VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

# SUBPANEL VI - U.S. DEMOCRATIC PROCESS - ITS CHALLENGE AND OPPORTUNITY

## INTRODUCTION

As we move into the second half of the twentieth century, and look ahead to the problems of governance that loom up over the next ten to fifteen years, democracy in America faces a threefold problem. How to survive; how to conserve and broaden our material achievement; and how to maintain at the same time those moral values and political institutions without which mere survival would really mean tragic defeat, and continuation of material output signify a desert of the spirit. Yet survival is necessary to the continuation of our moral and political life; and material achievement underlies our unexampled opportunity to share throughout our society and more broadly in the world, the chance for every man to make the most of himself.

Survival bulks large in our thought, because our society is challenged today as much in its spiritual foundations as in its physical integrity; and the challenge is fortified by an opponent commanding an enormous organization of material power and moral fanaticism. The challenge of survival puts sharply the question whether our society can continue to rely on our hitherto time-tested methods of national decision, and on the kinds of policies at home and abroad that have fitted well with widely dispersed centers of power and authority. And it may well be here that the single greatest challenge to our democratic society lies: to demonstrate that we can survive and achieve in the face of mortal threat while preserving the essentials of our democracy.

VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

- 2 -

A central problem for any society is how to formulate, articulate, communicate and give effect to its purposes and aspirations. For only insofar as a political society can meet this problem can it deal with major matters of national interest and purpose. But the special problem of a democratic society is to do these things in ways that are consonant with the dignity of the individual, the preservation and widening of human freedom, and the achievement of those moral and material goals, aspirations, and values that make freedom worth having.

It is necessary for us to be clear about our goals and aspirations and about the nature of the democratic processes whereby we formulate them and act to achieve them.

## Goals and Aspirations

Goals, aspirations, and processes are at bottom matters of policies.

Every consideration of policy in the United States is fundamentally bounded by politics both in terms of limits and possibilities. "Politics" is not to be understood in its belittling common use: it is more than the behavior of bosses, ward heelers, or hangers-on around city halls or the lobbies of Congress.

The full meaning of politics is to bring force under law, and ground law on consent to justice. Politics in this sense is the whole art of establishing government under law for a nation that translates its purposes into action, defends its basic values at home and abroad, and by a free union

into action, delimits its broad values at home and abroad, and by a free union
establishing government under law for a nation that translates its purposes
law on consent to justice. Politics in this sense is the whole art of

The full meaning of politics is to bring force under law, and around
Congress.

of power, word preferences, or preferences on around city halls or the fopperies of
not to be understood in its defiling common use: it is more than the behavior
pounded by politics both in terms of limits and possibilities. "Politics" is
Every consideration of policy in the United States is fundamentally

## Goals and Aspirations

and not to achieve them.

If it is necessary for us to be clear about our goals and aspirations

make freedom worth having.

achievement of those moral and material goals, aspirations, and values that
the individual, the preservation and widening of human freedom, and the
society is to do these things in ways that are consonant with the quality of
of national interest and purpose, but the special problem of a democratic
at a political society can meet this problem can it deal with major matters
communicate and give effect to its purposes and aspirations. For only in such
a central problem for any society is how to formulate, articulate,

July 11, 1987
(3x4 Draft)
VI - Report

VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

- 3 -

seeks for itself and its posterity those things which are aptly summarized
in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States.

Nowhere have the goals of the United States been more succinctly
stated in their continuing form than in that Preamble:

> "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure
> domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense,
> promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of
> Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity ..."

No one denies that we have striven mightily and achieved much in our
efforts to attain these ends. But by their very nature, these goals can never
be finally achieved; and because of the condition and prospects of the world
today, we cannot achieve them by actions confined to our boundaries. Our
future is not wholly within our own hands. To safeguard our community
at home, we must strive to create a world in which the essential practices
and values of our own country can survive inner and outer challenge, as
we seek a more perfect Union. Similarly we must seek Justice, Tranquility,
Defense, and Welfare in a world context. Even more than these, our search
for the Blessings of Liberty involves us in the cause of liberty throughout
the world.

There is no reason to change or revise these goals, or to add to
them. They are morally, politically, and materially adequate. But every
political society must face afresh the ways it seeks these goals, as the
resources, the technology, and the moral and political conditions of the
world change. The essence of our problems of policy formation in government

VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

- 4 -

is the search for agreement on those intermediate purposes, aspirations,
and actions that will lead us on toward these enduring objectives.

This continuing task will be the better done if we can somehow re-
capture something of the deep emotional sense of mission that animated us
when we uttered the Preamble, and revitalize our own sense of what we are
as a society. We can perhaps turn to immigrants or visitors to learn how
important these are. Charles Malik, of the Lebanon, has recently reminded
us,

"You have in your own traditions certain invaluable beliefs about man and society and history and human destiny and the nature of God -- beliefs that you should not be ashamed of, that you should feel free to export and to teach others. But first you must rediscover them yourselves and believe in them profoundly yourselves. Many of you have taken life too much for granted. Therefore, the great deposit of belief and conviction and interpretation of life which has come down to you, you simply don't honor enough.

***

"You are diffident about your own ideas ... about man and society and history and human destiny and the forms of government and the relation between man and the economic process, and so forth. You practice these things -- they are more or less unconscious with you -- but you have not sufficiently articulated them to the extent of being able to mediate them intellectually to the rest of the world.

***

"Either you believe in what one might call the values of freedom which include respect for individuality, high regard for personal integrity, freedom of expression, faith, in reason and discussion, a liberal interpretation of history and of life, a premium upon spiritual and moral and intellectual values -- either you believe in these things or you don't. And if you do, you must be in a position to articulate them and to express them to the rest of the world."

(U. S. News and World Report, 29 March, 1957, pp. 93-94)

VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

- 5 -

Whether or not we respond to this political and moral challenge, so much a part of our relationships with the nations of the world, we can hardly fail to respond to the military, political and moral challenge posed by world Communism. Shifts in the balance of power force us to re-examine our goals and aspirations. The relative military power of the United States is very rapidly being equalized, and with the advantage of surprise, may even be neutralized or surpassed by a determined enemy bent on destroying everything that we call freedom and on enforcing the rule of a single center of world communism. The growing successes of that enemy in taking over huge areas and populations without major war, plus division among our allies and growing neutralism, sow doubt and confusion in many minds here and abroad.

These challenges call for a morally adequate pattern to cope with internal and external problems, and for a new dimension of effective leadership and dedication by leaders and people to a common cause. We need them not only to confront our own difficulties, but to impose difficulties and ultimate defeat on the obvious enemy, if possible by changing his nature and purpose.

Goals appropriate to this pattern must embody basic values and basic appeals. Basic values are involved, because if our society is to survive the challenge, it must have a basic attachment to some values for which men are prepared to die, if necessary, in very large numbers. There must be something more important to Americans than life. The mere escape of the loss of freedom is not enough, for the meaning of freedom must be stated so

VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

that people will understand it, accept it, and act upon it. Freedom without a goal for its use, and without an understanding of its relation to purpose and duty, becomes an empty symbol.

Without a convincing demonstration that basic values are at stake, appeals for sacrifice, strain and achievement at home and abroad in a common cause are ineffectual and frustrated. The objectives of the free society of the United States must also be cast in such terms as to have universal appeal to all men who wish to live the lives of free communities and free nations. Economic prosperity is not enough. It is an important secondary motive, but not a prime mover. Basic moral values are needed if we are to capitalize on the weaknesses now being shown in the monolithic control structure of the Soviet system: weaknesses revealed by the demands of its own people and those of its satellites for more freedom, for greater well-being, and for less exposure to annihilation. For they too face the question: risk of annihilation for what? By offering them a morally acceptable alternative, demonstrated by putting our basic moral demands for ourselves to the test of free debate and example, we can capitalize on our own strength and on the basic weaknesses of the Soviet system. Thus we can take the moral offensive, raising the contest to higher ground, where we occupy the dominating spiritual positions that appeal not only to our own people but to enemies and to neutrals. Truth and firmness in the right can accompany malice toward none and charity for all.

VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

## The Democratic Process

If our task is to seek appropriate goals in ways compatible with
democracy, what are those central elements of the democratic process as
we know and practice them that we wish to preserve and to extend if possible?
What are the conditions and criteria that our government and leaders should
observe in their efforts to indicate goals, to marshal resources, and to build
consent?

The central moral and political value is respect for the dignity, the
perfectibility and the welfare of the individual. The dignity of the individual
requires that both his freedom and his opinion be respected. In political
terms, it implies such rights and practices as equality before the law, the
right of petition, an adequate system of representation, and the opportunity
to hold public officials responsible by periodic elections and by other means.
Perfectibility implies the opportunity for education and for self-realization.
Welare implies opportunities for the achievement of material and spiritual
well-being.

The central characteristics of our democratic organization of power
are these: limitations upon the power of government, whether Federal, state
or local, and the location of residual power in the people; a holding of
governmental action to account through popular consent and due process of
law; respect for the underlying constitutional consensus that recognizes that
the will to be a community rules out action by majorities or minorities that
will destroy the community for its fundamental objects; and that ultimate
power over important decisions is widely distributed and shared.

VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

- 8 -

This is the meaning of American freedom under law: it is the deepest
and most broadly shared *consensus*, since it frames the fundamental agreement
that makes possible differences on party aims and programs. The United States
of America is, and we trust will remain, a *constitutional democracy*. It is
not a government founded on the proposition that a majority of the adult
people of the United States rules on every issue. In its Federal system,
which gives special weighting to the states, particularly in the Senate, and
in its protections of basic civil rights, the Constitution restrains the
operation of simple majoritarian democracy. The system of government of
the United States is one that limits majorities to their appropriate areas
of consensus and competence, in territorial, in moral, and in functional
terms. The Constitution itself can only be modified by very extraordinary
majorities. The judiciary of the Federal system, as well as of the states,
enjoy special protections against intimidation and have in the main, through-
out our history, occupied the role of umpire, sustained by the constitutional
morality of acceptance by the bulk of the people, and by their elected
officials.

It should be remembered at all times, also, that the system of
government of the United States in which the principle of leadership has to
be understood and tested is that of a representative republic and not of a
direct democracy. Although some of the states have the initiative and
referendum, the Federal system uses this direct form of democracy only in

referendum, the Federal system uses this direct form of democracy only in direct democracy. Although some of the states have the initiative and be understood and tested if that of a representative republic and not of a government of the United States in which the principle of leadership has to be remembered at all times, also, that the system of officials should be remembered at all times, also, that the system of

morality of acceptance by the bulk of the people, and by their elected
out of our history, occupied the role of umpire, sustained by the constitutional
enjoy special protections against intimidation and have in the main, through-
minorities. The judiciary of the Federal system, as well as of the states,
terms. The Constitution itself can only be modified by very extraordinary
of consensus and competence, in moral, in territorial, and in functional
the United States is one that limits majorities to their appropriate areas.
operation of simple materialist democracy. The system of government of
in its protections of basic civil rights, the Constitution retains the
which gives special weight to the states, particularly in the Senate, and
people of the United States rules on every issue. In its Federal system,
not a government founded on the proposition that a majority of the adult
of America is, and we must remain, a constitutional democracy. It is
that makes possible differences on party lines and programs. The United States
and most probably shared consensus, since it frames the fundamental agreements
that is the meaning of American freedom under law. It is the precedent:

July 11, 1927
(6th Draft)
VI - Report

- 8 -

VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

a referendum for the ratification of constitutional amendments by three-fourths of the states. The Senate is no longer indirectly elected, but the processes of political selection give a large role to party and hence, in some measure, through nominations, do insure a selective rather than a direct process of democracy.

Furthermore, the political context within which laws are made and operate in the United States must increasingly take into account the existence of a very highly organized and pervasive group life with political consciousness and activity. These multiform groups represent the interests and purposes of the great organized associations of the society to a greater degree and extent than any civilization has probably ever known. No one needs to be told of the tremendous power wielded by organized labor outside party lines, though often operating through them. Nor do we need to remind anyone of the existence and influence of groups like the professional associations, the representatives of business through the Chambers of Commerce, Manufacturers Associations and the like, as well as the organized activities of patriotic associations, women's clubs, and the pressure groups who are out to secure and protect their own special interests.

This sharing of power over important decisions comes close to the heart of the matter. For throughout our history we have relied as a people upon checks and balances, and thus, in effect, upon the dispersal of both initiative and effective power, not only in government, but in the private organizations through which we seek our interests and self-realization.

VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

- 10 -

We have ever been reluctant to place final trust, or final power in the hands of any man or class of men. Those grants of power that we have given from time to time to leaders in or out of government, are conditional -- conditional upon situations, conditional upon the special times and purposes for which concentration of power has seemed proper and vital.

This conditional granting of power rests, in turn, on a recognition that no man or class of men possesses a monopoly of virtue or wisdom; that the sense of the community itself, while presumably wiser than the single view of any individual, is also conditioned, and that today's judgment should not prejudice tomorrow's freedom to judge.

In this pluralistic system, where the pressures from outside today more than ever require a greater degree of integrated planning in the meeting of deadlines in defense programs and in the timing of diplomatic procedures and policies, the main political problem of American society is to be able to secure continuity and responsibility in government. This requires that its leaders must be capable of carrying along a society which not only has several competing parties as a part of its system of government, but one that has to persuade or placate or neutralize large numbers of groups and associations whose interests may be affected, directly or indirectly (and sometimes injuriously from their own point of view), by a proposed action. In a nation like the United States, composed of many religious and racial and national communities, it is inevitable that loyalties of some citizens with overseas connections should be mixed and, from time to time, antagonistic to certain

VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

- 11 -

policies of the United States. The very pluralistic nature of our society permits a wider range of organizing openings and tactical exploitation to a subversive movement like Communism, which, though it in fact owes its loyalty to commands from Moscow, poses as an international crusade on a class basis. Since it challenges not the consensus of a majority, but the basic consensus that is the constitutional system *itself*, this controlled type of communism has declared war on all free institutions and is not entitled to the protection afforded to free parties.

These centrifugal pulls in the society operate frequently against the major trend of a developing technology to integrate and further centralize the economic institutions and behavior of the nation as a whole. But healthy democracy must radically oppose an excessive centralization in order to avoid hypertrophy at the center and paralysis at the extremes. A healthy democracy must maintain the sources of its vitality in the small neighborhood communities of the nation, which still continue to breed a preponderance of its leaders. It must nourish the kind of self government at the grass roots without which no democracy can long survive.

The essence of a constitutional system is to preserve this balance in the nation, which reflects in turn a balance basic to our concept of human nature and of its responsible moral development in the individual. Liberty must go with responsibility and with that respect for the rights of others which is the essence of constitutional democracy, an essence to be found not only in its formal political processes, but in its daily habits.

VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

- 12 -

Political parties, business organizations, churches, and schools, as well as the individual who creates them in a constitutional democracy, must combine this balance of liberty and responsibility, of rights and duties, which is the chief mark of a responsible moral personality. The purely self-interested man, abstracted by Nineteenth Century economic "liberalism", could never work in a private enterprise society without the unquestioned acceptance of the obligation of contracts, of high standards of business integrity and performance, and of maintaining, as far as possible, authority commensurate with responsibility in the processes of industrial management.

To return to the political arena, in which constitutional democracy is tested, fulfillment of the potentialities of human development and the protection of the dignity of man are the purposes of stated civil liberties and the procedures which are set up to protect them in the Constitution, including judicial review. Government must also be organized to assure through regular elections the responsible control of the elected representatives of the people so that leaders truly reflect the consent of the governed and have to test their own purposes against the expressed responses of their constituents.

Thus democracy means at least two things. At bottom, it is a way of making decisions: ideally, a way in which the opinions of all who count in the community will be weighed, directly or through some representative process. And it is a system of respect for common values that runs through'

VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

-13-

all organizations, governmental or outside of government, in a democratic society.

But the fact that common moral views are accepted in our society, and that we share moral beliefs and values and a sense of destiny of the community, does not mean that we can assume that the community always knows what is required at any given moment in order for such a common system to survive.

With all our constitutional emphasis on the protections of rights and on political responsibility, the first aim of all government must be to govern. "Common defense" is not an idle phrase in these days. The "general welfare" can sometimes only be realized by taking long-run views rather than short-run views. There must, in short, be a national purpose, marked by a basic unity of moral front, to meet the challenges with which the nation is now confronted in the sort of world we have created or seen grow upon us. This requires not only party programs accepting responsibility and formulating such purposes for citizens to choose between or among. It requires a leadership that can infuse into the political process a sense of acceptance of the destiny of the nation, of confronting its challenges and challengers, and of understanding and serving with dedication its basic moral values.

These great tasks are largely a function of leadership of all levels. In the modern world, the identification of courses of action in world politics is pre-eminently a function of national leadership. For national leadership

In the modern world, the identification of action in world politics
these great tasks and largely a function of leadership of all levels.
primarily a function of national leadership. For national leadership

is pre-eminently a function of national leadership. For national leadership
in the modern world, the identification of action in world politics
acceptance of the destiny of the nation, of confronting its challenges and
requires a leadership that can influence into the political process a sense of
and formulating such purposes for citizens to choose between or among. If
the nation is now confronted in the sort of world we have created or seen
marked by a basic unity of moral front, to meet the challenges with which
rather than short-run views. There must, in short, be a national purpose,
"general website" can sometimes only be realized by taking long-run views
governments. "Common defense" is not an idle phrase in these days. The
and on political responsibility, the that aim of all government must be to
with all our constitutional emphafees on the protections of rights
autonomy to survive.

knows what it is required at any given moment in order for such a common
community, does not mean that we can assume that the community always
and that we share moral beliefs and values and a sense of destiny of the
But the fact that common moral views are accepted in our society,
society.

-13-

July 11, 1983
(Patrick DeBart)
VI - Report

VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

- 14 -

to be fully effective, however, it must rest on the support of leadership
throughout the rest of society, and it must bespeak from all leaders a well-
understood and basic concern with national objectives and policies. The
kind of support needed is not that of apologetics, propaganda, or uncritical
approbation. The kind of support needed is that of understanding criticism,
in which the proposals of national leaders are considered, judged, modified,
and reformulated by other leaders concerned with adapting the demands and
visions of national leadership to the interests, the resources, and the
possibilities of groups and regions and interests throughout our society.

In the body of this report we are concerned with three major areas --
those of national leadership; of the organization of the national government;
and the process of communication throughout our society. We limit our
concern not because we think that these areas exhaust the critical problems
of the democratic process. For reasons of time and circumstance, we have
not been able to consider such areas as the functioning of our Federal
system, the balance of government responsibility borne at the Federal,
state and local levels, or the field of civil liberties and of the protection and
furthering of the interests of minority groups. We have not considered in
detail the participation of non-governmental organizations, particularly
economic interest groups, in the democratic process.

We have put central attention on the processes of national leadership
not only because this area is more prominent than ever in our history, but
because it is so vital to extent the capability of national leadership to

VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

- 15 -

respond to the challenges with which it is confronted. It is essential to
a degree unparalleled in our previous history to be able to focus national
purpose rapidly and decisively on issues that may involve the survival
not only of this nation but of the free world. We are faced by a combination
of force that is able, as no opponent has ever been able to do before, to
mass resources and conduct coordinated operations against us on a world-
wide scale. Therefore we should be able not only to respond to that challenge,
but, preferably, to anticipate it and to face our opponent with contingencies
and conditions that he has not foreseen, and that rob him of the advantages
of initiative and favorable ground.

There is another challenge -- less dramatic than that of totalitarian
onslaught, but none the less vital. This is the constant challenge of adapting
the essence of our political, economic and social institutions to the ever-
broadening horizons of capacity and opportunity opening up as a result of
our geometrically-increasing scientific and technological capability. This
challenge goes to our capacity to build and operate human institutions. It
calls insistently for us to make up the well-recognized lag in our philosophy
and practice of government, management and administration. This calls for
fresh, creative and imaginative adaptation of old human verities, for here
as elsewhere we must adapt, innovate and change to preserve our ancient
dedication to the fullest development of the potentialities of every human soul.

National leadership cannot operate by itself; nor can it plan and
conduct powerful offensives adequate to the world struggle--let alone

VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

- 16 -

pursue government's role in assuring the good life--unless it has full
command over the government's organization to meet the need for rapid
decision and for consequent action. It stands equally in need of facilities
for two-way communication between the responsible leaders and those on
whom they must depend for their continued support and their ultimate power
in a democracy. Our role in world politics requires that communications
transcend national boundaries; we are concerned that the nature and per-
formance of our democracy should be understandable and well communicated
abroad. On such communication depends the power of our example to those
newly-emerged states striving for political maturity. Whether in peace or
war, such communication serves our interest by showing the values at stake
in our prosperity or in our fight for survival.

Communications are of special importance in a democracy. For
democratic society, although it uses force as any political society must to
repress violence and to preserve the physical basis of essential values,
stresses persuasion and consent. Communications appropriate to democratic
government must involve more than the issuance and acknowledgement of
orders. This applies equally to the realms of domestic governance and of
world leadership.

In speaking of leadership, or in analyzing the democratic process as
a form of man's behavior in and among groups, we do not wish to obscure
the importance of the role of the individual. In a society such as ours, in
which group life is so common and dominant a feature, we need to be clear

VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

- 17 -

that respect for the rights and freedoms of the individual means just that--
not for individuals in the abstract or in the mass, but for real individuals
as they live and act, especially those with the inner strength, talent, and
vision to strike out with the vital innovations that move us forward in our
efforts to achieve our goals.

VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

- 18 -

# AREA I. PROBLEMS OF NATIONAL LEADERSHIP

## INTRODUCTION

We begin with a brief general analysis of the nature of the problems of national leadership, identifying some of the special difficulties that beset the leadership process at the national level. We do not discuss at any length the specific problems the nation faces, since these are covered in extenso by Subpanels I-V. The moral and ethical implications of democracy and its problems are dealt with in depth by Subpanel VII.

### A Philosophy of Leadership

Let it be clear at the outset that we do not hold any elitist concept of leadership in the sense that leaders must come from any one group or constitute a special class set apart by birth or social barrier. Leadership in a democracy touches society in every dimension and is found throughout. Leadership is exercised here by the educated, there by the unlettered; here by the well-to-do, there by the poor; here by the government official, there by the business executive. Sharing in the process we find the scholar, the scientist, the technician, the farmer, the labor leader, the pastor, the journalist. Our leaders are found wherever one man or woman rises above his fellows in the tasks of indicating directions, marshalling resources, directing action, and building consent. We do not share the all-too-widespread assumption that there are

We do not share the all-to-wide-brain assumption that there are
of indicating directions, marshalling resources, directing action, and building
are found wherever one man or woman leads above his follows in the tasks
technician, the farmer, the labor leader, the poet, the journalist. Our lead-
executive, sharing in the process we find the scholar, the scientist, the
do, there by the boat; here by the government official; there by the business
he exercised here by the educated; there by the unlettered; here by the well-to-
ack touches society in every dimension and is found throughout. Leadership
into a special class set apart by birth or social barrier. Leadership in a democ-
 leadership in the sense that leaders must come from any one group or class-
Let it be clear at the outset that we do not hold any elitist concept of

## A Philosophy of Leadership

There are dealt with in depth by Subanel I-V. The moral and ethical implications of democracy and its problems are dealt with in depth by Subanel VII.

## INTRODUCTION

## AREA I. PROBLEMS OF NATIONAL LEADERSHIP

- 18 -

July 17, 1982
(Exim Draft)
M - 500pt

VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

- 19 -

always leaders and led; that it is the function of leaders to do all the thinking, and to "sell" pat solutions to those whose collaboration or acquiescence is necessary to carry them out.

Yet, at the national level, there are many dangers and temptations of assuming or implying an elitist concept. The problems of the nation are so difficult as to challenge the talents and resources of the most skillful. And much of the information upon which national leaders act is closely held, since so much of the context of national leadership is that of struggle with a mortal enemy in which the practices of security are unavoidable. This fact alone tends to set apart those chiefly concerned with national security matters. Because information and reason cannot be fully shared, there is a temptation to expect support based on little more than faith; to ask that personal trust supplant common reason -- in a situation where distance easily breeds distrust.

There is another and more serious danger, however. Because our society disperses power and initiative widely throughout our institutions, our governmental leaders are constantly tempted to respond to these multiform pressures by seeking accommodations and compromises, least-common-denominator solutions. This tendency is pronounced in the domestic field, in the absence either of demands enforced by world crisis, or of any controlling philosophy that regulated conflicting demands. It is not absent from the foreign field, where the urgencies of the world situation may tempt an executive to seize the quickest, least argued solution simply to be able to respond in time

VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

- 20 -

to an external situation. The challenge to our national leadership is to bring
these multiple sources of power and initiative to bear on vital objectives, and
to create consensus on the most important goals and tasks that the whole country
must serve.

Functions of Leadership

The functions of leadership in any society include the articulation of
aspirations and goals; the selection of means and methods in harmony with those
goals; the guidance and governance of society in the application of those means;
the sensing and marshalling of consent.

In a democracy, however, the function of leadership is to inspire and
command confidence in ways that meet the test of democratic judgment. To
manipulate opinion and smother opposition, sooner or later forfeits this confi-
dence. And it is not enough for a leader to cite his origins to gain and maintain
confidence, for a healthy constitutional democracy does not create and cannot
tolerate an oligarchic and closed-system elite. Its leaders are recruited and
developed by competition, and trained for responsibility by all the great natural
groupings of the society. With us, a leader is tested both by formulating and
realizing the aspirations and the goals of his nation.

Though there are leaders in every group in society and diffused throughout
these groups at varying levels, the political leader who attempts to assure a
monopoly of force in the hands of a government which will act under law and

VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

- 21 -

maintain the protection of a constitutional system occupies a special position
in the ranks of leadership. He has to assume risks and to make decisions on
inadequate evidence through the very nature of a system that cannot be reduced
to mechanical science. Human values and purposes are involved and not mech-
anical equations, nor the determinism of force nor other completely controlled
reactions.

The political leader must show a receptivity to his people's own expres-
sed values and views, in order to be responsible and to reflect his own times
and his support. These requirements of receptivity and responsibility hold
for other human enterprises as well. A business manager cannot effectively
control his business without carrying with him his boards of directors, his labor
force, and his management staff, as well as meeting the competition in the
market. A labor union leader, too, is rarely able indefinitely to resist pressures
for more responsible control, and where labor union leadership has been so set
up it becomes imperative to replace it and to make it more responsible under
law. Church leadership, above all, has the test of winning followers and
retaining them through a free choice as to evaluations and loyalties, though
here early training and habit become of very controlling character for most
psychological purposes.

But only the political leader has to integrate into a workable and broadly
acceptable program all the diffuse pressures of a society by finding a basis for
getting common purpose out of the diversity of these other purposes and

VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

- 22 -

interests. In doing so he has to compete for loyalties in a very broad market
indeed. Even though the party system may offer a relatively restricted compe-
tition as between the parties or among them, there is always a struggle for con-
trol and leadership within the party. Indeed it is precisely this competition
which toughens a leader for his growth to a position of national responsibility,
makes him understand the realities of political processes, and tests out whether
he has the capacity to frame the problems of the nation in terms that will evoke
a nationwide response.

Leaders cannot deduce objectives and goals by a mere rehearsal of
facts. For we are bewildered and overwhelmed by enormous arrays of facts
thrown up by our elaborate machinery for gathering and ordering them; and at
the same time we reach out for new sets of data to cast light into hitherto
unmeasured areas of our physical and social environment. Leadership must
create the framework of belief, thought, and doctrine within which facts gain
meaning and become operationally useful. And this framework must include a
moral dimension. To be adequate to the new imperative for American leader-
ship facts must be set in a convincing and genuine frame of moral concern for
humanity.

Leaders must do more than order thoughts; they must order feelings too,
thus generating actions that testify to this inner faith in man's dignity and
destiny. This can only be done by moving men in their deepest realms of feel-
ing.

VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

- 23 -

## A Sense of Identity

Leadership must foster and maintain an adequate sense of identity between leaders and led -- identity in the sense of mutual understanding of the nature of the role of the leader and of government, and of the various participating elements of the body politic involved in common tasks. This is partly a matter of information and education; partly a matter of the behavior of leaders themselves; and partly a function of joint action involving both leaders and led, in which each perceives and experiences the role of the other.

All three of these methods for the creation of a sense of identity gain power if they profit from the observation that example is an even more potent teacher than precept; and that example is the more pointed and telling if it is reinforced by concepts of leadership that are stated and demonstrated throughout our manifold system of information and education. Modern communications -- especially television -- give leadership today new opportunities to demonstrate the practice of leadership; new opportunities for leaders in many walks of life to view the performance of our top political leaders, to learn from them, to judge them, and to enter into a system of free but powerful association in discerning and coping with the problems of the age.

Identity also involves a sense of the consistency of means with accepted goals, so that both leaders and led gain and maintain a shared sense of the extent to which the investment of resources and of common effort contributes

extent to which the investment of resources and of common effort contributes to the success of the efforts made by the leaders and fed on and maintain a stated sense of the identity also involves a sense of the consistency of means with acceptability and working with the problems of the age.

to judge them, and to enter into a system of free but powerful association in which to view the performance of our top political leaders, to learn from them, to train the practice of leadership; new opportunities for leaders in many walks of life to work the performance of our top political leaders, to learn from them, to train the practice of leadership; new opportunities to demonstrate our manifold system of information and education. Modern communications reinforced by concepts of leadership that are stated and demonstrated throughout the country, and that example is the more pointed and telling if it is better if they profit from the observation that example is an even more potent All three of these methods for the creation of a sense of identity gain and feed, in which each perceives and experiences the role of the other.

are themselves, and partly a function of joint action involving both leaders in a matter of information and education; partly a matter of the behavior of leaders, partly elements of the body politic involved in common tasks. This is partly nature of the role of the leader and of government, and of the various particularities of the leaders and fed -- identity in the sense of mutual understanding of the Leadership must foster and maintain an adequate sense of identity --

## A sense of identity

July 11, 1983
VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

- 53 -

VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

- 24 -

to the achievement of common purposes. If goals and means get out of phase,
either goals tend to disappear or means are diverted to other more comprehens-
ible and attractive alternatives.

Limitations on Power and Capabilities

The converse of the function of concentrating the nations' resources on
the most vital problems, is the creation of some sense of the limitations on the
power and capabilities of governmental or societal action -- in other words,
some sense of those things which are intractable or unprofitable objects of
government action. Our leadership has been less than wholly successful in
transmitting something of its own sense of these limitations. No leadership
concerned with constant problems of priorities can ever forget that there are
some tasks that must be postponed, or not attempted; and no leadership aware
of the difficulties of conducting foreign relations in a world including enemies,
neutrals and friends, metropolitan powers and former colonial areas, totali-
tarian and democratic powers can long ignore the fact that some moral and urgent
objectives cannot be sought by our unilateral action, or may not be pursued
directly at all. Yet there are strains in our politics that are fostered if not
generated by a misplaced sense of omnicompetence. McCarthyism is a prime
recent example.

Widely held, such a sense of omnicompetence contributes to the belief
that there is no problem in the world that cannot be solved in terms compatible

that there is no problem in the world that cannot be solved in terms compatible
widely held, such a sense of omnocompetence contributes to the peeling

recent example,
generated by a prescribed sense of omnocompetence. MacCurryham is a prime
directly at issue. Yet there are strains in our politics that are fostered if not
objectives cannot be sought by our unilateral action, or may not be pursued
further and democratic powers can long ignore the fact that some moral and urgent
neutrals and friends, metropolitan powers and former colonial areas, totalise-
of the difficulties of conducting foreign relations in a world including enemies,
some tasks that must be postponed, or not attempted; and no leadership aware
concerned with constant problems of priorities can ever target that there are
transmitting something of its own sense of these limitations. No leadership
government action. Our leadership has been less than wholly successful in
some sense of those things which are intractable or unprofitable objects of
power and capabilities of governmental or accidental action -- in other words,
the most vital problems, is the creation of some sense of the limitations on the
The converse of the function of concentrating the nations' resources on

## Limitations on Power and Capabilities

idee and attractive alternatives.
either deals tend to disappear or means are diverted to other more comprehensive
in the achievement of common purposes. If goals and means get out of phase,
- 54 -

VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

with our interest, provided our leaders take care and forehanded action, and devote the necessary resources from our presumably limitless reserves of power. Given such a belief, frustrations are bound to arise when situations abroad develop in ways that we do not like: the extension of Communist domination, or the rise of neutralism with its frequent expressions of anti-American sentiment. It is a function of leadership to communicate a sound sense of those areas in which we can effectively exercise influence and in which we may legitimately expect favorable actions, at the same time that it indicates those problems which we must bear with equanimity because there is nothing that we can do about them without drawing off resources from other more vital activities -- or that are not within our power to control.

At the same time, it is important for our leadership to project a sense of adequacy and serenity in the face of its problems, if only to provide contrast to the picture provided by Soviet leadership in its efforts to cope with emerging demands for freedom at home and with unreliability in the satellites.

## A View of the Future

There is a further need: for more realistic and dependable concepts of the nature of the emerging world system within which we seek our national interests. These are being conceived and elaborated not only by our governmental leaders, but by our publicists and scholars as well. The whole process is an example of the joint functioning of our multiple system of leadership. A

VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

- 26 -

necessary part of it, however, is broad sharing of emerging concepts, so that
the people as a whole can gain some idea of the ways that governmental lead-
ers conceive the rules of the game and the skills of the players.

We seek our ends in a world in which the distribution of power is chang-
ing: and as that distribution changes, our foreign policy, our network of alli-
ances, and the practices of diplomacy must change too. One persuasive school
of thought now asserts that we are moving from a system of world politics in
which the preponderance of power has been clearly located in two world centers,
around which all other powers have been arrayed, toward a system in which
power and initiative is more widely distributed. Such a change means revising
estimates of the nature, potentialities and limits of our power which were com-
patible with the power distributions of a bipolar world, into estimates compat-
ible with the new distributions of power that appear as military technology and
postures change.

The particular outcomes of such a re-appraisal are, of course, not
wholly clear and need not be argued here; (they are discussed at length by Sub-
panel II). The essential point is that our national leadership must continue
to create and disseminate a sense of the emerging power system that will enable
the people to understand better and to judge our diplomatic, economic, and
military moves. We need better insight into the nature and the possible future
of the United Nations and into the possibilities of our alliance systems and of
regional groupings. Also relevant are the inter-penetrating functions of bi-
lateral and multilateral diplomacy.

["The particular question is, what is the essential nature of the alliance. Is it a\nmutual contract, and does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is\nit a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement between the\nmembers? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special contract\nbetween the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special\nagreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require\na special contract between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it\nrequire a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states,\nand does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association\nof states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere\nassociation of states, and does it require a special contract between the parties? Or is\nit a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties?\nOr is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special contract between the\nparties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement\nbetween the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special\nagreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require\na special contract between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it\nrequire a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states,\nand does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association\nof states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere\nassociation of states, and does it require a special contract between the parties? Or is\nit a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties?\nOr is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special contract between the\nparties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement\nbetween the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special\nagreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require\na special contract between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it\nrequire a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states,\nand does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association\nof states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere\nassociation of states, and does it require a special contract between the parties? Or is\nit a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties?\nOr is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special contract between the\nparties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement\nbetween the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special\nagreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require\na special contract between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it\nrequire a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states,\nand does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association\nof states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere\nassociation of states, and does it require a special contract between the parties? Or is\nit a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties?\nOr is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special contract between the\nparties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement\nbetween the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special\nagreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require\na special contract between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it\nrequire a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states,\nand does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association\nof states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere\nassociation of states, and does it require a special contract between the parties? Or is\nit a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties?\nOr is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special contract between the\nparties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement\nbetween the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special\nagreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require\na special contract between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it\nrequire a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states,\nand does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association\nof states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere\nassociation of states, and does it require a special contract between the parties? Or is\nit a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties?\nOr is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special contract between the\nparties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement\nbetween the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special\nagreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require\na special contract between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it\nrequire a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states,\nand does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association\nof states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere\nassociation of states, and does it require a special contract between the parties? Or is\nit a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties?\nOr is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special contract between the\nparties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement\nbetween the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special\nagreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require\na special contract between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it\nrequire a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states,\nand does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association\nof states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere\nassociation of states, and does it require a special contract between the parties? Or is\nit a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties?\nOr is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special contract between the\nparties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement\nbetween the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special\nagreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require\na special contract between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it\nrequire a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states,\nand does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association\nof states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere\nassociation of states, and does it require a special contract between the parties? Or is\nit a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties?\nOr is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special contract between the\nparties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement\nbetween the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special\nagreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require\na special contract between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it\nrequire a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states,\nand does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association\nof states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere\nassociation of states, and does it require a special contract between the parties? Or is\nit a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties?\nOr is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special contract between the\nparties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement\nbetween the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special\nagreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require\na special contract between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it\nrequire a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states,\nand does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association\nof states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere\nassociation of states, and does it require a special contract between the parties? Or is\nit a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties?\nOr is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special contract between the\nparties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement\nbetween the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special\nagreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require\na special contract between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it\nrequire a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states,\nand does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association\nof states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere\nassociation of states, and does it require a special contract between the parties? Or is\nit a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties?\nOr is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special contract between the\nparties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement\nbetween the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special\nagreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require\na special contract between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it\nrequire a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states,\nand does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association\nof states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere\nassociation of states, and does it require a special contract between the parties? Or is\nit a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties?\nOr is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special contract between the\nparties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement\nbetween the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special\nagreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require\na special contract between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it\nrequire a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states,\nand does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association\nof states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere\nassociation of states, and does it require a special contract between the parties? Or is\nit a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties?\nOr is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special contract between the\nparties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement\nbetween the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special\nagreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require\na special contract between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it\nrequire a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states,\nand does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association\nof states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere\nassociation of states, and does it require a special contract between the parties? Or is\nit a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties?\nOr is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special contract between the\nparties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement\nbetween the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special\nagreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require\na special contract between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it\nrequire a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states,\nand does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association\nof states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere\nassociation of states, and does it require a special contract between the parties? Or is\nit a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties?\nOr is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special contract between the\nparties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement\nbetween the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special\nagreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require\na special contract between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it\nrequire a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states,\nand does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association\nof states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere\nassociation of states, and does it require a special contract between the parties? Or is\nit a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties?\nOr is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special contract between the\nparties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement\nbetween the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special\nagreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require\na special contract between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it\nrequire a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states,\nand does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association\nof states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere\nassociation of states, and does it require a special contract between the parties? Or is\nit a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties?\nOr is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special contract between the\nparties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement\nbetween the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special\nagreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require\na special contract between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it\nrequire a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states,\nand does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association\nof states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere\nassociation of states, and does it require a special contract between the parties? Or is\nit a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties?\nOr is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special contract between the\nparties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement\nbetween the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special\nagreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require\na special contract between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it\nrequire a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states,\nand does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association\nof states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere\nassociation of states, and does it require a special contract between the parties? Or is\nit a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties?\nOr is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special contract between the\nparties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement\nbetween the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special\nagreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require\na special contract between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it\nrequire a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states,\nand does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association\nof states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere\nassociation of states, and does it require a special contract between the parties? Or is\nit a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties?\nOr is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special contract between the\nparties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement\nbetween the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special\nagreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require\na special contract between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it\nrequire a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states,\nand does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association\nof states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere\nassociation of states, and does it require a special contract between the parties? Or is\nit a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties?\nOr is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special contract between the\nparties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement\nbetween the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special\nagreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require\na special contract between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it\nrequire a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states,\nand does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association\nof states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere\nassociation of states, and does it require a special contract between the parties? Or is\nit a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties?\nOr is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special contract between the\nparties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement\nbetween the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special\nagreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require\na special contract between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it\nrequire a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states,\nand does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association\nof states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere\nassociation of states, and does it require a special contract between the parties? Or is\nit a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties?\nOr is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special contract between the\nparties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement\nbetween the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special\nagreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require\na special contract between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it\nrequire a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states,\nand does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association\nof states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere\nassociation of states, and does it require a special contract between the parties? Or is\nit a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties?\nOr is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special contract between the\nparties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement\nbetween the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special\nagreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require\na special contract between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it\nrequire a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states,\nand does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association\nof states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere\nassociation of states, and does it require a special contract between the parties? Or is\nit a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties?\nOr is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special contract between the\nparties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement\nbetween the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special\nagreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require\na special contract between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it\nrequire a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states,\nand does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association\nof states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere\nassociation of states, and does it require a special contract between the parties? Or is\nit a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties?\nOr is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special contract between the\nparties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement\nbetween the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special\nagreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require\na special contract between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it\nrequire a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states,\nand does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association\nof states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere\nassociation of states, and does it require a special contract between the parties? Or is\nit a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties?\nOr is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special contract between the\nparties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement\nbetween the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special\nagreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require\na special contract between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it\nrequire a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association of states,\nand does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere association\nof states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties? Or is it a mere\nassociation of states, and does it require a special contract between the parties? Or is\nit a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement between the parties?\nOr is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special contract between the\nparties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special agreement\nbetween the parties? Or is it a mere association of states, and does it require a special\nagreement between the parties? Or is it a mere

VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

- 27 -

Present Problems and Future Problems

A continuing problem for leadership is how to deal with present policies and problems in such ways as to be able to deal effectively with future problems. In our time, this involves a frequently confusing and unsettling mixture of challenge and comfort, tension and relaxation.

A striking example of this general problem of combining present effect-
iveness with future flexibility emerges from further analysis of the area of war
and peace, arms and disarmament, illustrating the delicacy and complexity of
the politico-military-diplomatic problems our national leaders face. Our
leadership today has to balance the projection of a sense of adequate military
preparations and strength in being, against the projection of a devotion to
peace. Over-emphasis on the prospects of peace can leave our people unpre-
pared spiritually or materially or both for the onset of sudden war, and thus
damage the prestige and power of a leadership that has failed to prepare the
people for the real eventualities. It may also harm the fighting effectiveness
of a people led to expect peace in its time.

The very preservation of peace itself may depend on a military posture
adequate to deter or defeat a possible aggressor not only in the horrible event
of all-out war, but at the more probable and ultimately as deadly level of
limited war. To create a doctrine of the uses of force that is both moral and
adequate to defeat the threats to democratic values and the free world is an
urgent and continuing task.

udent and continuing task of
adequate to detect the threat to democratic gains and the free world is an
limited war. To create a doctrine of the idea of force that is both moral and
of silent war, but at the same time terrible and ultimately as deadly as the
adequate to detect or detect a possible threat not only in the horror event
The very preservation of peace itself may depend on a military posture
of a people led to expect peace in its time.

people for the real eventuality. It may also form the fighting effectiveness
damage the prestige and power of a leadership that has failed to prepare the
baredly spiritually or materially on both for the grandest of sudden war, and thus
beseech. Over-emphasize on the prospects of peace can leave our people under-
preparations and attend in being, against the protection of a devotion to
leadership today has to balance the protection at a sense of adequate military
the politico-military-diplomatic problems our national leaders face. On
and peace, arms and disarmament, illustrating the delicacy and complexity of
iveness with future flexibility emerges from further analysis of the area of war
A striking example of this general problem of combining present effect-
of challenge and comfort, tension and relaxation.

Items. In our time, this involves a frequently continuing and unceasing mixme
and problems in such ways as to be able to deal effectively with future prop-

A continuing problem for leadership is how to deal with present problems
present problems and future problems

July 11, 1927
(Sixth Draft)
VI - Report

VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

- 28 -

## Modes of Leadership

There are varying modes of leadership that need to be better understood: some leaders lead in an intellectual manner, resting their authority on their insight into problems, their proposed solutions and recommendations, their creativity and inventiveness in proposing adaptations to emerging conditions, and on persuasiveness in presenting pre-selected courses of action. Others lead by exemplifying in their person and functions the symbolic operations of our democratic society; playing expected roles; celebrating established values, conserving traditional institutions and practices.

Whether by precept or example, leaders must possess the capacity to inspire their followers, and to breed faith. Leadership must rest on a recognition of superior insight and integrity. Yet the personality and role of leaders must be close enough to the people so that they can both identify themselves with their leaders and judge their leaders' adequacy to fulfill the tasks society lays upon them.

And there are varying skills and abilities that comport with the various tasks of leadership. The selection and dramatization of societal goals seem to call for different qualities than those of relating means to goals and contriving and executing programs to achieve them. The intellectual operations called for by these two types of function are different. The former is often a process akin to brooding, in which alternative goals are weighed, selected or discarded

skin to programming, in which alternatively accepted or discarded
for by these two types of function are different. The format is often a process
and executing programs to achieve that. The intellectual operations called
to call for different qualities than these original means to do and contri-
parties of leadership. The selection and manifestation of societal goals aim
And there are varying skills and abilities that comfort with the various
lives upon them.

with their leaders and under their leaders' adequacy to fulfill the tasks society
must be close enough to the people so that they can both identify themselves
with anterior insight and integrity. Yet the personality and role of leaders
influence their followers, and to build that, leadership must rest on a recent-
Whether by present or example, leaders must possess the capacity to
conserving traditional institutions and practices.

lead by exemplifying in their person and functions the symbolic operations of
and on personalness in presenting pre-selected courses of action. Others
creativity and inventiveness in proposing adaptations to emerging conditions,
insight into problems, their proposed solutions and recommendations, their
some leaders lead in an intellectual manner, reacting their authority on their
There are varying modes of leadership that need to be better understood.

## Modes of Leadership

July 11, 1987
(Sixth Draft)
VI - Report

- 28 -

VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

- 29 -

largely by non-rational means. The latter is most often a process of rational thought, in which measurable resources are marshalled in reasonable ways to achieve approved ends.

There is need, moreover, for a more adequate and developed notion of the various sorts of leadership of which our society stands in need, and the various ways in which leaders of all levels and in all fields can collaborate effectively with one another. There are big-L and little-L leaders, not only in politics and government, but elsewhere. The nature of their leadership may differ, resting on different competences and skills in the fields of science, of business, of the professions, of education, of agriculture, of labor, and in other callings. Leadership may compete with leadership both within fields, and across fields; and it is a continuing task for top leadership to create the conditions of purposes, resources, and motivation that will call forth a maximum degree of collaboration contributory to broad social goals.

These hints of the complicated interrelations of leadership bring into question those concepts of the structure of leadership in which leadership in one field is assumed to be leadership in many or all; leadership is assumed to come from an elite class; and leadership is organized into a graded hierarchy. However convenient for some purposes, it seems clear that such concepts of leadership do not wholly fit the facts of our democratic system. Nor do they provide a framework in which we can think most effectively about the leadership problems of the future. Not all leadership problems are those of government

VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

- 30 -

leadership; not all leadership problems are those of top levels. Recent studies in the field of public opinion suggest a more adequate and hopeful model, one built on the fact that leadership is often highly specialized. Those who lead their fellows in matters of fashion in clothes, games and art and those who lead in matters of political preference are found to gain and maintain pre-eminence because of particular knowledge, insight and skills they are able to demonstrate at particular times and on particular issues. Some of these studies have shown that to a surprising degree, a leader influential in one field possesses little influence or authority in others for which his special competence does not fit him. This implies both a continuing critical appraisal of potential leaders on the part of the led and considerable freedom for followers to shift allegiances. It implies further a leadership system in which leaders who lead in one or some roles, find themselves followers in many others.

## Priorities, Alternatives and Consent

In any decentralized society such as ours, in which there are a host of interests and groups each seeking to achieve its values and command human and material resources for its purposes, national leadership faces the special problem of identifying those great national problems to which the country's resources must be somehow related; and to cast them in an appropriate order of priority. Once this is done, it is necessary to identify alternative solutions to these problems, to estimate the consequences following from each alternativ

VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

- 31 -

to select optimum courses of action, and to create working consensus in support
of those chosen. Obviously society as a whole cannot do these things; in these
matters leaders must lead. But in a democracy there must be wide sharing not
only of consensus on intermediate goals, but also participation in choosing
courses of action to reach them. Governmental leadership -- especially that
of the Executive Branch -- possesses the most information about resources and
capabilities available to us and to our opponents in the great world struggles.
Therefore governmental leaders are usually in the best position to cast up the
relevant alternative courses of action. But their action needs to be complemented by that of others, to be fully effective. Executive leadership must be questioned, tested, and modified by Congress; and programs of legislative action must meet the tests of constitutionality and control posed by our judiciary. Leaders and critics outside government can do much to generate alternatives that those in government may miss or underestimate; and in the estimation of consequences those outside the government have a vital role to play. For every pressure group or interest group worthy of the name knows its particular business and interest as well as or better than those governmental agencies concerned with it, and is in good position to estimate what the specific effects will be of any given government course of action on that interest. Also in the selection of optimum courses of action, the judgment of the consequences must be taken fully into account: including the consequences for public opinion.
Governmental judgment of these matters may be hasty, prejudiced, or

VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

ill-informed. The consideration of public interest may be caught up in inter-
departmental committees emphasizing particular functions or departmental posi-
tions.

Therefore the selection and pursuit of alternative courses of action
should intimately involve leaders in and out of government, and leaders and led.
Governmental initiatives need to be modified by opinions from outside, both for
effectiveness in execution and for the creation of the consensus needed for
effective performance.

We have found no magic formula to produce or cherish our best leaders.
But if the moral insights of the other Subpanels and their principles can be
applied, leadership can be improved and better developed at all levels by edu-
cational emphasis on training for excellence, on acceptance of sacrifice and
hardship as ways to train courage, patience, understanding and endurance.
Above all, true leaders must neither talk down to their people nor fail to evoke
what is their best, even if to do so sometimes involves temporary unpopularity
or taking risks by "firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right".
Thus leadership is not merely a function of abstract intelligence, but of moral
and spiritual qualities as well. It requires motivation strong enough to sustain
extraordinary exertion and devotion to duty. Leaders must possess sufficient
faith in long-run goals, values, and procedures, and in the assumptions under-
lying them, to be able to sustain temporary frustrations.

VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

- 33 -

It is obviously urgent for our educational system to turn out technicians and scientists of quality, although there is some doubt whether matching Soviet competition is the most weighty reason for us to press our system to higher performance in this regard. Such a competition serves as a needed spur; what is needed is a safeguard against distortions induced by an attempt to win a numbers game.

The basic educational challenge for the coming years is to produce a sufficient number of top leaders who will be adequate to the risks, threats and opportunities of the future.

## Some Conditions for Effectiveness

Effectiveness of leaders in a democratic society depends not only on the estimate of a leader made by the followers, but also on the leader's estima of his own position and effectiveness, as well as on his skill in dealing with problems confronting him. The problems of making a just estimate of leadership by followers have always been large, although they have been reasonably well discharged by the common man in the domestic field of action. But in an era of international tension, governmental secrecy, and a rise in the relative importance of foreign relations in the business of the state, the performance of the national leader in the foreign field is both more vital and more difficult to measure. Even specialists are hampered by lack of access to many forms of information that would illuminate the situation in which the leader operates in his tasks of representation, negotiation, and marshalling of world opinion.

VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

- 34 -

Broad estimates as to whether the "results" of our diplomacy are adequate are
hard to cast up in the absence of a sharp and just sense of the limits within
which we are free by our actions to influence the outcomes of negotiations or
other international jousting. And the common man has always been at a dis-
advantage in concerning himself with pros and cons of international affairs,
since so much of this field is removed from the daily experience of many.

A leader's estimate of himself, of his relation to those he leads, and
of the political environment encompassing both leaders and led, are important
in determining his ability to lead. Deep rooted in this relationship is the
difficulty, experienced by some recent leaders (notably both Wilson and Eisen-
hower) in distinguishing between personal popularity and strong public accept-
ance of the policies they espouse. A leader properly draws strength from his
conviction that he genuinely expresses the interests, preferences and beliefs
of his followers. But if he overestimates the extent to which his policies are
accepted on their merits, he may fail in the duties of explanation and persua-
sion needed to root his policies strongly enough for them to survive a leader-
ship succession.

Leadership and Morality

The mutual relations of leaders and followers often possess a moral
nature -- whenever the issues involved go beyond morally indifferent choices
of expedient means to gain approved ends. In most if not all leadership-
followership relations, there must be a basis of mutual faith and trust, and

VI - Report

(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

- 35 -

mutual recognition and acceptance of the rightness of the relationship and its consequences. But as has been hinted above, this moral quality comes inescapably into the field of national leadership as it involves the nation in international action. For here the great portion of the body politic must place faith in their leaders, since they cannot themselves know and judge the full range of facts and opinion governing the nations' action in the world.

Moreover, the leader who accepts and acts on this faith bears a moral obligation. Morality involves the acceptance of responsibility, while mere moralizing means the evasion of it. The power of leaders depends not only on identity between leaders and led in operational matters, but also on the extent to which the people recognize that their leaders exemplify a common moral sense. This does not exclude worldly wisdom; at times it is necessary for leaders to appear both as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves. Sometimes the exigencies of leadership pull the leader toward a moral dilemma: how to manifest confidence in the face of mortal danger even to the point where the leader strains truthfulness to keep his cause (and thus the vehicle of his moral purpose) alive.

Throughout we need to preserve the distinction imposed by our democracy between rule by morals and persuasion -- and this includes the use of force in defense of legitimate values -- and rule by terror and violence.

VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

# AREA II. PROBLEMS OF ORGANIZATION AND PERSONNEL AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL

## INTRODUCTION

Leadership has to achieve new dimensions of both understanding and organization of effective national purpose and communication, on a two-way basis, both to the citizens of our own land and to those to whom it must speak abroad. There is in democracy a filtering process by which the individuals as members of groups test the successive stages of leadership in terms of what they can understand of their leaders' character and consistent behavior.

Ideas and programs are in that way the product of many leaders and of the conflicts of views about them from which democratic consensus must emerge.

In the light of the international position of the United States today and the deadly struggle in which it is engaged with Soviet Communism as the leader of a totalitarian bloc, the national leadership of the United States must be at once more decisive and better staffed at the top for organized integration of policy, and, at the same time, supported by a national consensus that survives the tactical diversions and avoids by understanding them the deception of Moscow which exploit the internal differences on means that are normal to our system. We must learn to keep our open system without letting Krushchev play on its vulnerabilities through our gullibility.

Leadership, therefore, has to be connected--and this report attempts to do so--to a better organization of both policy formulation and implementation.

VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

Leadership and Organization

Leadership, in its requirements for better organization of the political
process, meets its most dramatic and difficult challenge at the national level.
It must secure party backing under the system for nomination of office and
for the holding of elections. Yet party backing is not always enough in a
system where Congress may be and often is of a different complexion political
than the President. In such cases, to gain effective political backing in the
legislation and in the country, the political leader must transcend the party.
The results of the study of this political process by the Subpanel have not
carried far enough into all the disputable aspects of the problems, or with
sufficiently shared conviction, to permit recommendation of any of the funda-
mental constitutional reforms either for moving in a direction closer toward
that of Canadian Parliamentarianism, or for more drastic ways of strengthening
the Executive by giving him the power, at least once during his term, to call a
general election to break a deadlock in the Lower House, at least, of Congress.
The complexities of any such constitutional amendments are too great to have
a confident view or a shared support among the Panel members, though many
of them expressed great interest in the idea that the Lower House of Congress
should have a four-year term in order to be rendered less vulnerable to the
mid-term elections, which frequently turn on more local and less national
issues--the Presidency not being at stake in this election. There was a
general agreement that this sort of an amendment deserved the most serious
consideration and should be made a matter of public concern and continued

issues--the frequency not being at stake in this election. There was a

mid-term election, which frequently turn on more local and local national

of them expressed great interest in the idea that the lower House of Congress

a confident view of a second autocrat among the panel members, though many

general election to break a deadlock in the lower house, at least, of Congress.

the Executive by dividing him the power, at least once during his term, to call a

first of Canadian parliamentary matters, or for more drastic ways of strengthening

sufficiently adjusted constitution, to permit recommendation of any of the funds-

carried far enough into all the democratic sabotaqs of the problems, or with

The results of the study of this political process by the panel have not

legislation and in the community, the political leader must transcend the party,

than the President. In such cases, to gain effective political packing in the

system where Congress may be and often is of a different complexion political,

for the holding of elections. Not party packing is not always enough in a

It must secure party packing under the system for nomination of office and

Leadership and Organization

July 11, 1923

VI - Reports

Sixth Draft)

- 33 -

VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

debate. There is nevertheless need to examine and improve the interrelations
of Executive and Congress within the existing broad framework, because of
their joint concern with the initiatives and legislative backing for policy.

The Congress and the President

Under our system of government, the Congress and the Executive are
in many important senses independent of one another; but separately they
cannot function. Yet their joint efforts must be such that each makes its
unique contribution to national policy and action. Congress has many powers
through which it can control and hold accountable the Executive. Congress
may listen to the President's proposals for budget; but without Congressional
action, no money is forthcoming to support Executive programs. Congress
makes the laws, subject to Presidential veto and Executive initiative; and in so
doing, Congress has reserved the right to set conditions for the operation
of the administrative branch, and has written into law many provisions
governing the organization and operation of executive agencies. By its
powers of hearing and investigation, Congress can hold not only the top
officials, but all ranks of the Executive accountable, both through publicity
and through the fact or prospect of legislative provision. The President has
a dual function: as Chief Executive, it is his task to administer the Executive
Branch and to give political leadership to the Congress and the nation. The
President is elected by all the people, and stands (with the Vice President)
unique as a representative and guardian of the national interest. The Congress

mine as a representative and distinct of the national interest. The Congress
President is elected by all the people, and stands (with the Vice President)
Branch and to give political leadership to the Congress and the nation. The
a dual function: as Chief Executive, it is the task to administer the Executive
and through the fact or prospect of relative provision. The President has
officials, but all ranks of the Executive accountable, both through publicity
bowers of printing and investigation. Congress can hold not only the job
demoting the organization and operation of executive agencies, by its
of the administrative branch, and has written into law many provisions
doing. Congress has reserved the right to set conditions for the operation
makes the laws, subject to presidential veto and executive initiatives; and in so
section, no money is forthcoming to support Executive programs. Congress
may listen to the president's proposals for budget; but without Congressional
through which it can control and hold accountable the Executive. Congress
maintains connection to national policy and section. Congress has many powers
cannot function. Yet its joint efforts must be such that each makes its
in many important agencies independent of one another; but separately they
under our system of government, the Congress and the Executive are
the Congress and the President.

Left joint concern with the initiatives and legislative proclamations for both
of Executive and Congress within the existing proud framework, because of
debate. There is every reason to believe they need to examine and improve the institutions

July 11, 1927
(Fifth Draft)
All - Report

VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

- 39 -

is elected by States and by Congressional districts, bearing representative
responsibility to those constituencies from which they come. Both forms of
representation are important in our government. And a healthy and dynamic
relationship is possible between the Congress and the President, with each
sensitive to the powers, duties, and potentialities of the other.

As our government is now organized and functions, the President is
in the better position to take a broad and inclusive view of the nation's
problems; his is the power of proposal and of overall integration. And
possessing superior resources of information and technical staff, he is in the
better position to take the initiative both on matters of legislation as well
as on governmental action. Congress considers the President's proposals,
relates them to the interests of regions, districts, and of important interest
groups in the community, and refines them or rejects them. Both the organiza-
tion and the procedures of Congress -- especially of the Senate -- help to
conserve the interests of minorities and to protect the concurrent majority
on which our constitutional consensus rests.

There was quite general agreement in the Panel that the President
should at least be strengthened, if possible by a constitutional amendment
and certainly by a statutory self-denying ordinance of Congress which would
afford him the item veto--an Executive prerogative enjoyed by many of the
state governors. Without explaining all the reasons for this, the main one
suffices: This ability to veto items in bills, particularly in those carrying
appropriations, prevents the Executive from having to sign a bill that carries

abrogations, prevents the Executive from having to assign a bill that carries
abstention. This ability to veto bills in both, perniciously in those carrying
state governments. Without exalting all the reasons for it, the main one
offered him the item to be an Executive prerogative employed by many of the
and certainly by a statutory arbitrary ordinance of Congress which would
should at least be enforced, it possible by a constitutional amendment
There was quite general agreement in the panel that the President
on which our constitutional constitution rests.

consent the interests of minorities and to protect the concurrent majority
and the procedures of Congress especially of the Senate -- help to
groups in the community, and relate them or relate them. Both the adminis-
rates them to the interests of regions, districts, and of important interest
as on governmental action. Congress considers the President's proposal,
put in opposition to take the initiative both on matters of legislation as well
increasing additional resources of information and technical staff, do in the
problems life is the power of proposal and of overall integration. And
in the better position to take a broad and inclusive view of the nation's

As our government is now organized and functions, the President is
sensitive to the powers, duties, and potentialities of the other.

relationship it possible between the Congress and the President, with each
representation are important in our government. And a healthy and dynamic
reasonability to those constituencies from which they come. Both forms of
it elected by States and by Congressional districts, being representative

July 17, 1927
(Signature)
VI - 69

VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

matter not germane to the major purpose of the bill, which he would veto if it stood alone but which he now must accept unless he is willing to reject the entire bill.

It was the general feeling of the Panel that very serious study should be given to the possibility of having the President's official family, or some selected members of it, given the right to speak and probably vote in both houses of Congress, on the theory that the President alone represents the nation as a whole and that our system tends, particularly in the Senate, to overweight particularistic interests as against national interests. But here again there was no such consensus in the group as would carry a definite recommendation, but rather a feeling that the idea deserved thorough and careful study.

There was an absolutely unanimous feeling in the Panel, however, that the recently passed constitutional amendment forbidding a third term to Presidents was in itself a serious mistake, quite without regard to its application to either the President in office at the time the amendment was passed or to the current President. To limit any President from succeeding himself is to weaken his control over his own party in Congress, and may cost him even the ability to have any basic influence on the selection of his successor. It may be quite reasonable to expect that a President would not wish to run again and might be practically precluded from doing so. On the other hand, the possibility that he can do so or may do so greatly strengthens his hold on Congress, and particularly his hold on his own party through the

VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

selection of his successor in the Nominating Convention.

Going beyond these recommendations for study or change or both in
the interaction of Executive and Congress, certain fields of function in the
Executive and in Congress require attention.

## The Executive

At several points, the organization and functioning of the Executive
Branch seem to fall somewhat short of full adequacy to our current needs.
These include the organization of the Presidency itself, especially insofar
as it relates to the generation of national policy; problems of federal
organization and reorganization; the budget; personnel; and top staff work
and the relation of key staff to Cabinet and interdepartmental committees.

## Organization of the Presidency

Of recent years, there have been vital gains in the organization and
staffing of the Presidency. The rise and strengthening of the Bureau of the
Budget, the creation of the Executive Office of the President, the initiation
of such units as the Office of Defense Mobilization and the Council of Eco-
nomic Advisers, coupled with the creation of a series of interdepartmental
committees such as the National Security Council, have made it possible for
the Presidency to cope with the unprecedented challenges to that Office in
the years during and since the war.

Yet our present concepts of administration and of executive-legislative
relations make change difficult. Our use or over-use of committees in the

relations make change difficult. Our use or overuse of committees in the
yet our present concept of subordination and of executive-ideational
the year ending and since the year

the year to come with the unacknowledged challenges to that Office in
the Presidency to cope with the unacknowledged challenges to that Office in
committee such as the National Security Council, have made it possible for
atomic advisers, coupled with the creation of a series of interdepartmental
of such units as the Office of Defense Modification and the Council of 200-
Subject, the creation of the Executive Office of the President, the institution
attending of the Presidency. The rise and strengthening of the Bureau of the
Of recent years, there have been vital changes in the organization and

and the relation of key staff to Cabinet and interdepartmental committees,
organization and reorganization, the budget personnel, and top staff work
as it relates to the generation of national policy problems of federal
These include the organization of the Presidency itself, especially the interior
Branch seem to feel somewhat short of full adequacy to our current needs.

At several points, the organization and functions of the Executive

## The Executive

Executive and in Congress require attention.
the interaction of Executive and Congress, certain fields of function in the
Going beyond these recommendations for study or change or both in
selection of the successor in the Nominating Convention.

July 11, 1983
(6th Draft)
VI - Report

VI - Report
(Sixth Draft)

July 11, 1957

Executive branch tends to reduce flexibility, ties up many officials in meetings too often devoted to procedure, and puts special pressure on the leadership capacities of the Presidency.

Problems of the Presidency in mastering the gaps in our government created by our system of representation and our federal system of government stem directly from the basic pluralism not only of our society but of the organization of power in government itself. There is a good deal of _de facto_ decentralization of political power within the Executive Branch, because our government is functionally organized and for the most part departments can call on the support of the spokesmen for the functions it has in charge, against the opposition not only of opposing interests, but of spokesmen for the national interest (or the President himself). Thus there is a continuing tendency for spokesmen within government to form coalitions and compromises, bringing together common aspects of particular interests. And the President, with formal power clearly in his hands, still must consult the spokesmen for particular interests, and under existing staffing patterns has nowhere to turn within government for the formulation or statement of an overall view.

There may be need to examine proposals for including within the structure of the National Security Council complex of committees a group of spokesmen for the general interest, who can improve the working of present structures for analyzing the implications of proposals from the various departments or other spokesmen for functional and specialized interests, and put them over against larger concepts of national policy.