I’m very proud to help introduce the work of Kim Phillips-Fein to a wider audience. Way back in the mid-nineties in New York, a bunch of us aspiring professional public intellectuals used to get together for drinks every couple of weeks. Kim was the brightest of the bunch. She demonstrated her exemplary intellectual citizenship in an searching and stylish series of articles and reviews in magazines like The Nation, The American Prospect, and In These Times. And when she won the biggest dissertation prize in the American history field in 2007, none of us who knew her work were surprised.
The dissertation was called “Top Down Revolution: Businessmen, Intellectuals and Politicians Against the New Deal,” and its unique contribution was revealed in the first two works of the title. Much recent scholarly work on the conservative ascendancy has been influenced by the post-1960s principle that the stories of social movements are best told from the “bottom up”—from the perspective of ordinary people, not elites. That makes sense when the subject is a union organizing drive. It doesn’t always make sense when the subject is political shifts that—as we all know—colossally advantage the wealthy and powerful.
Thus the story Kim tells, Invisible Hands, is the book version. That title is significant here too. It’s a pun, of course, on Adam Smith’s description of how a laissez-faire economy is supposed to work; where when each individual directs his “industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he in this [is] led by an invisible hand to promote an end which has no part of his intention.” The hand is invisible because there is literally no hand directing anything from above; just unconnected individual decisions collectively producing well-being and prosperity.
Well, the figures Kim writes about are a hell of a lot more pushy than that.
We’re talking about people like the DuPont family, who organized a “Liberty League” in the 1930s to try to sabotage the New Deal; the National Association of Manufacturers, which openly organized corporations to defy the National Labor Relations Act; front groups like the “Farmers’ Independence Council,” which “did not actually number a single family farmer among its members” (Lammot du Pont insisted his 4,000 acre estate made him a farmer); William Baroody, who dreamt of “a network of conservative think tanks that could rival the university system;” and Lemuel Bouware (who I like to call the most important figure in American history you’ve never heard of), who, as head of General Electric’s labor relations division, was one of the pioneers of the modern “focus group”—which he used to figure out ways to get factory workers to distrust their union leaders, and to see corporate executives as their saviors. He later hired Ronald Reagan as a touring lecturer to help him with the job.
Here “invisible hands” means something different. The hands are literal, but hidden: front groups, public relations strategies, propaganda campaigns laundered through schools and churches, all designed to sabotage any possibility that a democratic polity might vote itself a union-friendly welfare state delivering the greatest good for the greatest number. Why were they invisible? Because, as Kim demonstrates with great drama and dry wit, they tried visibility and it failed. The DuPont’s New Deal-era Liberty League described itself unapologetically as a “propertyholders’ association,” to give “business, which bears the responsibility for the paychecks of private employment…voice in government.” The idea was to defeat FDR for his 1936 reelection. Instead, the fact that more than half the league’s funds “came from fewer than two dozen bankers, industrialists, and businessmen” became all too obvious to the public, and the League “rapidly became the symbol of the recalcitrance of those reactionaries whom Roosevelt dubbed ‘economic royalists’ in his 1936 reelection campaign.” One Democratic official called it the “America Cellophane League,” because ‘First, it’s a Du Pont product, and second, you can see right through it.”
And thus henceforth the plutocrats would hide their hands. But their hands would always be present. They figured it out. Their story is continuous, from the 1930s until today: selfish interests working behind the scenes to preserve their own advantage, hiding their power plays in the cloak of idealistic and noble principle. So-called ordinary citizens rising from the grassroots, defending their liberty by holding massive “tea parties” across the nation. You know the drill.
According to one obscure quote Kim dug up from a Texas businessman, “The capitalist system can be destroyed more effectively by having men of means defend it than by importing a million Reds from Moscow to attack it.” Thus these men of means would ever seek to recruit men of the soil—and “intellectuals” as well—to defend it instead. Kim Phillips-Fein’s new book is the best place to start if you want to understand how all of this came about.



78 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Kim, Welcome to the Lake.
Rick, Thank you for Hosting today’s Book Salon.
Henry, Thanks for filling in for Rick for the first few minutes.
Thanks for the opportunity, Bev, and thanks to Rick for hosting – and for the great review.
And Henry, thanks for filling in, too.
Kim, how long did you research this book?
Welcome to FDL this afternoon Kim.
I have not had a chance to read your book but I like the bit in Rick’s write-up on how the Great Business proponents have to hide their participation in order to get listened to anymore.
That is quite likely the reason the teabaggers got so upset when it was pointed out that their “grassroots” organization was full of astro-turf.
Kim – let me pose a question from Rick, who should be with us shortly. He notes that last week the Netroots scored a bit of a coup by exposing and publicizing the right-wing and corporate front groups who organized the supposedly spontaneous April 15 “Tea Parties” against the Obama administration. How does this relate to the history you narrate in INVISIBLE HANDS?
Which is a slightly more wordy way of making the point that dakine has just made …
I started it in 2001, not long before 9/11. It was a really different historical moment: Bush had just been elected for the first time. I think I was influenced to look at business and at the economic agenda of the conservative movement by the experience of the 1990s and the dominance of free market ideas even under a Democratic president. But I also wanted to contest the idea that the conservative movement was all about cultural and social issues.
As we are a diverse crowd of people in the good old USA, and there are a few critically thinking people still around, I welcome this conversation. I understand on an intellectual level the importance of understanding how this all came about.
I think I may not be alone in being exhausted by trying to pay attention to all the issues at hand, but, again, it could be an interesting conversation.
I’ll be reading the comments, but, I hope there’s some discussion as to what’s to be done, once we Understand History.
Thanks and I hope people with more tenacity for intellectual discernment are here to discuss.
Thanks for others efforts here.
I just did a panel at the Arkansas Literary Festival and am glad to be settling down at the Lake with my old friend K P-F. Here’s my question: last week the Netroots scored a bit of a coup by exposing and publicizing the right-wing and corporate front groups who organized the supposedly spontaneous April 15 “Tea Parties” against the Obama administration. How does this relate to the history you narrate in INVISIBLE HANDS?
Ah, Henry and I crossed in the tubes!
The tea parties are a great example of the kind of history in the book – how much attention they got, how much press, how they’re held up as a “grass roots” mobilization – but if you look a little closer you can see that they’re really a top down effort.
even while we were in power we allowed the republicans the power to revise the history for one of the worst presidents in our history
Reagan raised taxes not lowered them, he raised them 6 out of the eight years in government, he grew government he did not shrink it, he grew the deficit, the economy became far worse, the middle class almost disappeared, tax burden when considered all taxes instead of simply federal, already weighing more heavily on the middle class was shifted even further to them
“tear down this myth” is an excellant book but doesn’t even come close in documenting the myths of reaga
Hi Rick! If only we could have Angela and Bill here too.
One thing that was really amazing to me in researching the book is how aware conservative activists were of the need to hide the role of business. Friedrich Hayek, for example, organizing the first meeting of Mont Pelerin Society (his exclusive group for intellectuals reinventing the idea of the free market) told his business supporters that he didn’t want them to become real members, because it would look bad. William Baroody changing the name of American Enterprise Association to INSTITUTE, so that it sounds less like a trade group….
So Rick has arrived – but I also have a question of my own. One of the most fun bits of the book for me was the section on Spiritual Mobilization – the quite bizarre social movement from the 1950s, which tried to marry Christianity to capitalism. “We know that Jesus appealed to many motives but at no time did He appeal to disinterested altruism. Instead, He constantly invoked the profit motive that social dreamers consider the root of evil.” This seems weird in retrospect – especially the links with Gerald Heard and the beginnings of the LSD revolution – but it also presages a lot of the televangelism of the 1980s on. Were there any organic links between the two, or are they just similar because they are working with similar materials towards similar ends?
Right. I love the NAMES of some of bad guys in your book–”Jasper Crane,” “Lemuel Boulware.” People who sound like villains. Scary people with scary names. How did the conservative movement evolve toward ssomething led by people Joe Public would supposedly “like to have a beer with”?
But in other ways, Reagan did exactly what he set out to do: deregulate, reduce federal income taxes on the rich, create a political climate more hostile to unions…
Kim, I haven’t read your book, but I did see your presentation yesterday on C-Span, and found it most interesting. I particularly liked your comment at the end about the renewed interest of students in 20th Century American History courses in some of the details of the New Deal. I taught that for about 15 years — and know the blank faces when you try to stir the pot on the first and second AAA.
Did you delve into the uses of Religion in creating the opposition movement to New Dealism (one of my special interests)?
Kim, Rick, Henry thanks for being here.
Jane Hamsher has opined, correctly I think, that a warped theological interpretation of the “Protestant/Roman Catholic work ethic” played a significant role in the rise of conservatism.
I’m interested if you have any opinions on that.
Another way of framing the issue in a historical way is that conservatives forgot about their social conscience. Once they ignored the social consequences of their actions, it spilled over and really stunted their interpretations of “individual responsibility.”
Kim-thanks for coming & I will be purchasing your book.
Can you address the rise of the right wing press (expressly Murdoch and his purchase of the NY Post) and how integral a part that played in the overall drive to weaken and ultimately destroy democracy? Also, what were the other forces the right used in conjunction with this strategy?
Sorry, I posted without reading your question. You framed the issues I raised about Protestant/Roman Catholic work ethic, with more detail than i could muster. Thanks.
By the way, Kim has a new baby daughter who may be spitting up on her as we speak. :-)
Spiritual Mobilization is totally strange – one of those groups that seems like a dead end but also manages to prefigure so much of what comes later. For me it really shows that the business conservatives are always thinking about ways to attract a base and to appeal to a mass audience. SM goes nowhere because it is really their creation; there’s no genuine base in the churches. That’s what is different about Falwell and the religious right in the 1970s.
It is a complicated question whether there are organic links. On the one hand there are ways that Protestantism in particular has close connections with free market ideas (think of Weber). And I think that a harsh moral universe is part of free market thought and has been for a long time. Many of these business guys were very interested in religion and devout themselves. But there also seem to be real differences and tensions, both socially and intellecutally.
In response to Kim at 13:
In the UK, Baroody wouldn’t have been able to get away with it, even today. Gideon Rachman writes:
“However, I have now discovered a genuine government department with a title straight out of Dickens – it is the Department of Sensitive Words. This excellent institution has been brought to my attention by a man who is trying to establish a think-tank and to use the word “Institute” in its title. Since my friend is still involved in sensitive negotiations with the Department of Sensitive Words, I have promised not to reveal his identity. The problem is that Companies House deems certain words as “sensitive” because they are thought to convey an impression of authority or trustworthiness. Institute is one such word; British is another. If you want to use a word like this you have to get special permission from a sub-unit of Companies House – the Department of Sensitive Words, which is based in Swansea. In true Dickensian style, this is not an easy process. Companies House does provide a few guidelines on sensitivity on its web-site (its chapter three). But there is no form you can fill in and no obvious criteria to fulfill. But this is probably for the best. You don’t want any old person calling themselves “British” or “Institute”.”
I did a blog post talking about the incongruence between the relevant bit of yr book and Gideon’s blogpost at http://crookedtimber.org/2009/…..proposals/
i’ll never forget how ray-gun busted the air traffic controllers union and we still have repercussions dating back to that time…. imo
de-regulation is nothing short of “the wealthy don’t have to pay their own bills
i still don’t understand how low and middle-income workers are so easily led by those in the high income bracket saying they “feel” your pain….
The book talks about anti-union campaigns (for these business conservatives the unions were the ultimate evil, harbingers of socialism), the rise of conservative think tanks and their dependence on business funding, the role of business donors in the goldwater campaigns, the Powell memorandum in the 70s…
The press is really important too – the book describes the part played by folks like Roger Milliken (anti union textile manufacturer who shut down his factory rather than bargain) in building the Natioanl Review, for example.
As a technical note: There is a “Reply” button in the lower right hand of each comment. By clicking “Reply” it pre-fills the name and comment number of the comment you are replying to.
but she’s really cute!!
There’s a big debate going on among American historians these days about whether the New Deal and its legacy, one seen as permanent features of American life, were just a “long exception” to the basically conservative, individualistic tenor of American life. Where do you stand in this debate?
How did this happen?
A lot of people emphasize social and cultural issues, the idea that working-class people were misled by their feelings about “guns, God, gays.” No question that that is a big part of it – as Rick shows so well in Nixonland.
But I think that the other side is that these economic ideas have their own logic and appeal, especially if your experience of your own life is that you have to be an isolated economic actor. If you have never had a union, if you do and it gets beat all the time, if you feel like you have to struggle up by your own bootstraps and there’s no collective support – then it becomes easier to believe that the market is the only way to make things happen.
In a way, as the right beats unions, cuts social programs, etc, it is able to make a world in which its ideas seem like the only logical ones.
The book is as much about where this agenda came from as the reasons it was able to gain electoral support. But I do think that the economic ideas of the right have a certain appeal, on their own terms.
Got to go back and catch up on comments.
But I just want to say welcome–and say how pleased I am that Rick is introducing your book to us. I listened to your book on audible.com about two months ago, and asked myself what Rick Perlstein would have to say.
So this is a treat. Welcome, Kim.
Sorry about the delay…my computer froze and I had to restart it.
I tend to agree overall that the New Deal and postwar era seem more and more exceptional. One thing I kept thinking about while writing the book was that the New Deal could only happen under such extraordinary conditions of economic and political collapse. There’s such strong resistance in this country to even the smallest reforms, it sometimes seems.
At the same time I wouldn’t want to say that American culture is inherently individualistic, either – there are too many other examples of tendencies in different directions. And it’s just too pessismistic to say that the country is inherently conservative.
Thanks – glad that you saw the C-Span show!
I do talk about religion and the opposition to New Dealism in the book…in the 50s, when business conservatives tried to build a movement with ministers to fight the idea of the social gospel – and in the 70s, when people like Jerry Falwell tried to frame the Christian conservative cause as an anti-government crusade (which made it a lot easier for them to ally with business conservatives).
My response is that we don’t have a center-right nation, we have a center-right Constitution. And that, since the state has so little democratic accountability, and change is so hard to achieve, people basically give up on the possibility, and make virtue out of necessity.
Of course, Falwell was a deep-dyed economic conservatism. He said something like, “if you want to know how conservative I am, Barry Goldwater was too liberal for my taste.” That’s what he was referring to.
Ah, no one has asked my two questions.
First, what do you think it would take for today’s execs to become as unpopular as business was under the New Deal. Obviously, there’s a lot of demonization, but it doesn’t seem to stick longer than a few days (and I’m in MI, where there ought to be a lot more righteous anger). Is it a factor of the corporatized media environment, or have we just not fallen far enough yet? Or do we need a Pecora Commission, as Pelosi has called for?
Second, as I listened to your book, I kept wondering about ties between what you described and earlier movements. I understand the logic of starting at the New Deal (and FDR provides a necessary counterpoint). But what threads do you think legitimately had roots before the New Deal?
He loved to quote Milton Friedman, and his magazine attacked “faceless bureaucrats” as enthusiastically as it did supporters of gay rights….
And while I’m waiting–a pitch for those who haven’t bought this yet. I listened to this on a road trip with mr. ew, who claims to hate politics. But we ended up picking it over a book on comic books we had been looking forward to-it was very readable.
Kim, I tend to see the need to look at Labor History anew, particularly the period in the 50’s and 60’s when the Business anti-union efforts were first relatively successful in slowing and stopping the growth and coverage of labor unions. Key decisions were made by AFL-CIO not to extend organization, not to invest in organizers, and at another level, not to come clean with existing union members regarding the likely impact of major technological changes that would impact the workplace. Decisions I’ve looked at include meatpackers decisions not to extend into food processing generally, which would have gotten them into organizing farm workers, their reluctance to strongly support Chavez, for instance, or to simply pick up on the theme Murrow so aptly developed in “Harvest of Shame” in 1959. In existing unions — I’ve looked at honesty about automation in Rubber and Steel. The leadership just flatly misled members into believing they could stop technology.
Thanks, Sara! You’ve asked the questions I wanted to ask.
Those are great questions. For the first one – yes, we need a Pecora Commission. We need a political party that is willing to take business on more directly and consistently. I think that there is a lot of anger, but since it has no place to go, it tends to get dissipated rather quickly.
There are lots of threads of economic conservatism that go back before the New Deal. Business obviously was intensely involved in politics in the late 19th – early 20th century and there was a whole intellecutal apparatus around that as well (think of Social Darwinism). But I do think that after the new Deal, the business conservatives feel they are starting from a position of weakness, whereas previously they thought they had the upper hand. Things really did change as a result of the New Deal – that’s why people like Amity Shlaes still go after it today.
Unions definitely made many decisions that hurt their cause…there’s no question about that. Not investing in organizers, not finding ways to appeal to white collar workers, never being able to crack the South.
So I agree, although I also think that it’s important to look at the decisions that employers are making – which create the terrain on which unions have to fight.
In a nutshell, can you say what lessons the Left can learn from your book?
And Boulware’s middle name is Ricketts – how’s that for Dickensian?
Is the book available as an audiotape or on CD? You say you listened to it while on a road trip: was that on tape, or did you read it aloud?
deleted
Audible.com is a great MP3 download service.
http://www.audible.com/adbl/si…..Cookie=Yes
They’ve got up-to-date titles for similar prices to hardcovers (or less if you get a membership).
Only, last I checked they don’t have Rick’s Nixonland yet…
This is a tricky question, but here are a couple of things I took from the research….
First – be prepared to fight like hell for any change you want to see happen. For a long time, the idea that there was a real consensus – a “labor-management accord” – in mid-20th century America has dominated the way people see the achievements of that period. But this was overstated: opposition to labor and the welfare state remained intense and grew over time as business conservatives thought they could make inroads. The reality is that these kinds of changes involve serious struggle. It amazed me how hostile these business conservatives were to changes that didn’t seem that radical to me.
Second – be in it for the long haul. These conservative business activists knew that they would be fighting for a long time. They went in and committed themselves regardless.
There are other potential lessons but I’ll start there….
As to the South — I think it was fairly well understood in the 40’s that no Union-Labor progress could be made until Jim Crow had been done away with for good. But the irony is that so much of the Civil Rights Movement actually depended on the earlier experience of the Labor Movement nationally — not only in terms of style and culture, but in key legal matters. When, in the 1960’s we got down to writing Civil Rights Law, it was done very consciously so that much of the body of settled labor law would be precident for the new Civil Rights Laws. The problem, it seems to me, is that once the Civil Rights movement succeeded, and cleared the deck of Jim Crow, the Labor Movement just plum failed to exploit the opening that was provided in the South.
I’ll just throw this in, I think the Roman Catholic Church, ever since John 23rd’s passing, deserves a lot of the blame in the U.S. and western Europe. It’s misogynist attitudes have insured an all-male, all anti-choice, all anti-contraception priesthood, that has made it very difficult for mainline Protestant denominations to adopt less reactionary attitudes.
RC Bishops routinely give paper thin support to a select few liberal and progressive causes, but it’s a tired head fake. They drill-baby-drill the utterly empty conservative misrepresentations of “individual responsibility,” that have fed the GOP.
Sorry to say, I’ve never heard of your book, but it sounds like something I’d enjoy. I have a question about whether there was a connection between the folks you talk about and George Wallace’s presidential run in 1968.
I have GOT to read this book. Off to the bookstore in an hour.
Rus, Santa Rosa, Ca
Not really, not a strong one. I think that Wallace seemed not sufficiently anti-union.
Although there is the short-lived attempt to get Reagan and Wallace to run on a third-party ticket together in 1976….Reagan bringing in the free-market people and Wallace the social conservatives. That was Richard Viguerie’s idea, anyway.
Sorry, didn’t mean to imply that the RC Church didn’t have a lot of responsibility before John 23rd.
Well, the unions did try, but they also faced some of the nastiest opposition from employers in the South anywhere in the country!
I really like your example about the difficulties of getting students to care about the AAA. I wonder if that’s changing today at all.
Boo, you can get at the same issue without getting into the “cultural” issues if you look at the late 1960’s decisions of the American Bishops to get out of the Parochial School business when, largely as a result of Vatican II, there was a movement in progressive Catholic Circles to create a labor union for nuns. At the time, the dioceses and parishes basicly paid $125.oo per month for a nun teacher, which even in the 60’s was hardly enough to feed her, let alone pay for education, professional development and the like. But just the first stage of “Union Talk” led to a decision by the Bishops to simply phase out the Parochial School Systems. Something as simple as asking the dioceses and parishes to pay the employer’s part of Social Security so that the nun’s would have something to eat on retirement was a total bombshell for the Bishops.
I wanted to pick up on this point about the public face of the conservative movement and how it reinvented itself. Another point of Invisible Hands is that the conservative movement is MORE than its public face – it isn’t just the tea parties, the pro-life rallies, the campaigns. Part of what the business conservatives did was build a top-down populism. But the other way that they achieved victories was by creating an intellectual infrastructure and a lobbying apparatus that could to some extent transcend electoral victories and defeats and continue to exert influence. Part of why they have been so successful is that they managed to shift the actual balance of power in the country.
I went to Catholic high school in the early 60’s, and our history class was full of labor history. This is an important socialization tool for young people, at least for me, it has colored my attitude towards the rich ever since.
I figured that was true. People usually forget that Wallace was at least technically pro-union.
Thanks.
IIRC, you did a post on Rudy Giuliani helping the bishops pillage the retirment of some women’s orders. If you recall, could you point me towards a link?
This is a fascinating story!
And then of course you had the rise of Fox “news” and Porcine Rush to the mix. Kim do you think that was intentional or just responding to a market demand?
I haven’t done research on Fox specifically, but it seems too intensely political to simply be a response to market demand.
Someday someone will crack those archives.
Wallace had good reason to be pro-Union. He needed support from the Steelworkers in Birmingham, one of the few places in the South where the Labor Movement flowered. Problem was, the racial caste system was also part of the Birmingham picture, and had to at least begin to change after 1964. Probably had a good deal to do with shutting down the blast furnaces in Birmingham.
Yea, there was a series about it in “The Nation” — perhaps ten or twelve years ago.
Re Milliken, did he play a role in Reagan’s busting of the Air Traffic Controllers union?
We’re getting near the end, so I just wanted to add one more thing to my response about the tea parties. The business conservatives I write about always believed that they really had the support of most of the country — or they would, if only workers weren’t misled by the unions, the liberals, whoever. They believed that the market had given them their power and that the market was inherently democratic. They saw thesmelves as populists. In many ways they were disingenous even with themselves…
As we come to the end of this great Book Salon,
Kim, Thank you for stopping by the Lake and spending
the afternoon with is discussing your new book and politics.
Rick, Thank you very much for Hosting today’s Book Salon.
Everyone, this is a very good book and if you haven’t bought it yet, here is a link.
Thanks all.
Milliken didn’t – but Reagan was at General Electric in 1960, when the company used Lemuel Boulware’s strategies (insisting on keeping the factories running, sending managers to the homes of strikers to urge them to cross the picket line, collecting support from shareholders, running anti-strike ads in local papers, threatening to close plants, even getting women employees to call radio shows posing as the disgruntled wives of strikers) to bust up a national strike. It was one of the big early defeats for a union in a national labor conflict in the postwar period. I think that Reagan learned a lot from being at the company (who would be a lifelong fan of the movie star turned politician) during that strike.
Thanks again for baving me on, Bev, and to Rick and Henry!
Thank you Ms Phillips-Fein. I have a road trip coming up ordered the audio book (thanks for the tip EW – good idea.
Thank you, Kim Phillips-Fein et. al. – this has been fascinating.
And thanks once again to FDL for these awesome Book Salons…
understood-and fascinating. That’s about a 15-year germination period. Also probably contributed to his racially deviant slant to the onset of his political campaigns in the south.
Thank you for coming.
Thanks very much.
Brilliant. Where are the Democratic spinmeisters who are arguing the other side, those not busy selling cellophane that masquerades as democratic values?
I wonder to what extent the American resistance to progressive ideas isn’t pretty tightly correlated to the role of race? I keep thinking how successful the “powers that be” have been in using racial hatred and fear to keep whites in line, from the founding of the nation to the present day?
The more I think and read about this, the more I come to the conclusion of many historians: the story of America IS the story of race in America…
Kim has the facts about Hayek and the Mont Pelerin society wrong — she simply doesn’t know enough about Hayek or the society to understand what Hayek was up to or what the purpose of the Mont Pelerin was for Hayek.
The MP society had no place for businessmen because it wasn’t about businessmen or public propoganda — even the most primitive historians of the MP society get this. The society was a place for mostly very isolated classical liberals to get together with other classical liberals to discuss and debate and develop their work and their ideas.
It was a place for idea people to discuss ideas — business people had no place in such a discussion.
Kim is simply spinning a tale for her own political purposes to suggest otherwise.
This is agenda driven journalism, it is not competent and scholarly history of ideas.
Kim writes:
“One thing that was really amazing to me in researching the book is how aware conservative activists were of the need to hide the role of business. Friedrich Hayek, for example, organizing the first meeting of Mont Pelerin Society (his exclusive group for intellectuals reinventing the idea of the free market) told his business supporters that he didn’t want them to become real members, because it would look bad. William Baroody changing the name of American Enterprise Association to INSTITUTE, so that it sounds less like a trade group….”
If you want to learn actual facts about Hayek, go to the “Taking Hayek Seriously” web site, home of the Hayek Scholars Page:
http://hayekcenter.org