4. The specific tasks of analysis and proposal would be undertaken by "commissions of inquiry," under the guidance of an overall committee; this committee would concert the work of the commissions of inquiry and combine their proposals in sets of alternatives to be offered for consideration.

5. There would be no effort to seek a false unity or consensus on findings and recommendations. On the contrary, commissions of inquiry would emphasize differences and alternatives, through majority and minority reports and other means. Different models, embracing different ends-means relationships, might be developed and publicized.

6. Reports and recommendations would be intellectually solid and sophisticated but would be presented in forms usable by the media and by teachers of American history and government. They would be cumulative and "future-oriented;" they might, for example, be publicized as "reports to a future convention." Such a convention, to take place perhaps in 1987, could be part of the 1987 APSA annual convention, or APSA and other scholarly groups might sponsor a special convention that year, or there might be an informal or indeed even a formal Constitutional Convention. APSA's main concern would be the caliber and availability of needed intellectual resources.

7. Membership in the committees of inquiry would not be limited to specialists in American government, but would include scholars in the fields of comparative government, public administration, political psychology, and in allied fields of history, philosophy, and others. A special effort would be made to enlist the humanistic concerns and orientations of historians.

8. The inquiry would be announced and inaugurated in ways calculated not to arouse false hopes or expectations; the approach, especially in the early stages, might be low key. The project would hope, however, to raise the intellectual level of the celebration of the forthcoming bicentennials and to reduce some of the trivialization that has marked much of the celebration of the present one.

9. The project would be financed by a variety of sources, public and private, foundation, philanthropic and other.

James MacGregor Burns

President, American Political
Science Association

March, 1976

GEORG MEANY

President, AFL-CIO

JAMES G. PATTON

Past Pres. National Farmers Union

MILE PENNYRACKE
Industrialist

MARVIN ROSENBERG

Chairman, Cameo Curtains, Inc.

GLENN J. TALBOT

Past Vice Pres., National Farmers Union
M. W. THATCHER

Past Pres.. Nat. Fed. Grain Cooperatives

Honorable John Glenn
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Glenn:

The Conference on Economic Progress, and I personally, are in agreement with the excellent answers to all of the excellent questions set forth in your letter, with the following exceptions: We do not agree with the proposal in the Humphrey-Javits bill, calling for the establishment of a new agency to prepare balanced economic plans and establish long-term objectives. It would be in our viewpoint undesirable to set up another agency for that purpose. We strongly favor the Humphrey-Hawkins bill, S.50 and H.R. 50, which accomplishes the same purpose in what we regard as a highly preferable and more comprehensive manner, and Senator Javits is among several prime sponsors of that proposal on the Senate side. We do not agree that a council of social advisers to the President should be established as a counterpart to the President's Council of Economic Advisers. Economic policies and programs, and social policies and programs which require economic resources, are in our view inseparable, and should be processed together. The Humphrey-Hawkins bill provides fully for this. We also believe that the Humphrey-Hawkins bill provides a method for tapping the resources and thinking of those outside the Government which is highly preferable to the establishment of a permanent version of the Eisenhower Administration on national goals. It is fair to state that this commission, like other similar commissions, received a lot of attention in the media but practically no action response. We believe that a closer tie-in of this kind of work with the operations of the Employment Act of 1946, as provided in the Humphrey-Hawkins bill, should yield larger results. Indeed, that bill comprehends the predominance of what appear to be intended by the questions and answers you have sent me.

A much fuller statement of our views on these subjects is contained in my recent testimony on the Humphrey-Hawkins bill on March 15, 1976, before the Equal Opportunity Subcommittee of the House Committee on Education and Labor, which will be available to interested parties when printed.

2

We would appreciate it if the foregoing comments can be printed in your upcoming publication.

With all good wishes,

LHK/v1

Very sincerely yours,

Leon H. Keyserling

I THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE
PROBLEM OF DEVELOPING LONG-TERM GOALS AND STRATEGIES TO
ACHIEVE THESE GOALS. I AM REALLY PLEASED THAT YOU TOOK THE
TIME TO SEEK OUT PEOPLE WITH VARIOUS BACKGROUNDS AND IN
DIFFERENT LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT.

I

MY RESPONSE IS THE RESULT OF SEEING PROBLEMS, ESPECIALLY
THOSE FACED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL, AND TRYING TO SOLVE THEM.
HAVE WORKED WITH ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT, BUT HAVE HAD
MOST OF MY DEALINGS WITH THE FEDERAL LEVEL. BECAUSE OF THIS
EXPERIENCE, MY PHILOSOPHY IS DIFFERENT THAN MANY OF THOSE
AT THE SYMPOSIUM. I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN CONCERNED WITH THE
PROBLEMS OF THE SMALL AND MEDIUM SIZED CITIES OF THE NATION,
THAT IS WHY I AM RESPONDING TO YOUR REQUEST, AND THAT IS
WHY I AM WORKING FOR ONE.

IF I CAN BE OF FURTHER ASSISTANCE, PLEASE CONTACT ME.

IAB: MM

ENC

69-838 0-76-47

SINCERELY,
Allen Barber

ALLEN BARBER

DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

1.

1. WHAT ROLE SHOULD GOVERNMENT PLAY IN SETTING LONG-TERM GOALS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF STRATEGIES FOR ACHIEVING THOSE GOALS?

GOVERNMENT HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO LOOK AHEAD, TO PLAN, TO SET OBJECTIVES, AND TO ASSIST IN DEFINING GOALS FOR THE NATION. THERE IS A VERY FINE LINE TO FOLLOW IN DOING THIS, FOR IF YOU STRAY TOO FAR ONE WAY, AN ELITE GROUP WILL BE IN CONTROL, AND THE IDEA WILL FAIL, OR IF YOU STRAY TOO FAR THE OTHER WAY, CHAOS WILL BE IN CONTROL, AND THE IDEA WILL FAIL. GOVERNMENT AND ROLE MUST FIRST BE DEFINED, AND EVERYTHING DEVELOPED FROM THAT POINT.

UNFORTUNATELY, GOVERNMENT HAS BECOME EQUATED WITH THE FEDERAL LEVEL. PEOPLE FORGET ABOUT THE STATE AND LOCAL LEVELS, OR CHOSE TO IGNORE THEM. THIS PHILOSOPHY HAS LED TO THE IDEA THAT THE FEDERAL LEVEL IS THE ULTIMATE SOLUTION TO ALL PROBLEMS, AND THE FEDERAL LEVEL HAS TRIED TO PROVE THIS CORRECT, BUT IS HAS FAILED. THE FEDERAL LEVEL CANNOT SOLVE PROBLEMS, DEALING WITH THE STATE OR LOCAL LEVEL; IT CAN ASSIST IN SOLVING THEM. THIS CAN BE SEEN IN THE NUMBER OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND POLICIES IN CRITICAL LOCAL AND STATE AREAS WHICH HAVE FAILED, OR HAVE BEEN CORRECTED AFTER A NUMBER OF TRIALS AND ERRORS. TO CORRECT THIS MISCONCEPTION, AND IMPORVE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE, GOVERNMENT AND ITS ROLE MUST BE REDEFINED.

GOVERNMENT IS THE COOPERATION OF ALL LEVELS WORKING TOGETHER FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD. EACH LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT HAS ITS OWN UNIQUE ROLE. STARTING AT THE LOCAL LEVEL, A LOCAL UNIT HANDLES THE DAY TO DAY PROBLEMS OF SOCIETY. IT COOPERATES WITH OTHER LOCAL UNITS IN SOLVING COMMON PROBLEMS. IT DECIDES WHICH PROBLEMS IT CANNOT HANDLE, AND SENDS THESE TO THE STATE. THE STATE MUST WORK ON TWO FRONTS. FIRST, IT MUST SOMEHOW TRY TO SOLVE THOSE PROBLEMS SENT UP TO IT BY THE LOCALATIES. SECOND, TI MUST WORK WITH NEIGHBORING STATES TO SOLVE MUTUAL PROBLEMS. PROBLEMS IN BOTH CATEGORIES WHICH THE STATE CANNOT SOLVE ARE SENT TO THE FEDERAL LEVEL, WHICH MUST WORK ON THESE FRONTS. FIRST, THE FEDERAL LEVEL MUST HELP EACH STATE SOLVE THOSE PROBLEMS WHICH THE STATE CANNOT HANDLE. SECOND, IT MUST WORK WITH THE STATES TO SOLVE PROBLEMS COMMON TO ALL. FINALLY, IT MUST WORK ON THE INTERNATIONAL FRONT, HOWEVER IT MUST CONSIDER THE NATIONAL NEEDS AND ATTITUDES IN THESE INTERNATIONAL DECISIONS. THIS IS A SIMPLE MODEL AND WOULD NOT ALWAYS WORK IN THIS FASHION, BUT IT MAKES ITS POINT.

EACH UNIT HAS A SPECIFIC ROLE, AND THAT ROLE CANNOT BE SUPERSEEDED BY ANOTHER UNIT FOR IF IT IS, THE RESULT, BASED ON PAST EXPERIENCE, WILL NOT ALWAYS BE GOOD. ALSO, PROBLEMS, GOALS, AND STRATEGIES ARE FILTERED UP. THIS PROCESS PROVIDES FOR THE MOST INPUT FROM ALL SECTORS SO THE FINAL PRODUCT IS ACCEPTABLE TO A MAJORITY. THIS LEADS TO THE CRITICAL POINT, GOALS AND STRATEGIES CANNOT BE SET AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL, GOVERNMENT IN TERMS OF THE SYMPOSIUM, UNLESS THE COMPLEX PROCESS AT THE STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO WORK AND FILTER UP PROBLEMS, AND SUGGESTED GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.