HARVARD UNIVERSITY

CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

ROBERT R. BOWIE, Director
HENRY A. KISSINGER, Associate Director
EDWARD S. MASON
THOMAS C. SCHELLING

6 DIVINITY AVENUE
CAMBRIDGE 38
MASSACHUSETTS

April 29, 1960

Mr. David Riesman
Emerson 324
Harvard University
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

Dear Dave:

A friend of mine--not in Cambridge--let me see some
of the letters you have sent to your committee of correspondents.
Probably not much purpose is served by replying to something which
was not intended for me. However, I respect you so much that I
would like to deal not with the specific points but with the
general attitude.

One of the most disquieting aspects of the contemporary
situation seems to me to be the increasing self-righteousness of the
debaters, on both sides. I believe that more important than the
resolution of the specific policy problems which confront us is a
recognition of the complexity of the issues and also of their tragic
aspects. History makes it sufficiently clear that as much havoc
has been caused by men with good intentions as by those with wicked
ones. This doesn't mean that good intentions are not important, but
that by themselves they are not enough. It is bad enough that the
military strike a strategic pose and pretend foreign policy to be
equivalent to amassing power. It is even more worrisome--because
it comes from people from whom more is expected--that so many people
I admire strike a moral attitude and think that absolves them from
any need for dealing with concrete issues. I have always attempted
to use whatever little influence I possess in the direction of
fighting the excesses of many of those whom you would consider
"realists." It is disheartening to see the tone of those who should
be my allies.

You and I differ on several specific contemporary problems.
But I have always looked at these differences as the disagreements
of serious people, both equally concerned with avoiding a cataclysm
and both eager to find an alternative to the pedantry and mediocrity
of current attitudes. What bothered me in your letter was the im-
plication that you were privy to a truth so obvious that it need not
be made explicit and that the major task was a kind of exegesis of
a liturgy that was self-evident. This, of course, has assists inevitable

Mr. David Riesman

--2--

April 29, 1960

corollary the conviction that all those who hold different views must be animated by base motives. It thus becomes possible to compare the humane attitude of Kennan with the obsession with power of the so-called realists and to give throughout the impression of people just this side of being psychopathic. The students who in all sincerity may be deeply worried about currents affairs are described as fana-tical anti-Communists. I am sure I do not need to multiply examples for you to understand what I am talking about.

I have always admired Mr. Kennan tremendously. There is no doubt that his attitudes reflect profound values. But I would suggest that opposite conclusions do not necessar-ily reflect an absence of values. The chief difference between my views and yours is that I do not believe it to be a test of liberalism whether one interprets Soviet motives most favorably. I am more than willing, indeed eager, for negotiations. I would like a settlement if it could be achieved. But I also believe that if the Soviets are sincere there must be mutual accomodation. I would like to hear just one thing that you think the Soviets should do to relax tensions. Or are we congenitally doomed to be wrong? If a real settlement is possible, we ought to be able to describe its nature to ourselves. Let us then debate that rather than the desirability of peace, which is not at issue.

Obviously, this is a long debate and I could not do justice to it in a letter. This letter, moreover, is intended for your own personal use and not for circulation. I would only suggest, if this does not seem presumptuous, that your important enterprise would be even more meaningful if conducted less as a civil war and more on the basis of granting the good faith of those who disagree.

With kind regards and all good wishes.

April 29, 1960

Dear Dave:

A friend of mine--not in Cambridge--let me see some
of the letters you have sent to your committee of correspondents.
Probably not much purpose is served by replying to something which
was not intended for me. However, I respect you so much that I
would like to deal not with the specific points you but with the
general attitude.

One of the most disquieting aspects of the contemporary
situation seems to me to be the increasing self-righteousness of the
debaters on both sides. I believe that more important than the
resolution of the specific policy problems which confront us is a
recognition of the complexity of the issues and also of their tragic
aspects. History makes it sufficiently clear that as much havoc
has been caused by men with good intentions as by those with wicked
ones. This doesn't mean that good intentions are not important, but
that by themselves they are not enough. It is bad enough that the
military strike a strategic pose and pretend foreign policy to be
 equivalent to amassing power. It is even more worrisome--because
 it comes from people from whom more is expected--that so many people
 I admire strike a moral attitude and think that absolves them from
 any need for dealing with concrete issues. I have always attempted
to use whatever little influence I possess in the direction of
fighting the excesses of many of those whom you would consider
"realists." It is disheartening to see the tone of those who should
be my allies.

You and I differ on several specific contemporary problems.
But I have always looked at these differences from the disagreements
of serious people, both equally concerned with avoiding a cataclysm
and both eager to find an alternative to the pedantry and mediocrity
of current attitudes. What bothered me in your letter was the im-
plication that you were privy to a truth so obvious that it need not
be made explicit and that the major task was a kind of exegesis of
a liturgy that was self-evident. This, of course, has its inevitable