The answer, at least so far, seems to bernall three. Older plant supervisors, technicalrnspecialists, field representatives, andrndesign engineers, having faced thernprospect of indentured servitude to anrnendless parade of upwardly mobile butrnclueless “managers,” are leaving as soonrnas the ink dries on early retirement andrnseverance packages. This talent drain hasrnresulted in the outsourcing of criticalrntechnical and skilled consultative jobs tornemployment agencies filled with contractrnlaborers—often the very people whornwere forced out! The major difference,rnof course, is that this new underclass hasrnno benefits and can be released on a moment’srnnohce. The only drawback is thatrnthis disposable workforce has questionablernloyalty to the mother company. Inrnan industry which frequently requiresrnthree years to bring a product from “conceptrnto job one,” it is unclear what thernlong-term quality consequences of such arnlabor pool will be. It may not take thatrnlong to find out: 1999 marked the firstrntime in over a decade that Ford trailedrnboth General Motors and Chrysler in thernrace for quality.rnStill, the indignities suffered by “forhire”rnspecialists pale in comparison tornthose inflicted upon Ford employeesrnwho try to stay on in “soft-skill” managerialrnpositions reserved for minorities andrnyoung guns whose main promotion potentialrnseems to be their willingness tornuproot themselves and their families everyrn18 months to pursue careers in “overseasrnassignments” and experience the fullrnrange of Ford’s global empire. Unfortunately,rnone-and-a-half years is a grossly inadequaternamount of time to learn thernfundamentals of most new assignments,rnso more experienced employees arernasked to train their own replacements.rnWorse, this new breed of worker is neverrnheld accountable for performance, sincernany undesirable “metrics” can be attributedrnto the previous transient, passedrnon to the next executive gypsy, or, in anrnunusually Machiavellian twist—even byrncorporate standards—blamed on the careerrnspecialists who “wrote the book” butrnwho, apparently, are no longer able tornread it.rnThus, older workers are encouraged tornresign or face unpleasant consequences.rnOne tactic involves a forced move to anrnundesirable geographic location whichrnwill maximize the burden on family life:rnfor example, away from an ancestralrnhome, an ailing elderly parent, or a secondrnbusiness. This may mean giving uprna spouse’s career or moving school-agernchildren in midterm. Less subde harassmentrntechniques include denied vacationrnrequests, overwhelming workloads,rnand frequent public insults. Companycarrnprivileges are revoked. Pay raises andrnpromotions for such people are nonexistent.rnWhile demotions are less common,rnthey certainly can be used to devastatingrneffect on particularly hard cases. Overrntime, frustration and monetary inflationrnwill ensure the extinction of this species.rnAnd to what end? So it can be honestlyrnadvertised to the world that at Ford, diversityrnis job one? To prove that Ford isrnno longer an American company but arnbusiness citizen of the New World Order?rnTo destroy the very fiber of a culturernthat built such automotive icons as thernModel T, the Thunderbird, and thernMustang? This company was never perfect,rnand even a casual observer of itsrnproduct line and social history can pointrnto some spectacular failures. But, whateverrnhis faults, Henry Ford left an indeliblernand largely positive stamp on the facernof our country and the “car culture” thatrnwe as Americans so passionately embrace.rnThis is still a proud company,rnsteeped deeply in tiadition and lore. Thernlegend of its founder’s genius still stirs admirationrnand awe, even among the newrnelite. But I can’t help thinking that somethingrnirreplaceable has been lost in therncurrent zeal to transform this companyrnfrom a family-run business into a facelessrnglobal giant devoid of any sense that Fordrnis fundamentally an American institution.rnI wonder what “Uncle Henry” wouldrnthink?rnThere’s no question what Mr. Nasserrnthinks. A Lebanese-born, internationallyrneducated “renaissance man” who doesrnnot hesitate to recount the cultural bigotryrnhe suffered as a student, he has seenrnthe future, and it is not American (or European,rnfor that matter). It’s a global village,rnand the idiots come in all colors.rnToo bad all the profits come from onerncontinent. The title of an AutomotivernNews article pretty much says it all: “N.A.rnprofits save day for Ford.” It should bernobvious by now that, setting aside the disastrousrnsocial consequences, Nasser’srnstrategy doesn’t work on the business level.rnBut Ford’s been pouring money intornSouth America and Europe for years, sornthe payoff musf be just around the corner,rnand the ongoing expense of carryingrnthese perennial losers can always be financedrnthrough job cuts in the States!rnAfter all, it only took eight years and a fewrnbillion dollars to turn Jaguar around.rnFlush with cash. Ford has invested heavilyrnin various prestigious European andrnJapanese marquees (Volvo, Aston-Martin,rnMazda, and Jaguar) while simultaneouslyrnoutsourcing every conceivable subassemblyrnof U.S. vehicles to Mexico,rnCanada, and South America in order tornreduce the costs (and in most cases thernquality) of the parts in what are nowrnAmerican cars in name only.rnThe irony of this situation is that Fordrnsurvived the Japanese, labor strikes, gasrnshortages, government regulations, andrnthe Edsel, but it may not survive thern”leadership” of the current board of directors.rnThe only real hope would bernsome kind of shareholder revolt (ideallyrnled by the Ford family) based on the patheticrnperformance of the outstandingrnstock. Reacting to a heavy reliance onrnthe North American truck market (andrnpossibly to the European and SouthrnAmerican follies mentioned above), andrnsuspecting that the boom is over, investorsrnhave been dumping Ford stockrnfor some time now, causing a precipitousrndecline in share prices (23 percent overrnthe last year). But while poor stock pricesrnmight cause the ouster of the currentrnCEO, in all likelihood his successor,rngroomed in the new tradition of “go globalrnor die,” would simply carry out therntragic policies established by his predecessor.rnWhatever its financial success,rnthat’s a sad legacy indeed for the newrnFord Motor Company, and the beginningrnof the end for a once-great car company,rnbecause a legend grows best on itsrnown soil.rn]ohn Freeman works for Ford.rnLIBERAL ARTSrnDEFENSE POLICY FOR ArnNEW MILLENNIUMrn”As I considered [the Great Wall] . . .rnon a recent trip to China, I was struckrnby the colossal waste of human energ)’rnand intelligence it symbolizes. Tornbuild a wall only to keep the rest of thernworld out, to divide China from thernwhole of the human family —howrnmuch better to have applied that ingenuityrnto bridges of commerce ratherrnthan walls of isolation! Despite its architecturalrnmagnificence, the GreatrnWall is . . . a great monument tornstatism.”rn—from Acton Notes (May 2000), thernnewsletter of the Acton Institute forrnthe Study ofRehgion and Libertyrn40/CHRONICLESrnrnrn