have you read this book ? If NOT, how have hutzpa to deny, defy findings of famous historians, reviewed and praised by famous authors and authorities on era ? Re books on presidents, why not cite your choice showing your claimed-points for Ron ? If NOT, we depending precariously on yr checkered credibilities.

Tim King May 16, 2007 2:18 pm (Pacific time)

Rosenberg, I think Reagan was a great president in many respects, but he balanced the budget on the backs of the mentally ill and as a society we have never recovered from that. When I see homeless people begging for money in store parking lots and on freeway onramps, I think of the less-than-good aspects of his presidency. I also can never shake the image of Reagan as Governor of California saying they needed to take the Berkley students "by the scruff of the neck" over their protests, but at that point all they were protesting was San Francisco restaurants' refusal to allow black people inside their doors. It is always about perspective; this is certainly a presidency that had good and bad implications.

Hank Ruark May 16, 2007 1:56 pm (Pacific time)

Al et al: Might not use same image, but from Columbia History book must agree it is likely. There is now no possible question where "conservative" drive re situations created since his administration have their origin: in Bulwareism sold as corporate manipulation of many national issues.

Rosenberg May 16, 2007 1:37 pm (Pacific time)

When Reagan became president, The Cold War was frigid. Inflation was out of control. There is malaise in the economy as described by his predecessor Jimmy Carter. Our society is in a state of upset. When Reagan leaves, the economy is strong, inflation is under control, steady. The Cold War is all over but the shouting. He transformed the situation. Inflation in America, compared to the rest of the world, was put in check by Reagan's monetary leadership policies. Suffice our strong economy has been because of him. If the democrats gain real power, then it will be back to bad times, except now, we have tens of millions of uneducated illegals that will bring absolute chaos, maybe even anarchy to our nation. If you witness a call for martial law, that's it! It will be survival of the fittest. Sorry Marnell. NOTE: One can go out and find any number of books and articles on any president, positive or negative, as HR is well aware of. It all depends on one's agenda. As far as Reagan, we lucked out having him at that particular time in history. We now need a strong no-nonsense conservative that knows why we have to isolate Iran immediately, no matter what the consequences, and to see that our domestic laws, as currently codified, are carried out, no matter what the consequences. If the upper two things are not pursued with unrestrained vigor, no place on the planet will ever be safe again.

Albert Marnell May 16, 2007 12:50 pm (Pacific time)

Hank, Reagan would give head in a public toilet if he thought he could advance himself.

Hank Ruark May 16, 2007 12:18 pm (Pacific time)

To all: While we're at it, here's reviewer comment from another qualified person, unlike Rosy who has never seen book: James McGregor Burns: author of Roosevelt: Soldier of Freedom: "This work confronts directly the everlasting question about why Ronald Reagan shifted so abruptly from Hollywood liberal and union leader to General Electric spokesman and anti-union activist. I know of no work that explains that transition and its implication for conservative leadership in America more effectively. In short, a major contribution to Reeagan scholarship and presidency analysis."

Hank Ruark May 16, 2007 11:24 am (Pacific time)

To all: Rosy's argument is with U.S. history, not with me nor with my sharing this insightful book with you. See what William Safire says: "Thomas. W. Evans was present at the creation of great candidacies, and his book offers a fresh, valuable account of what made Ronald Reagan."

Hank Ruark May 16, 2007 10:32 am (Pacific time)

To all: "See with own eyes" revealing comment from Rosy re Falwell death, in accompanying story.

Albert Marnell May 16, 2007 10:00 am (Pacific time)

I thought I told you Rosenberg to get off of this political party stuff. The Central Bankers control the country and the industries that they cut deals with. Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton; these men do not have power, they are just figureheads in a country that is just a corporation. When will you ever wake up to the facts because they are all over the place. Even Eisenhower publicly admitted this in the best way he knew how.

Rosenberg May 16, 2007 7:57 am (Pacific time)

President Reagan was the most popular president in the history of this country, winning 49 states, a landslide! Those who dislike him, vocal as they may be, will never understand what difficult decisions he had to make to overcome the incompetence of Jimmy Carter's Administration and the economic problems of the time. Suffice, for those of you who dislike this wonderful man, try to imagine how much your disagreeable analysis really means...

Albert Marnell May 15, 2007 11:58 pm (Pacific time)

I am glad that this creep took a dirt-nap with Falwell. I wonder how Falwell fell? Did he feel well when he fell? How did he fall? He was a monster and so was Reagan. Hail to Lynette Squeaky Fromm!

[Return to Top]

Op Ed:
Chips Fall Where They May
Reagan-Era Union-Attacks
Set Hurtful Standards

Quick Links

DINING

MUST SEE SALEM

AUCTIONS - APPRAISALS

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

ONLINE SHOPPING

Advertise with Salem-News