December 3, 1973
Page 39156
CRISIS OF CONFIDENCE
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, this morning the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations, which I have the privilege to chair, released a remarkable survey of public and expert opinion about American Government and leadership. The findings of this survey, the first instance we know of in which the Senate has used the established techniques of opinion sampling on a national scale, has information of value to every Member of Congress, and I recommend it to my colleagues.
The inquiry sought to measure the degree of confidence Americans have in various public and private institutions, citizens' understanding of Government, the people's involvement in the political process, and the means of making Government more open and responsive to the public will. Individual conclusions are both depressing and encouraging, but the entire report deserves to be read as an outline both of America's mood and of measures we can take to improve that mood.
The report, "Confidence and Concern: Citizens View American Government," was formally presented at a subcommittee hearing today by Mr. Louis Harris, the respected opinion analyst whose firm conducted the study on our behalf. I ask unanimous consent that my opening statement; a statement by the distinguished Senator from Florida (Mr. GURNEY), who is the ranking Republican member of the subcommittee and whose support was essential to making this study a bipartisan success; and the testimony of Mr. Harris be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
DECEMBER 3, 1973
The report being presented to the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations this morning is a remarkable one, and not just because some of its findings are startling. As far as we know, the study is the first survey of public opinion commissioned for a Senate subcommittee, the first time the legislative branch has used a tool that executive agencies and private institutions adopted long ago to help with their work.
The uses that we, as law-makers, find for this unique sampling of public and expert attitudes about our government will be the best measure of its lasting value. Primarily, of course, the report is educational; it teaches us to see our work and ourselves from the citizens' point of view. No one who looks at himself closely through the eyes of others is likely to be flattered, and for public servants this survey ought to be a lesson in modesty.
But beyond appraising the performance of public men and political institutions, the findings can guide us toward specific policies. From such a wealth of data, of course, it is possible to isolate convenient answers that fit some political predisposition and work those separate conclusions into the ground. Like the proverbial blind men trying to describe an elephant from its separate parts, we could either try to blame the President alone for the alarming cynicism this survey found or discount the whole report as a product of the Watergate climate. Either interpretation would distort this report.
My own instinct is to read this message from the American people as reflecting less a crisis of confidence in government alone and more a failure of all authority to cope with enormous, swift, social change. The disoriented decade since the assassination of President Kennedy has shaken almost every one of the traditional concepts with which Americans were familiar.
Overseas our power is not what we once thought it to be. At home, our affluence no longer guarantees perpetual abundance. In economic affairs, personal and group relations, religious beliefs and, now, standards of public conduct, we have been forcefully challenged to adjust old values to new realities.
The role of a democratic government is a vital one in helping individuals and society understand and meet the shock of such rapid change. The conclusions of the survey indicate that, while our government has failed to fill that role, Americans remain confident that it can.
The question we face, then, is how to strengthen ourselves and our institutions to do the job better. And the Subcommittee survey does give quite specific guidance toward policies that may help answer that question.
Very briefly, I want to point out some connections between diagnosis and remedy for the conditions described in the survey. It shows us that people are very poorly informed, in general, about their government at all levels and have only the most limited and basically self-centered contact with government services.
Yet, contrary to the public apathy described by so many of the officials questioned, the study finds citizens anxious to take part in the affairs of their community, respectful of the organized groups which already do so, and eager to receive inspiration for their efforts in trustworthy, vigorous central leadership. It also shows a common desire on the part of the people and the State and local officials who were interviewed to see Federal responsibilities more widely shared with other levels of government.
Putting those conclusions together spells out a need for programs which bring citizens to participate in the decisions of their government. And with this need came the call in the report for the allocation of more Federal funds and power to the cities, towns, counties, and States – those places where many Americans perceive their influence now has the most impact. When the Congress enacted general revenue sharing last year, for example, it hoped to develop a means for greater citizen participation, but so far very few positive results have come from that effort.
Revenue sharing, of course, is just one area which offers public servants an occasion to reach out to the public they serve, and it is one that must not be slighted. So in the area of revenue sharing this Subcommittee will continue to work for improved ways of opening communication between government and the governed.
More broadly, it is obvious from the survey that a key to increased citizen participation is better communication between the leaders and the led. As a result, the necessary adversary relationship between the press and authority needs considerable attention. Americans show little trust for any of the traditional institutions of their society, but newspapers and television news are the only ones to have earned increased respect since 1966.
Officials, however, seem to regard journalists with mixed hostility and distrust. And so the dialogue – in which the press is the essential intermediary – between the people and their leaders is being interrupted and distorted.
To restore it will take a change of manners, not of laws, on both sides. The change will have to begin with a new acceptance by officials of the necessity of submitting their public conduct to continual scrutiny and a new willingness by journalists to conduct that scrutiny with an eye to information as much as sensation.
The basic conclusions I draw can be summed up by noting the dominant and depressing public view that elected officials at all levels promise more than they ever deliver except in terms of their personal interest. The only way for politicians to change that destructive image is to tailor their conduct in office and at election time to standards of realism and truthfulness that will help Americans comprehend and confront the astonishing pace of change in their world.
We will do better, to paraphrase Alistair Cooke's recent observation, by concentrating less on grandeur and more on decency.
OPENING STATEMENT BY SENATOR EDWARD J. GURNEY
The subject of this morning's hearings is a precedent setting study of relationships between American citizens and their government – Federal, State and local. This study is, to my knowledge, the first Congressional effort to make such extensive use of the modern polling techniques to improve communications between Congress and both the general public and State and local government leaders. This effort is therefore of great importance as an indication of the Congressional recognition of the need to improve its capability to directly listen to the people, of America.
More pertinent than this recognition of a need for this type of information, of course, are the actual findings of this study. In brief, those findings can be summarized by saying that the growing public alienation which we had anticipated finding is a real and serious phenomenon, but has not, at least thus far, affected the basic confidence which Americans have in their system of government.
Although a majority of 57% of Americans feel that their confidence in the Federal Government has declined over the past five years, an even larger majority feels that the Federal Government can respond to their needs. The American people show strong confidence in the ability of our system of government to fulfill the role which they would assign to it.
The study indicates that the reasons for this decreasing confidence in government are not as simple as might first appear. The "alienation index" mentioned in the study has increased almost every year since it was first measured in 1966. Similarly, almost all public institutions – not the Federal Government alone – have lost the confidence of the people. This would appear to indicate that no single event or group of events are responsible for the American people's growing alienation, but rather that our society is increasingly subject to a complex group of factors which are eroding the mutual trust and confidence which are essential to a democratic society of free people. It is essential that we attempt to determine the underlying causes of this problem, and identify possible actions to remedy it.
In addition to the study's findings concerning confidence in government, there are several areas in which the results were most reassuring. The people are clearly not interested in a continuously growing federal bureaucracy. Sixty-one percent of the public felt that the Federal Government should have its power reduced, while only 18 percent felt that there should be an increase in its strength, with a plurality of even that 18 percent in favor of reducing federal bureaucracy and control over the tax dollar.
Similarly, in a series of "trade off" questions the public consistently indicated that they would object to the sacrifice of various personal liberties or to government incursions into their private lives, even to accomplish various goals "in the public interest," such as combating crime, pollution, and the energy crisis. The study showed quite clearly that there is a remarkably strong current of concern for privacy and personal liberties which, as a political conservative, I found most comforting.
As is the case with most substantive studies, this one raises more questions than it answers. This is as it should be, and I hope that the Congress will address itself to some of those unanswered questions, as well as to the information which has been obtained from this first study. Included in those unanswered questions are several which are basic to the relationship between the American people and their government – is there a correlation between the increasing reliance on the broadcast media as a source of information concerning government and the increasing lack of confidence in government? If there is such a correlation, is it due to media emphasis on the negative, or is it merely a public rejection of what has always existed, but previously was not so apparent to the public?
These and other questions concerning the public's perceptions of government, and how those perceptions are formed, deserve further study. Finding the answers can only benefit a healthy understanding of the relationships between American citizens and their government.
TESTIMONY BY LOUIS HARRIS, PRESIDENT,
LOUIS HARRIS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
It is a deep privilege to appear here this morning at this hearing. At the outset I would like to acknowledge a real debt to this committee and its staff for the opportunity to survey the American people on the immensely important subject of public confidence and responsiveness to government at all levels. Indeed, now that the survey has been completed, we know that this survey has addressed itself to the key question facing this nation today: no less than how to restore the faith and confidence of a free people in their own government.
The substance and design of the survey are based on the predications and assumptions contained in the original mandate from the Subcommittee, the original design submitted by our firm, then worked out in lengthy work sessions with the able Chairman, Ranking Minority Member, and their staff. Yet, I must point out that in no way in the planning or analysis of this study was there the slightest hint at abridging or tempering the basic design of the research. There was never a question which was removed from the survey because it was too hot to handle. Never were we commanded or even had suggested to us that the survey should come up with a picture of either hope or despair. Our basic sailing orders were to find out what the people think and let the chips fall where they may.
As a researcher, I have always felt in any study of public opinion the people are always trying to say something, to speak their piece. Our task is to give them free and unfettered opportunity to say it, and then in our analysis to find out what they were trying to say and to report it fully and accurately. Today, it befalls my privileged lot to report as accurately, penetratingly, and urgently as possible what the American people had to say about their government and the system under which they live in the fall of 1973, as we stood poised to enter the last quarter of the twentieth century, the most eventful time probably in all the history of mankind. While I will report the facts, the conclusions and observations I shall make are entirely my own and those of our organization. As a professional, I have an obligation to remain totally within the bounds of our data. As a citizen of this republic and as an observer, there are certain implications of the findings I feel compelled to comment on.
There may be islands of hope across this broad land of ours, but a central fact is that as a nation, as a people, disaffection and disenchantment abounds at every turn. For the first time in over a decade of opinion sampling, this survey shows that disaffection has now reached majority proportions. On a scale of powerlessness, cynicism, and alienation used by the Harris firm since 1966, an average of 55% of the American people expressed disenchantment, compared with no more than 29% who felt that way only seven years ago. The trend has been steadily and almost unabatingly upward from 29% in 1966 to 36% in 1968 to 42% in 1971 to 49 % in 1972 to 55 % in 1973, a veritable flood tide of disenchantment, seemingly gaining momentum with each passing year.
The proposition that "what you think doesn't count much anymore" has grown from a minority of 37% in 1966 to 61% in 1973; "people running the country don't really care what happens to you" had risen from 26% to 55%; those who think "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer," up from 45 to 76%. The sense that "people with power try to take advantage of people like yourself" has grown from a minority of 33% in 1971 to a majority of 55% by this past fall. Three in every four people across the country feel that "wire-tapping and spying under the excuse of national security is a serious threat to people's privacy." Almost as many, 74%, believe that "special interests get more from government than the people." A majority of 60% agree with the charge that "most elective officials are in politics for all they personally can get out of it.
Any objective analysis of such results can only conclude that a crisis of the most serious magnitude now exists in the response and assessment of the people to their government. While there are some traditional strains of feelings of economic injustice, the main thrust of the people's disaffection can be traced to a growing sense of powerlessness, to a deep feeling that those with power seek to abridge, deny, and even strip away the ultimate power of the governed. This felt tyranny of erosion of the people's power and freedom has not been viewed as a sudden development, is not limited to one act or one leader or one period in recent history. It has been taking place for several years, and its very duration escalates a serious and even dangerous condition into a full-blown crisis of confidence.
The study probed in considerable depth to determine just how much this crisis exists across the boards for the leadership of all major institutions in America and how much it is centered on government at various levels. Basically, by any standard, there has been a fall in respect and confidence in the people running almost every major U.S. institution compared with 1968, when we first measured it: medicine down from 72 to 57% In the number who possess "a great deal of confidence"; higher education down from 61 to 44%; the military down from 62 to 40%; organized religion down from 41 to 36%; business down from 55 to 29%; organized labor, never very high, nonetheless still off from 22 to 20 %. While no trend exists, it should be noted that leaders of the law profession come up with no better than 24% high confidence from the public.
Certainly there is little solace in those falls from grace for the private or non-governmental sector of our national life. The fact that most came back a little in public esteem in the past year does offer some hope that faith can be renewed and restored. But out of the leadership of 22 private and public institutions tested in the survey, it is telling and significant that no more than two could come up with majority high confidence standing: medicine and local trash collection. The average for all institutions in the survey was 33% of the people with a "great deal of confidence," hardly a vote of confidence in the collective leadership of this country across the board. So before the leaders of other institutions take the results of this survey as a signal to place all that is wrong in this country at the doorstep of government, they would be wise to look to their own state of public confidence and seek to repair the damage that has been done close to where they live.
Only one area of leadership shows any increase in public confidence since 1966: the media, a source of controversy in any era and probably never more than today. Television news and the press have risen in public esteem, although having said this the 41 % high confidence in TV news and the 30 % for the press are still accolades from only a minority of the people. Of perhaps greater significance is the wide gulf that exists in the estimate of the media by local and state officials surveyed and the public. While 41 % of the public gave TV news high marks, only 17% of the leaders did the same. While 30% of the public expressed high regard for the press, no more than 19% of the leaders were willing to give a similar vote of confidence.
The inescapable conclusion is that the public has roughly twice as much confidence in the media than state and local public officials today. Other Harris Surveys have shown as much as two out of three people in the country grateful to the press for having revealed wrong-doing in government. The widely disseminated idea that the media have brainwashed the public into the current low state of confidence in institutional leadership, particularly at the federal level, is a charge that simply does not wash with the people themselves. And my own view is that the sooner men in high public places realize that broadside attacks on the media are likely to seriously damage their own credibility, the sooner public leadership can restore confidence and responsiveness. By the same token, given this new growth in confidence, perhaps some of my brethren in the media can feel they can afford to brush a few of the chips of adversarism on their collective shoulders in the reporting process.
Public confidence in government generally must be reported as being lower than a constituent democracy can afford. Since 1966, high confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court has fallen away from a majority 51% to a minority 33%; in the U.S. Senate from 42 to 30%; in the House of Representatives from 42 to 29%; and in the executive branch of the federal government from 41 to 19%. All but the executive branch, however, did make some gains of between 5 and 9 points just in the past year. The executive branch slipped another 8 points lower.
Although the federal establishment ranks low by any standard, state and local government can take little comfort, for no more than 28% of the people expressed high confidence in leadership of local government and 24% in state government, although a much higher 52% praised local trash collection, 44% their local police, and 39% their local public school leadership.
However, at the very bottom of the list came the leadership in the White House, and I would be remiss here today if I did not comment about that. The 1596 people interviewed were asked what they would tell the President if they had the chance to sit down and talk with him. The result: 72% of the public would raise questions about his integrity and the current crisis surrounding him and the Watergate scandal. There are two reasons to account for this singling out of the President by the public: first, in many ways, under our system, the man who occupies the White House is more than an individual, is a symbol and a central pivot of not only the federal establishment but of government at all levels; second, by any measure, the Watergate disclosures have placed a cloud of distrust over this President, the White House, and the entire executive branch. In a sense, however, it would be a mistake to say the public disenchantment began with Mr. Nixon nor even that it necessarily will end with him. But he is a powerful symbol and restoration of confidence in government cannot be accomplished without restoration of confidence in the White House and in the President himself.
While disenchantment among the public runs deep, it is important to point out that this disaffection is far more directed at the leadership of our institutions than at the institutions themselves. In other studies, we have found no more than 5% of the public at all ready to scrap the major institutions that make up our voluntary, essential privately oriented society. In this study itself, 9 in every 10 people expressed the cardinal article of faith that government, for example, can be made to work efficiently and effectively, and within the parameters of liberty a free people require. But there is a mood of skepticism about current leadership of nearly all institutions, and just below the surface a growing willingness to throw the rascals out. The people want change not to overthrow the system, but to make it work the way they think it should.
In the 26 years in which I have been engaged personally in analyzing public opinion as a professional, I have been singularly struck by the fact that most Americans have rather strong opinions on most important subjects, but that their views are marked by much more emotion than a thorough grounding in knowledge. In the surveys we take, people are giving us their feelings on a subject, much more than a final rendering of judgment when all the facts have been sifted and carefully weighed. This survey offers ample documentation of this basic observation.
By their own admission, a majority of people are not well informed about what is going on in government or politics at the federal, state, or local levels. Although 89% correctly can identify their own state's governor, no more than 59 % can name one U.S. Senator from their state, only 39% can name the other U.S. Senator, and a minority of 46% really know who their Congressman is. Substantive knowledge about the details of legislation or foreign policy might be even lower than those levels.
Yet for all of this lack of specific information, a striking finding of this study is that the American people are far from apathetic, uninterested in the public affairs of their country, nor uninvolved. It is only at their peril that public officials assume an apathetic public, nor one which win not respond.
Part of the problem exposed by the survey is that other than in paying their taxes and filing the necessary forms to receive licenses, social security, and other direct government benefits, the American people have had remarkably little direct contact with their government at any level. No more than 9% of the public have had "a highly satisfying experience" with local government, 5% at the state level, and a similar 5% at the federal level. Despite the amount of time and correspondence conducted by members of Congress with their constituencies, nonetheless the fact remains that when all of the problems of parents with sons in the armed forces, income tax complaints, help with passports, and other special governmental contact is added up, only a small fragment of the people have had any contact at all with government. Local and state officials, it might be added, readily acknowledge this fact. Unfortunately, for most of the public, government at all levels means only slightly more than paying taxes, which, indeed, most feel are too high to begin with.
Both the public and the leadership tend to parallel each other's views about which level of
government authority can best respond to a broad range of concerns ranging from world peace to garbage collection and up from highway accidents to inflation. But two areas – political corruption and social welfare – are felt to deserve a high priority attention from all levels of government. And the public and the leaders are also convinced that to make government function better, state and local governments should be strengthened and the federal establishment should have power taken away from it, despite a clear mandate for the federal government to take the primary responsibility for war and peace, the economy, and the quality of life.
The real potential for greater dialogue and responsiveness between the public and government rests clearly in the amount of citizen participation in affecting governmental policy. Any doubts about an apathetic public can be dispelled by just dwelling for a moment on the roster of real problems facing the country as seen through the eyes of the people and the leaders. Both groups are basically agreed on the seriousness of the high price of meat and other food, the lack of trust and confidence in government, the problems of average citizens to make ends meet, and the pressures of day-to-day living. But the differences tell a significant story. While only 40% of the state and local leaders felt that "too many national crises all the time" is a real problem, a much higher 56% of the people feel that way. While 47% the leaders see a high priority in "getting people to trust each other," a higher 59% of the people feel that way. While only a minority of 37% of the leaders see the "inability of government to solve problems" as a pressing question, a substantially higher 61% of the public feels this way. And while 48% of the officials believe "corrupt politicians" are a real problem for the country, a much higher 70% of the public believe it.
Indeed, the American people see the question of the ability of government to deliver on promises and the encumbrance of corrupt public officials as much more serious problems than state and local government leaders are prepared to acknowledge. This gap points up in turn a major finding of the study. Throughout the results, the question of credibility of government officials emerged time and again. Credibility can be undone by two causes: first, quick and easy promises by politicians which go largely unfulfilled and second, lack of candor and integrity on the part of men vested with high public responsibility.
As a nation, over 3 out of every 4 adult citizens belong to some organization, and half of these are active in them. Over one in three people have some real organizational experience. But a much higher 58% of the public expressed the view that they personally feel they could do something about an unjust or corrupt public official, and when asked what they would do "if they wanted to see a change take place in government," 94% said they would vote against a public official, 91% would talk to their friends and neighbors about the question, 84% would write
their Congressman, 81% would write their U.S. Senator, 79% would work through a group they belong to, 76% would contact local law enforcement officials, 75% would contact someone in local politics, 72 % would join a local citizens group, 66% would join a political party and work to make changes, 65% would write a letter to the newspaper, 62% would send money to support a local citizens group to demand action, 61% would talk to a newspaper reporter or editor, and 55% would vote against the public official's party at the next election.
No more than 17% said they would "do nothing".
Clearly, there are literally masses of the American people poised out there with the notion of becoming more involved in the process rather than withdrawing from it. Indeed, half the public feels that "groups of citizens and organizations are having more effect in getting government to get things done." A much higher 68% of the state and local leaders share this view. It is perfectly apparent that the public is looking in the future to vastly greater citizen participation in their governmental decision-making process than has ever been the case before.
In fact, the major interconnect between the people and their government emerges from this survey as resting in citizen initiative which is on the upbeat in every part of the country and the willingness of public officials to respond with attention to this citizen activity. The question, then, comes down to a matter of whether the public is sufficiently aroused today to take this bit into its collective teeth.
A remarkable measure of just how much the public is aroused can be found in a series of questions put to the people about the kind of leaders they think they have today and whether or not it is possible to have that kind of leadership. On only one count – leaders genuinely working for peace – did a majority of 53% of the public feel the country had such leadership, but, even there, a higher 90 % thought it possible to have such committed leaders. Only 10% feel they have leaders today "who come up with solutions to inflation that work", but 79% think it possible to have such leaders. Only 17% feel that "the best people are attracted to serve in public life", although 89 % think that is possible. No more than 18% think "government is the most exciting place to work", but 68% think it can be made that way. Only 24% think "the good of the country is placed above special interests", but 85% think it can be. No more than 34% think "public officials really care about the people", but 88% think they can find public officials who will feel this way. No more than 36% think "most public officials are dedicated to helping the country", but 86% think such men in public life can be found. Only 13% think that "corruption and payoffs almost never take place" in our society, but a much higher 65% think this condition can become a reality.
The leaders share the public's optimism that this kind of intelligent, sensitive and honest leadership for the country can be found, although the leaders are less willing to admit that the nation does not have it now. A major finding of the study is that the public is unwilling to give any public official at any level of government a carte blanche over the affairs of their local, state, or federal governments. Yet, at the same time, people all over the nation are literally crying out for the kind of compassionate and farsighted leadership which will be willing to face the people, lay out the problems for the people to see, have the courage to ask the public to face these problems, and open the doors of government for the people to share in the decision-making process. At this juncture of American history, the people are opting strongly for a restoration of open, democratic government, where the people are trusted and consulted, but where the leadership leads, and, above all else, displays an integrity that the public can believe in. As the scars of Watergate begin to disappear, it is entirely possible that the tight reins the public asks for now will slacken. But to move away from ready accountability would meet with stiff public resistance.
Specifically, the American people desperately want a condition in the country in which government secrecy can no longer be excused as an operational necessity, since it can exclude the participation of the people in their government, and, indeed, can be used as a screen for subverting their freedom. But just as important, the public is also demanding that any kind of successful future leadership must possess iron-bound integrity. This matter of honesty and straight-dealing is one that has the public deeply alarmed. It cannot be underestimated. The American people simply will not rest easy until they feel that integrity in government at all levels is secured.
Once these preconditions of openness and integrity have been fulfilled, then the time may well come when the people can be approached to make the sacrifices necessary to solve the common problems of the country. Indeed, as we have found out since the energy crisis descended upon us, the people are well out ahead of their leaders in willingness to sacrifice. But if the preconditions to open government are not met, then frustration, alienation, and polarization are likely to proceed apace. And the distrust of the governed for those who govern is a dangerous development indeed.
Let me close by observing that over the past decade since the brutal death of President Kennedy, America has gone through much anguish. Basically, we have been living through the anguish of change, in which life and values in this country have been changing rapidly. The challenge of our times is to find a way to achieve peace in a world where the push of a single button can obliterate tens of millions of lives, to harness the world's energies to allow modern man to live in comfort but in which sacrifice to achieve this end is accomplished with equality and justice and at the same time the environment is preserved, to adjust to complex and modern living but at the same time to see the quality of life improve and not to deteriorate, to make certain that the forces of a world-wide inflation do not rob the people of new-found material gains at a time when productivity is in a position to rise dramatically, to find ways for people of all races and colors to achieve a chance to share in the abundant life while at the same time respecting the rights of people to accommodate to change in a way consonant with their own life experience, to achieve a pluralistic society in which not only the rights of others are respected but in which new ideas and different modes of life can thrive without being threatened by a pall of conformity, to be able to guarantee in practice that the liberties of each citizen are inviolable no matter how great the seeming urgencies of national security nor no matter how powerful government might think itself to be, and, finally, to achieve an America and, indeed, a world, in which a spirit abounds where people are in a mood to attack their common problems instead of attacking each other.
All of this is the full plate of the agenda that faces leadership in America today. The public has not lost faith, but it has lost confidence. Above all, the promise of this America is as bright to the people as it has ever been. Skepticism in its achievement abounds because the people feel they have been cut off and because their leadership has failed them. But, above all, there is still the spirit of faith that is there among the people themselves. As the great American poet Archibald MacLeish wrote almost 35 years ago:
Listen! Brothers! Generation!
Listen! You have heard these words. Believe it!
Believe the promises are theirs who take them !
Believe unless we take them for ourselves
Others will take them for the use of others!
Believe unless we take them for ourselves
All of us: one here: another there:
Men not Man; people not the People:
Believe unless we take them for ourselves
Others will take them: not for us: for others!
Believe unless we take them for ourselves
Now: soon: by the clock: before tomorrow:
Others will take them: not for now: for longer
Believe America is promises to
Take!
America is promises to us
To take them
Brutally
With love but
Take them.
O believe this!