Questions for Capitalism and Capitalists

Jeff Dodson

The following are the author’s personal views and do not reflect the points of view of any institution or organization.

     These are interesting times to be a high school social studies teacher. In the past couple years, after over thirty years in the private sector – in investment banking, corporate development, and as a C-level executive recruiter and executive coach, I moved on from those careers to teach high school American Government, International Relations, European History and the History of the Holocaust.

     In these polarized and divided times, it’s particularly important for social studies teachers to help their students think analytically; to discern fact from opinion, to look at all sides of an issue, to incorporate historical context and experience, and to not be afraid to express contrary viewpoints. However, all of this, we constantly tell our students, must be done in a constructive, civil and mutually-respectful manner, absent any disparagement and casual cruelty. We also speak to our students about setting a leadership example - the importance of ethics and virtue, a willingness to do the proverbial “hard right versus the easy wrong,” and also to have the courage to speak out in the face of injustice, ethical wrongdoing, and violations of the rule and spirit of the law. 

     It is beyond discouraging that many of this nation’s political leaders and those adjacent to them don’t exhibit or practice these behaviors today and in fact seem to be trying to lie and to set a poor example. These shortcomings in the political realm are well documented, with both Republicans and Democrats culpable. Liberal democracy depends on ethics, civility and virtue – the plumbing and construction of the Constitution are not enough in and of themselves; people must also bring good intentions and honesty to bear.

     A recent opinion article in the New York Times by David French notes that the framers of the U.S. Government believed that human virtue was necessary to make the system function well. Without individual virtue, law, and ethics, no democratic system of government will work. [1] Similarly, in a recent article in the Atlantic, Professor George Thomas says that the founders of the U.S. feared both unscrupulous leaders and unreflective citizens. He quotes John Adams’ remark that “A combination of the rich and ignorant could empower a demagogue at the expense of democracy.”[2]

    The shortcomings of U.S. political leaders in Congress and in the Executive branch across the past decades are well-trod ground. But the behaviors and mindsets of the capitalist elite today need more scrutiny. Specifically, should senior executives and professional investors be expected to not hold themselves to any standards other than following the law and Milton Friedman’s view that shareholder returns are all that matter? Is that enough to preserve liberal democracy and civil society in the United States and to keep the country from authoritarianism at some future point?

     The late social scientist James Q. Wilson said that “in the long run, the public interest depends on private virtue.”[3] Do most of the nation’s capitalist elite believe this and do they push their organizations and people to act on those convictions? Or do they shelter behind Friedman’s mantra that they needn’t worry about that - shareholder returns are the only safe harbor they should want or need? I find the whole discussion around DEI today interesting. If corporations and organizations didn’t believe in it previously, why did they all stampede to adopt it? And now, when it has become politically unpopular, why have most (but not all) corporations and organizations practically fallen all over themselves to throw the initiatives over the side?

     What if the federal government and people closely associated with it today “voluntarily encouraged” all C-Level executives, board members and financial investors to put a swastika hood ornament, provided free by the government, on their cars. Inspectors would then secretly check compliance with this “suggestion” by visiting parking lots, garages, and driveways. How many people would put the ornament on their car? Or perhaps the more apt question would be how many would resist and also loudly object to this? Some would no doubt go along - the spineless and ambitious Tom Wambsgans Succession approach - but hopefully it would be a small minority.

     Furthermore, how susceptible might the U.S. be to some version of another Red Scare from the 1950s about an issue different than Communism? Many perhaps think it wouldn’t affect them; their principles wouldn’t allow them to knuckle under. And yet today what are we to make of some of the richest people in the world scrambling frantically to align themselves with shifting political winds?

     So, what should the capitalist elite be doing? What standards should be met? After all, some corporations employ thousands of people of many cultures and nationalities around the world and one size doesn’t necessarily fit all. A good start would be following the rule of law and adhering to long-held American values (which are also common to most liberal forms of government) – things like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, caring about society’s less fortunate, equal protection under the law, and commitment to legal due process among others. But these are minimum table stakes and is more needed?

     Returning to James Q. Wilson, he asserted that four innate sentiments dispose people to a universal moral sense: Sympathy, fairness, self-control, and duty.[4] He also noted the following:

Mankind’s moral sense is not a strong beacon light, radiating outward to illuminate in sharp outline all that it touches. It is rather a small candle flame, casting vague and multiple shadows, flickering and sputtering, in the strong winds of power and passion, greed and ideology. But brought close to the heart and cupped in one’s hands, it dispels darkness and warms the soul.[5]

     In my History of the Holocaust class, we discuss who was complicit and who was merely a bystander, or for that matter were there any acceptable criteria to be a bystander in Nazi Germany? Most Germans placed themselves far from the line that separated bystanders from the complicit. This was true even of much of the capitalist and religious elite and the leaders of other major institutions. Many slid down the slippery slope of denial and rationalization; “Well sure, I employed slave labor and persecuted the Jews in other ways, but I had no choice. It’s not like I loaded the Jews onto the trains or put the Zyklon B into the gas chambers.” (though some sold the Nazis the gas).

     Am I saying the U.S. is now like Nazi Germany? Of course not. But throughout history, leaders seeing themselves as merely bystanders have led societies, through errors of omission and commission,  to bad places they never could have envisioned years before. William Faulkner reminds us that “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” [6]

     I certainly hope the capitalist, religious and other leaders in this country step-up and stand-out in the face of violence against ethics, virtue, and the rule of law. If not, the warnings about this are practically as old as time. In the Inferno, Dante Alighieri supposedly said “The hottest place in hell is reserved for those who in times of moral crisis choose to remain neutral.” And there is Reverend Martin Niemoeller’s famous comment that after he refused to speak out for the Socialists, trade unionists, or the Jews, there was nobody left to speak out for him, and more recently Ronald Reagan – “Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid.”[7] Winston Churchill also archly noted, “…one hopes if he feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last. All of them hope that the storm will pass before their turn comes to be devoured.”[8]

     I remain hopeful that the America envisioned by the founders and admired for decades around the world for its achievements, courage, and ideals will remain an example. But for that to happen people must exhibit virtue, courage, and steel in their spines whenever necessary. It seems fair to ask whether  Capitalism’s elite are doing enough in this regard, and if they will be there when needed.

[1] French, David, “How A German Thinker Explains MAGA Morality,” The New York Times, January 26, 2025.

[2] George Thomas, “The Other Fear of the Founders,” The Atlantic, February 12, 2025.

[3] Wilson, James Q. 1991. On Character: Essays by James Q. Wilson. Washington D.C., American Enterprise Institute.

[4] Wilson, James Q. 1993. The Moral Sense. New York, The Free Press.

[5] Ibid, p. 251.

[6] Faulkner, William. 1951. Requiem for a Nun. New York. Random House, page 73.

[7] Reagan, Ronald (speech). Remarks at the Conservative Political Action Conference Dinner. March 20, 1981. reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/remarks-conservative-political-action-conference-dinner.

[8] Churchill, Winston (speech). A House of Many Mansions. January 20, 1940. nationalchurchillmuseum.org/a-house-of-many-mansions.html