Page Five 3. Our education system must uplift the present level of civic understanding of the public, thereby stimulating more meaningful public participation in civic affairs; 4. Political parties should better articulate their ideas on long-range objectives for the nation and strategies for achieving them; 5. As discussed in connection with Question 1, we need freer, more open and more extensive communication between government and the public. Better use of the communications media toward this end is indicated; 6. The Council of Economic Advisors should be expanded and given responsibility for acting as a coordinating point for planning by other agencies; 7. The National Security Council and Domestic Council should be combined, since domestic and foreign affairs are related; 8. Congress should insist that each government agency's budget submission include a planning document stating goals, policy, etc. With respect to the establishment of new institutions specifically devoted to planning, major suggestions included: 1. A long-range planning body within the Smithsonian Institution that would produce reports on a continuing basis. The rationale for the Smithsonian as home base stems from its structural intersection with the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government, and its access to public and private funding; 2. A Council of National Advisors appointed by the President, the Congress and the Supreme Court to meet periodically to suggest and review national goals and objectives; 3. An Institute for Congress modeled after OTA or GAO to provide the Congress with analysis of possible approaches to a problem and resulting likely outcomes; 4. An Economic Planning Board in the Office of the President, as described in legislation (S. 1795) introduced in this Congress by Senators Humphrey and Javits. The Board would prepare balanced economic plans establishing long-term economic objectives and would submit such plans every two years to the President and the Congress for their endorsement; Page Six 5. A Council of Social Advisors for the President which would function as a counterpart to the present Council of Economic Advisors; 6. A National Foundation for the Purposes of Society to fund studies and pilot projects of goal setting; 7. A permanent version of the Eisenhower Administration's Commission on National Goals. The Commission would issue periodic reports to the Office of the President and/or Congress which in turn would be required to make official responses to the recommendations contained therein. Beyond the question of institutional reforms or additions, several participants suggested that the Environmental Impact Statement by used as a model for a more general "future impact statement", which might accompany every significant governmental decision. Such a statement would be designed to examine the impact of a given decision on the environment, employment, inflation, taxes, foreign policy, etc. Finally, in our discussion of planning systems of other countries in which free market economies exist, it was noted that the most successful systems involve a large element of agreement and cooperation among government, industry, and the public in formulating long-range plans. The foregoing represents at best a brief outline of what I and others on the Committee regarded as an extremely productive and much-needed exercise. I strongly agree with the observations made by various participants that we are presently going through a period in which confidence in government and more generally, in leadership, is at a low ebb in history. I am also certain, however, that if we in government can reform our own house and find a better way of utilizing the huge resources of talent, ideas and intrinsic dynamism that can be found among the American people, we will not only be true to our past history, but we will also have taken a giant step toward the restoration and elevation of our hopes for the future. In the final analysis, that may be the best legacy we could provide for future generations of Americans as we enter our third century as a nation. I look forward to reviewing whatever replies to our questions or other words of advice, oral or written, you would care to contribute to the Committee's efforts. If you would like these to be considered for publication, however, it will be necessary for me to receive them by March 31. If you have any questions, please let me know at (202) 224-3353 or contact Rosemarie O'Hare of my staff at the same number. Institute for Policy Studies 1901 Que Street, N.W., Washington, D. C. 20009 (202) ADams 4-9382 February 9, 1976 Senator John Glenn 204 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, D. C. 20510 Dear Senator Glenn: I very much enjoyed the seminar discussion of last Friday. I will be sending you a prospectus for a proposed Encyclopedia of Social Reconstruction which outlines the various questions that our nation will face over this next period. You may wish to make this prospectus part of the Hearing Record and perhaps think about ways that the Committee could seek answers to them. I found Dr. Goldmark's comments interesting and important although I do not know how it is possible to get decentralization in a capitalist economy where investment decision is in the hands of the "private" sector---unless local comunities cede to themselves the power of public enterprise and control over the great corporations. The one question I would have liked to ask Dr. Goldmark is whether he saw emulation of the metropolitan culture by small cities as a danger. It would seem to me that national media hampers the development of local cultures, turning smaller towns and cities into consumers rather than active, un-self-conscious makers and doers of art. It is a source of wonder to me that cities like Florence and Venice were able to develop great local cultures with populations of less than 100,000. I do not know why we could not do the same in the United States. I would urge that you begin discussions with Lewis Mumford on the question of the City, for he has the most powerful insights into its place in history. Certain considerations come to mind in considering Professor Pauling's point of view. The scientific humanism of Pauling may appear to be "soft", yet it is based on the best thinking that we have. His paper outlined the obvious, but nevertheless the necessary in the area of disarmament, unemployment, etc. I would not myself adopt the English utilitarian position which Pauling outlined. At least one reason is that governments must first cut the quantum of suffering which they initiate and sustain. In this sense it is well that we undertake to note that governments serve particular groupings over others. Thus, the Federal government is more useful, say, to the largest corporations than it is to the mom and pop stores. It is more useful to Lockheed or Exxon than it is to the person who needs inexpensive transportation. Finally, in the discussion I detected too much of a fear of the people. There was a sense in which the mandarins would save the people from bad judgments. But it is hard for me to read recent American history to suggest that the citizenry is not to be trusted as compared to the elites. The covenants which we make to each other in the third century must be based on trust of one another CABLE: IPSWASH ● WASHINGTON. D.C. Senator John Glenn unmediated through corporate or bureaucratic elites. Thus, we should not fear public assemblies which have the power of implementation. The history of the town meeting in 18th century New England is instructive in this regard, as are halting attempts at self management which we see developing in Tennessee, Vermont, etc. Your point that politicians are taking the heat for an economy and work process which they do not control is quite correct. The politician statesman must seek ways for workers, the employed, to control their work lives. One way to begin this process is through the application of first amendment rights to the plant itself. I am enclosing for your consideration a copy of a chapter from Notes on the Old System which deals with the development of congressional juries. I would, of course, be prepared to follow up this discussion. Alfred De Grazia has pointed out that the eighteenth-century Congress "was the product of the Enlightenment Mind and of the political forces born of that mind. It contained in its design several distinctive principles. First of all, the legislature should be the First Branch of Government. It should have the supreme power to legislate and to intervene in the government whenever and wherever individuals were done injustice." But, as De Grazia goes on to say, the word "mass" was missing from the vocabulary of the eighteenth century. The Founding Fathers still thought of the masses as the mob; today's rulers continue to see the people through such a distorted lens. The American Congress has this difficulty. During the period of antiwar marches in Washington it was not until 1971 that members of Congress would see the marchers as anything but a mob. Members of Congress were frightened by the marches; most identified their interests with state /146/ |