what happened next: “A number of Council members expressed their concern with election procedures and the results produced…. Members were constrained to vote for eight out of nine names,” adding that “many considered this undesirable both for the members voting and the candidates running.”94 Obviously, giving the Council’s membership a slight choice was considered a dangerous excess of democracy when a favorite of the CFR’s inner power structure was voted out. Within a few years election procedures were changed, and beginning in 1985 the nominating committee was required to “propose a slate of nominees equal to the number of vacancies in any election.”95 This gave the existing directors absolute power over who would serve on the board, with the membership simply ratifying the selections of the nominating committee. In 1994–95 another change took place in the board’s election rules, whose effect was similar to the prior undemocratic setup. Since that point in time down to the present (2014), three board members are elected from a slate of six (or rarely seven) chosen by the nominating committee, and three or four more are selected by the board. Therefore, the three (or four) losing candidates in each election can be selected by the board, or the board can select different individuals. Thus, since 1985, with minor changes, power has been even more completely concentrated in the hands of the existing board, and the membership has been less and less involved in the overall election process, with typically only a little over a third of the members bothering to vote in a given “election.” The number on the board has gradually been expanded, and as of 2014 there were thirty-six individuals serving on it, each with a five-year term.96
The 2011 board election at the Council was typical of elections since 1994–95; members chose three directors from a list of six candidates selected by the nominating committee, and three more directors were appointed by the board itself. Only about one-third of Council members (33.9 percent), bothered to vote, but this was considered acceptable and within the bylaws of the organization.97 Elections held during 2012, 2013, and 2014 had similar results, low turnout of members, three individuals elected to the board, and four appointed.98
The Nature of Democracy within the CFR
The CFR board election process makes it clear that like the nation as a whole, the organization operates under a form of managed “democracy.” Elections are a democratic formality without real choice, and half or more of all board directors are typically appointed by the existing board. There is a provision for CFR members to nominate additional candidates by petition, but this has been done only occasionally, and in every case the outside nominee or nominees lost. In sum, the choices offered to members in selecting the Council leadership are limited to capitalist-class insiders. Voting on candidates from a preselected list is not democracy, rather it is the hollowed-out illusion of democracy. The point of such farcical elections is simply to provide a veneer of legitimacy. But it is also clear that most members do not care and are satisfied to operate under the hegemony of the CFR’s existing power structure.
THE MEMBERSHIP
The second fundamental organizational feature of the Council is membership. The CFR has two categories of members, individual and corporate, and thus will be discussed in that order. In 1984, then-president Winston Lord described CFR’s individual membership as “our most important and vital resource and audience,” pointing out that even a “casual glance” at the membership list illustrates the “quality and range of American leaders who have been elected to join the Council.”99 The Council’s 2011 Annual Report expanded on this by stating that it is a membership organization whose “ranks include top government officials, renowned scholars, business leaders, acclaimed journalists, prominent lawyers, and distinguished nonprofit professionals” who are “unmatched in accomplishment and diversity in the field of international affairs” and “discuss and debate the major foreign policy issues.” They “have unparalleled access to world leaders, senior government officials, members of Congress, and prominent thinkers.”100 The 2014 Annual Report became even more specific:
CFR’s members are and always have been its most valuable asset, a pillar of the institution’s strength, and an indication of its influence. The roster today counts two former U.S. presidents and two vice presidents (there have been a total of seven of each in CFR’s history); twenty-six Pulitzer Prize winners; nine Nobel laureates; ninety-six Rhodes scholars; fifty-two leaders of Fortune 500 companies; forty-two special envoys; and sixty-two admirals and generals in the U.S. armed forces. Since CFR’s founding, thirty secretaries of state have served as members … the caliber of CFR’s members is one reason the organization is able to attract such prominent speakers.101
These quotes illustrate the CFR’s unique essence as a powerful body that is both a membership organization and a think tank marrying action and reflection—people of “affairs” with people of “ideas.” Its life and activities are made possible through a membership that is a delicately balanced combination of leaders of capitalist corporations, especially in finance but also industry, communications, and law; leaders of intellectual life, especially in top universities, but also in journalism and other think tanks; and leaders in government, especially the federal government, but also state and local government. If any of these three main components get too weak or too strong, the Council begins to lose what it considers its true character. For example, in 2011 membership was divided almost equally between men and women of “affairs”—from business, government and, law—and individuals of “ideas”—including university professors and administrators, nonprofit employees, and journalists—(49 percent and 42 percent respectively), with “other” making up the remaining 9 percent.102
Individual membership in the Council is by invitation only. U.S. citizens with the time, interest, connections, foreign policy credentials, and the ability to pay high annual dues can apply, but the membership committee of the board and the board of directors decides who to invite to become a member. Potential members must be recommended by a current CFR member and be seconded by three other individuals, preferably also Council members.103 CFR membership is always growing; it has increased from 1,725 in 1976 to 4,900 in 2014.104 Once in the Council, as a regular member, one normally stays in the organization for life, as long as the yearly dues are paid. These dues are high, and there is internal pressure to make an additional donation every year. Depending upon age, residence location, and profession (business or non-business) members currently pay dues from a low of $250 to a high of $3,610 a year.105
On rare occasions, a member will quit the organization. Chalmers Johnson, a University of California professor who late in life became disenchanted with the Council and U.S. foreign policy in general, called and told the female staffer on the phone that he wanted to cancel his membership. She answered, “Professor Johnson, I’m sorry, sir. No one cancels their membership in the Council on Foreign Relations. Membership is for life. People are canceled when they die.” Johnson, not missing a beat, replied, “Consider me dead.”106
During the late 1960s–early 1970s the CFR recognized that its membership policies were outdated and needed a serious overhaul. Consequently, membership was opened for the first time to women, and the body also became more open to minorities and younger people, three groups that had previously been largely invisible in Council membership and activities. A five-year “term” membership category for people thirty to thirty-six years old was established to continuously recruit and train the next generation of foreign policy experts and leaders. Many of those in the term membership program have gone on to become regular lifetime members of the CFR. In addition, Council leaders determined that a better geographical balance was needed between the historically dominant New York, the rising Washington, and the rest of the nation. The need for a delicate balance dictated a very gradual approach, and several decades would be required to create a newer CFR membership. In 1977 Council president Bayless Manning made it clear that while increasing diversity, maintaining the right balance within the membership was of the highest importance. For example, the number of academics in the CFR had to be limited to the correct ratio compared to those from business, law, and government because academics can more easily allocate time to CFR activities, which could result in a tendency for the Council to lose its unique character as an organization connected to real-world policymaking and “become over-academicized.”107