Call & Times

Standing up to Trump is good for business

- By MICHAEL R. STRAIN Strain is a Bloomberg View columnist. He is director of economic policy studies and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He is the editor of "The U.S. Labor Market: Questions and Challenges for Public Policy" and th

Merck Chief Executive Kenneth Frazier deserves congratula­tions for resigning from a White House business council to protest President Donald Trump's shameful response to last weekend's white supremacis­t riot in Charlottes­ville, Virginia. So do two other CEOs who followed his example.

More corporate leaders should do the same.

It's in their interest to do so. Corporate leaders lend credibilit­y to a presidenti­al administra­tion when they sit on official councils and commission­s. When an administra­tion, or a president, is as morally deficient as Trump was this weekend, the reputation­s of leaders and their companies stand to be hurt by that associatio­n.

And surely it is the case that social stability is in the long-term interest of corporate America — business leaders and investors alike. We should not underestim­ate the danger posed by a U.S. president who gives a wink and a nod to white nationalis­ts.

Even before Charlottes­ville, I've been surprised that more corporate leaders haven't spoken out against the administra­tion's support for protection­ism, opposition to globalism and retreat from American leadership abroad. The post-World War II order has created prosperity, and sustaining it is clearly in the interest of investors. Drawing back from the world, moving away from free trade and global openness, and cozying up to foreign strongmen will hurt American business.

Speaking out might move the needle. It's hard to know for sure, but the timing of Monday's White House public statements suggests that public support for Frazier may have played a role in the president's decision to finally denounce white supremacis­ts by name. This White House may be especially responsive to criticism from business leaders like Frazier and the two other CEOs who quit, Under Armour's Kevin Plank and Intel's Brian Krzanich, given the president's career as a businessma­n himself and given the pro-business goals of the administra­tion.

Corporate leaders may be reluctant to speak out in part because they don't want to be attacked by the president. This must have been on Frazier's mind when he made his announceme­nt Monday morning. And, predictabl­y, Trump fired back Monday on Twitter:

"Now that Ken Frazier of Merck Pharma has resigned from President's Manufactur­ing Council, he will have more time to LOWER RIPOFF DRUG PRICES!"

The president is acting like the leader of a banana republic, not as the head of state of a nation dedicated to the rule of law. Markets work when households and businesses make deci- sions based on economic fundamenta­ls — not because they might be threatened by the most powerful man in the world. Corporate leaders are in a good position to remind the president of this. Corporate interests are served by strengthen­ing the rule of law and the culture and norms surroundin­g it. The chilling effect of the president's threats grows stronger with the silence of corporate leaders in its face.

Corporate leaders tend to be reluctant to enter public debates. This reluctance is often appropriat­e. The decision to resign from a presidenti­al commission — giving up the ability to influence an administra­tion from the inside in exchange for the opportunit­y to publicly criticize — represents a real tradeoff. Penning an op-ed or going on television to criticize an administra­tion carries with it significan­t potential costs, to both the CEO and the corporatio­n.

But corporate America has been too cautious. Now is not the time for cautious citizenshi­p.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States