October 22, 1975
Page 33548
WHAT GOVERNMENT CAN AND CANNOT DO
Mr. STEVENSON. Mr. President, our colleague, Senator MUSKIE, in a speech at the New York Liberal Party's annual dinner recently warned liberals to take stock of the public disaffection with Government. He urged a realistic appreciation of what Government can and cannot do. He warned against the danger of disappointed public expectations and advised liberals to make reform of Government an end in itself. Senator MUSKIE's admonitions should be heeded by moderates on all sides. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that his speech be printed in the RECORD, together with a number of comments from the press about this speech.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
THE UNFINISHED LIBERAL CONSENSUS
(Remarks by Senator Edmund S. Muskie)
Four years ago, I spoke to you here about the need for a liberal coalition to enlist a majority of Americans in a drive for change.
I spoke in terms of votes in a Presidential election. For the Presidency is the big apple of politics — without it there can be little change.
We failed in 1972 to reach a majority consensus for liberal change. And on the eve of 1976, we face the grim possibility of failing again. For the liberal consensus again remains unfinished.
How can that happen? After seven years of a Republican Administration distinguished only by its failures, how could the American electorate fail to vote for a new liberal administration?
When we know what's right, how can so many Americans not follow our leadership? How can so many Americans make the wrong choice?
How can so many Americans miss the point?
The answer, I submit, is that we have missed the point.
For in the past decade, liberals have developed an ideology and state of mind that is narrow, unimaginative and often irrelevant.
Contrast that with the state of Liberals during the Great Depression, when we spoke with the people's voice. We assumed the burden of uniting the poor and discontented of every race and ethnic background.
We held them together in a powerful liberal consensus. In the first 100 days of the New Deal, we accomplished some of the most fundamental changes ever to occur in America.
We succeeded then because our proposals went directly to what people wanted — jobs, controls on big business, rights for workers, social security, freedom from fear.
Four decades ago, we had discovered the possibilities of government action to better the lives of Americans. People were excited by the possibilities, and they prospered as a result.
But something has happened since then — and it's basically happened to us.
People still are discontented. They still want change, and it is still our responsibility to help them make change a reality .
Yet when the average citizen turns to us for help, what does he find?
Consider, for example, the 1972 National Platform of the Democratic Party.
If you wanted to read it, it would take a while. It runs about fifty pages, or nearly 15,000 words, and it reads like the catalogue of virtually every problem that we liberals think bothers the American people.
The Platform speaks knowledgeably about the Railway Labor Act, capital gains taxes, funding for ethnic studies, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the new towns program, bilingual education, community-based rehabilitation facilities, the Food for Peace Program, the Protocol on Chemical Warfare, and literally hundreds of other aspects of our incredibly complex national government.
It was a wonderfully comprehensive and esoteric document. It showed that we knew all about government, and knew just what government programs needed change.
Yet the results of the election showed that the 1972 platform was irrelevant, for all practical purposes.
For in promising so much for so many, it was meaningless. Nowhere in there was there any statement of what those hundreds of changes would cost. How much, for example, would the new towns program cost? Would we need higher taxes to pay for it? How many people really would be helped?
Or, what about capital gains tax reform. Would it soak just the rich? What about retired couples, supplementing their social security check with a blue-chip stock dividend? Would they be soaked, as well?
I'm not trying to say that we need a national effort to write better party platforms. Obviously, there are better ways to communicate with people.
But the Democratic Platform of 1972 represents to me the culmination of years of liberal neglect — of allowing a broad-based coalition to narrow — of progressively ignoringthe real fears and aspirations of people — and of assuming we know best what the people need.
For all the fine details we mustered then, and can muster today for political discussions, we still don't deal with the real issues
And what are the real issues? They're not as finely detailed as the issues we discuss but they can be found.
I read my mail, I talk with voters in the towns of Maine, and I listen. I find everywhere people who can't cite from the Federal Register but know what's wrong anyway.
They work hard, but they are not so sure anymore that 14 hour days in a lobster boat or the monotony of an assembly line are worth the effort.
They feel victimized by the economy. Fuel oil is up 118 percent over 1969 — bread, 36 percent — hamburger, up 50 percent. Jobs are in danger as layoffs continue.
Yet all around them they see special interests which have escaped those troubles if they are big and powerful enough. Money and power buy access to government, whether it's Lockheed or a firemen's union. And raising hell can get access, if you're loud and organized.
They sense that things are getting worse, not better. Crime went up in Maine last year. There are few hopeful signs on the horizon. They don't feel secure in their homes, on the street, or on the job.
And, most important, they don't believe that government really cares about them. All they need is one encounter with some government bureaucrat to confirm that. In Maine, for example, it now takes a full year to process a social security disability claim.
The people I hear in Maine, plainly, are demoralized and alienated. People everywhere are demoralized.
Louis Harris stated recently that 67 percent of the people feel that "what you think doesn't count much anymore," nearly double the 37 percent who felt that way in 1966. Nearly the same response came to the statement that "the people running the country don't care what happens to you."
Seventy-two percent of the American people stated they do not think they get their money's worth from their taxes, up from 56 percent in 1969.
During the same period of time, people lost confidence in literally every major institution, public and private.
The number of people who expressed great confidence in doctors, down to 44 percent from 72 percent.
In higher education, down to 33 percent from 61 percent.
In the military, down to 29 percent from 62 percent.
In organized labor, down to 14 percent from 22 percent.
In Congress, down to 13 percent, from 42 percent.
In the Executive Branch, down to 13 percent, from 43 percent.
And in local government leaders in central cities, an estimated seven percent.
At the top of the list, people felt great confidence in local trash collectors. The reason? Harris found that people felt that at least they know whether or not they take away the trash and keep the streets clean.
At the same time people were frustrated with government, Harris found underneath a strong desire for new political leaders who will level with them about problems and solutions. They want leaders who will open up government, and let them participate. They want leaders who are committed to making government work as well as people believe it can work.
A year from now, people will again choose their leadership.
And the liberal task is to make sure that there is a choice.
The Republican Party, predictably, will ignore its failures and run against the Democratic Congress.
And what alternative will we offer? Another 1972 Platform that promises a new, improved program for every problem?
Do we really expect a majority of Americans to support national health insurance, when estimated costs range up to $100 billion a year?
Do we really expect a majority of Americans to support wholesale tax reforms to eliminate loopholes, when such reforms in tie past have only made the system more complex and failed to relieve the burden on middle-income people?
Do we really expect a majority of Americans to support massive aid to cities in financial trouble — New York, especially — when their sentiments are to punish cities for overspending?
Do we really expect a majority of Americans to support government mandates for equal opportunities for women and minorities, when it means losing hard-won seniority or the busing of their children?
In other words, do we really expect a majority of Americans to support more government programs — no matter how worthy — at a time when confidence in government is at an all-time low?
At this time, none of us could sincerely answer yes.
Common sense tells us that despite their support for an active role for government, Americans want to see fundamental change — change that can make them again confident in government's ability to help make their lives better.
And there's no good reason that liberals can't do just that.
Why, for example, can't liberals propose fundamental changes in the structure of the Executive Branch of the Federal government? The government published this year a 799-page manual just to explain its own structure. We have an Executive Branch that has 11 cabinet departments and 38 independent agencies, each with its own budget, bureaucracy and constituency.
We have a system of grants-in-aid that has over 1,000 different programs, each with its own requirements, approach, and money. In the health field alone, there are 228 different Federal programs. It takes 10 different agencies to administer those 228 programs.
There are 1,240 Federal advisory boards, committees, commissions and councils, run by more than 4,000 Federal employees.
Why can't liberals start hacking away at the regulatory bureaucracy where it keeps costs up and competition away?
Why do we tolerate regulatory agencies which stifle innovation, restrict competition, bury businesses with needless paperwork, and cost the American consumer billions of dollars a year?
Much regulation of business is undoubtedly necessary. But we now sit under a creaking regulatory structure — much of it outmoded — much of it captive of the very interests it regulates — often with too few resources to carry out its useful functions.
Why can't we just sit down with those agencies and say: Justify yourself. And you'd better make a good case.
Why can't liberals, for another example, talk about fiscal responsibility and productivity without feeling uncomfortable?
When Congress considered enactment of budget reform — which gave us the resources and procedures to discipline Federal spending and establish priorities — some of the strongest opponents were liberals.
When there is talk of cutting costs, making civil servants responsible for productivity, or just wondering why our Federal budget is now almost $400 billion, you simply don't find liberals involved in the discussion.
My basic question is this: Why can't liberals start raising hell about a government so big, so complex, so expensive, and so unresponsive that it's dragging down every good program we've worked for?
Yet we stay away from that question like it was the plague.
We're in a rut. We've accepted the status quo. We know that government can do much to improve the lives of every American. But that conviction has also led us to become the defenders of government, no matter its mistakes.
Our emotional stake in government is so much that we regard common-sense criticism of government almost as a personal attack.
We resist questioning the basic assumptions of the structure and role of government, fearing the unknown, that somehow we have more to lose than gain through change.
Budget reform could mean cutting back spending on health programs, but it could also mean fewer gold-plated weapon systems.
Productivity standards could cost union support, but they could help restore public confidence in the many government workers who work hard.
Or regulatory reform could jeopardize health and safety regulation, but it could also loosen the grip of special interests on agencies.
Plainly, we cannot move forward without questioning such basic assumptions, and running certain dangers.
The American people have already spoken: Government must put its own house in order before it takes on new and bigger responsibilities.
And as long as we shrink from offering an alternative to a system of government people have lost confidence in, we can expect to remain in a minority.
Our challenge this decade is to restore the faith of Americans in the basic competence and purposes of government. That can come only through the hard process of reform.
We must adopt government reform as our first priority — as an end in itself. We must recognize that an efficient government — well-managed, cost-effective, equitable, and responsible — is in itself a social good.
We must do this secure in the conviction that the first priority of efficient government is not a retreat from social goals, but simply a realization that without it, those goals are meaningless.
There is no good reason why we can't provide that alternative.
We have a legacy four decades old of enlarging the personal vision of every American. It is a legacy of success of government helping to create the opportunities for the good life for Americans. It has brought meaning and hope to countless millions in this nation.
We also have an unfinished agenda for America. It includes dignity for the worker, for the poor and elderly — clean air and water — free access to the political process — an educational system open to all — a just legal system — fair taxation — and economic fair play — an agenda, in other words, of a nation strong, confident and compassionate.
And finally, we have an unfinished consensus. It is a consensus for liberal change in America. It remains for us to restore confidence in government, and then to tap again the great moral potential of the American people for common sacrifice and sharing.
We have, in other words, a winning hand. Let's not fold it.
[From the Baltimore Sun, Oct. 15, 1975]
TIME FOR LIBERALS TO RETHINK
"In the past decade American liberals have developed an ideology and state of mind that is narrow, unimaginative and often irrelevant." Who said that? William F. Buckley? Ronald Reagan? Barry Goldwater? The sentiments may be ones those rightwing ideologues share, but the speaker was Edmund Muskie, whose voting record over the past decade has been about as liberal as any Senator's. The Maine senator and former Democratic vice presidential nominee was not recanting before some conservative audience Down East, either. He was speaking in Manhattan, the spiritual and political home of modern liberalism, at a meeting of the Liberal Party. And he was saying that the time has come for liberals to recognize that people "sense things are getting worse not better ... Most important, they don't believe that government really cares about them."
Senator Muskie went on in that vein. The point he made in conclusion was that it is time for liberals to reclaim from conservatives the leading role in criticizing the federal government for its inefficiencies and other sins. "We must adopt government reform as our first priority — as an end in itself. We must recognize that an efficient government — well managed, cost effective, equitable and responsible — is in itself a social good. We must do this secure in the conviction that first priority of efficient government is not a retreat from social goals but simply a realization that without it, those goals are meaningless."
The American mood in 1975 is such that there will be little public support for some great new social program or policy as long as the public believes the government is corrupt or inefficient or lazy or over-bureaucratized. Even those citizens who favor the program or policy in question will be loath to trust implementation to a government they distrust.
We think it is vitally important that Senator Muskie and other liberals continue to debate this issue out loud. When the Goldwaters and Reagans make the same arguments, many people in and out of public affairs dismiss them, on the grounds that those critics don't like even positive results of an activist, progressive federal government.But when a liberal who is known to support, say, national health insurance comes out cautioning that it not be enacted until the government proves it can do the job, everybody should listen. Especially other liberals. Bad government is the enemy of all liberal programs.
[From the St. Louis Globe Democrat, Oct. 17, 1975]
IS MUSKIE GETTING THE MESSAGE?
Sen. Edmund S. Muskie is not your ordinary liberal. He is, according to the yardsticks of Americans for Democratic Action, Mr. Liberal himself.
What Carl Yastrzemski is to the Red Sox, what Johnny Bench is to the Reds, Ed Muskie is to the ADA.
The ADA rates the gentleman from Maine 100 per cent. By comparison, Missouri's two senators, Stuart Symington and Tom Eagleton, are a mere 71 per cent each in the esteem of the ADA.
It follows then that Sen. Muskie should be a welcome speaker at a dinner of the Liberal Party in New York last week. And that he was.
Muskie delivered an astonishing speech. In the past decade, Muskie said, "liberals have developed an ideology and state of mind that is narrow, unimaginative, and often irrelevant."
The Democrat from Maine put his finger on the Democratic Party Platform of 1972 as a classic example of what ails liberals.
"If you wanted to read it, it would take a while," he observed. "It runs about 50 pages,or nearly 15,000 words, and it reads like the catalogue of virtually every problem that we liberals think bothers the American people." The senator then cited some of the points in the platform and commented:
"The Democratic platform of 1972 represents to me the culmination of years of liberal neglect — of allowing a broadbased coalition to narrow — of progressively ignoring the real fears and aspirations of people — and of assuming we know best what the people need. For all the fine details we mustered then, and can muster today for political discussions, we still don't deal with the real issues."
Muskie then asked his liberal audience some provocative questions. Among them were:
"Do we really expect a majority of Americans to support national health insurance, when estimated costs range up to $100 billion a year?
"Do we really expect a majority of Americans to support wholesale tax reforms to eliminate loopholes, when such reforms in the past have only made the system more complex and failed to relieve the burden on middle-income people?
"Do we really expect a majority of Americans to support massive aid to cities in financial trouble — New York, especially — when their sentiments are to punish cities for overspending?
"Do we really expect a majority of Americans to support government mandates for equal opportunities for women and minorities, when it means losing hard-won seniority or the busing of their children?"
"In other words," Muskie asked, "do we really expect a majority of Americans to support more government programs — no matter how worthy — at a time when confidence in government is at an all-time low?"
Muskie gave an honest appraisal. "At this time, none of us could sincerely answer yes," he said.
Sounding like President Ford on his recent visit to St. Louis, Muskie ticked off objections to the vast superstructure of government. "We have a system of grants-in-aid that has over 1000 different programs, each with its own requirements, approach and money. In the health field alone, there are 228 different federal programs. It takes 10 different agencies to administer those 228 programs. There are 1240 federal advisory boards, committees, commissions and councils, run by more than 4000 federal employees."
The longer Muskie talked the better he got. Here are some more gems:
"Why can't liberals start hacking away at the regulatory bureaucracy where it keeps costs up and competition away?
"Why do we tolerate regulatory agencies which stifle innovation, restrict competition, bury businesses with needless paperwork, and cost the American consumer billions of dollars a year?"
One really must pause for breath to realize this isn't Ronald Reagan speaking. It's still Muskie:
"Why can't liberals, for another example, talk about fiscal responsibility and productivity without feeling uncomfortable?
"When Congress considered enactment of budget reform — which gave us the resources and procedures to discipline federal spending and establish priorities — some of the strongest opponents were liberals.
"When there is talk of cutting costs, making civil servants responsible for productivity,or just wondering why our federal budget is now almost $400 billion, you simply don't find liberals involved in the discussion.
"My basic question is this: Why can't liberals start raising hell about government so big, so complex, so expensive, and so unresponsive that it's dragging down every good program we've worked for?"
Whew!
Muskie could go on forever without any complaint from this quarter, but all good things must come to an end.
So how's this for an ending? Once again it's 100-proof Muskie:
"We must adopt government reform as our first priority — as an end in itself. We must recognize that an efficient government — well-managed, cost-effective, equitable, and responsible — is in itself a social good.
"We must do this secure in the conclusion that the first priority on efficient government is not a retreat from social goals, but simply a realization that without it, those goals are meaningless."
Nice going, Senator! All your liberal friends may turn a deaf ear to you. But if you put your votes where your mouth is, you will always be listened to respectfully by the conservative majority.
[From The Washington Star, Oct. 16, 1975]
MUSKIE : WHY CAN'T LIBERALS RAISE CAIN ABOUT BIG GOVERNMENT?
(By Martha Angle)
Can a certified Democratic liberal steeped in the traditions of free-spending government find peace of mind as a fiscal conservative?
"Why not?" says Sen. Edmund S. Muskie, D-Maine, three-term senator, erstwhile Democratic vice presidential nominee and recipient of a "perfect" rating last year from the liberal litmus testers, Americans for Democratic Action.
''Why can't liberals start raising hell about a government so big, so complex, so expensive and so unresponsive that it's dragging down every good program we've worked for?
"Why can't liberals talk about fiscal responsibility and productivity without feeling uncomfortable?
"We're in a rut," Muskie declared in a speech last week. "Our emotional stake in government is so great that we regard common-sense criticism of government almost as a personal attack."
As chairman of the fledgling Senate Budget Committee, Muskie is attempting to extricate himself from the "rut" and to drag his liberal colleagues with him to the high ground of fiscal realism.
In the 15 months since Congress created special House and Senate committees to carry out its complicated new budget process, Muskie has come to personify — on Capitol Hill, at least — a growing political skepticism among liberals about the approach that government can solve any problem simply by throwing enough dollars at it.
He has become an outspoken penny-pincher, a preacher of relative parsimony in a Senate only gradually adjusting itself to the politically painful demands of fiscal self-discipline.
In the process. Muskie has moved from the periphery of power in the Senate "club" to a position of unquestioned authority and clout.
"It's almost like he came back to life after losing everything in 1972," said one Democratic colleague. "He really enjoys the action the leadership role this Budget Committee has given him. He's helped to spawn a major new institution, and he's done a tremendous job of it."
Time and again in recent months, Muskie has taken the Senate floor to announce that his committee has scrutinized a particular piece of legislation and found it unduly expensive.
With equal fervor, the budget chairman has tackled a massive military procurement bill, the sacrosanct school lunch program and a fat federal pay increase — warning that each measure would bust the budget ceiling targets which Congress itself adopted last spring.
Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla., a staunch conservative who is the ranking GOP member of the budget panel, has joined Muskie in each floor fight, helping to forge a surprisingly effective coalition which has won every battle it has waged.
At the urging of this ideological "odd couple," the Senate rebuffed veteran Armed Services Chairman John C. Stennis, D-Miss., and sent the military procurement bill back to conference for further pruning.
Sen. George McGovern, D-S.D., chief sponsor of the school lunch and child nutrition bill, was so impressed by this initial Budget Committee victory that he voluntarily removed his bill from the calendar and took it back to conference for more cuts.
And the Senate heeded Muskie's warnings on the federal pay increase, voting to limit raises to 5 percent instead of the 8.66 percent boost recommended by a government panel and by the Post Office and Civil Service Committee.
Not surprisingly, the successes scored by the Muskie-Bellmon forces produced anguished screams from special interest groups at both ends of the political spectrum.
One pair of prominent conservative newspaper columnists, bemoaning the fate of the military procurement bill, claimed the entire budget reform process was a "shell game to fleece the Pentagon."
A council of liberal organizations, on the other hand, warned the "Muskie-Bellmon ploy to promote 'fiscal responsibility' will serve only to discourage needed initiatives in Congress to speed economic recovery."
Muskie was delighted to be drawing fire from both sides; as long as everybody was equally angry, he said, it was obvious the Budget Committee was on the right track.
"When I took this job, I knew I'd run into criticism," he said. "There is no way of trying to develop a discipline of this type without having people get restive under it.
"But I think we have got to face the fact that we cannot forever push for a bigger and bigger federal pie; I don't think unrestrained federal spending makes economic sense anymore, so what we are left with is a question of determining priorities."
Thus far, Muskie said, he has been pleasantly surprised at the acceptance the new budget process has gained in the Senate.
"I think a number of senators probably voted for this thing tongue-in-cheek," Muskie said. "They thought it was a cosmetic gesture, too complicated to work. I suspect many of them didn't really think we could effect changes in the Senate's existing habits."
There are, indeed, still some formidable pockets of resistance to the new process.
No one has been more upset by Muskie's budgetary muscle-flexing than Sen. John L. McClellan, D-Ark., aging chairman of the once-dominant Appropriations Committee.
Until the Budget Committee was established, Appropriations always had the greatest influence on federal spending.
Now Muskie has edged into the picture, looking over the Appropriations Committee's shoulder and alerting the Senate when McClellan's troops stray from the guidelines laid down in the first congressional budget resolution, which outlines various targets for spending this year.
McClellan has been doing a slow burn all year, sniping at Muskie repeatedly on the Senate floor and locking horns with him behind the scenes in jurisdictional disputes.
Muskie insists McClellan has nothing to fear from him. "If only he could bring himself to see the budget process as we see it, he wouldn't worry.
"We're not trying to take over the job of the Appropriations Committee. Our concern is with overall economic policy and priorities, not with line-item spending determinations," Muskie said.
Other Budget Committee members, although unwilling to be quoted by name, were less circumspect.
"There's no question that the powers-that-be on Appropriations and Finance expected to roll right over us," one Democrat on the committee said.
"They realized this budget process can only be meaningful if it supersedes them to some degree, as I think it has," he added.
There are still pitfalls down the road, this senator said, noting that Muskie has yet to tangle with Finance Chairman Russell Long, D-La., a master of internal power politics in the Senate.
Sooner or later, the Budget Committee is likely to differ with the Finance panel over taxation policy — and Muskie is sure to find Long a troublesome foe.
But Muskie has joined the big boys now. He has his own power base, and is well on his way to achieving a substantive mastery unmatched by any other member of the Senate.
Because the Budget Committee deals with overall spending priorities, its members have been forced to undergo a crash education in virtually every aspect of public policy, from economics to weapons systems, from oil prices to health insurance.
"It's a great school," Muskie said. "The educational process is enormously challenging. In another two or three years, there won't be anybody in the Senate who knows more about the way government operates than the members of this committee."
[From the Detroit Free Press, Oct, 16, 1975]
GLAMOUR YEARS OBSCURE WHERE NEW DEAL LEFT US
(By Judd Arnett)
The headline in the Morning Friendly said, "Liberals Join Against Big Government," and from Sen. Edmund Muskie we had the following:
"Liberals must start raising hell about a government so big, so complex, so expensive and so unresponsive that it's dragging down every good program we've worked for. Why can't liberals start hacking away at the regulatory bureaucracy where it keeps costs up and competition away? Why can't liberals talk about fiscal responsibility and productivity without feeling uncomfortable?"
Well, as a liberal of sorts who has spent lo, these many years in the doghouse, I will try to tell you why, Senator.
It all began with an historical fact which the historians have preferred to ignore — the New Deal never had an exact ending, happy or otherwise. Under normal circumstances, would Franklin D. Roosevelt have found the answers to unemployment and depression? World War II intervened and he became a martyr of it, as though he had lost his life on the battlefield.
Around martyrs we have a tendency to build myths, and thus FDR has come down to us as a leader who knew what he was doing. Because of the overall blur of history, it is very difficult to argue against this. He was a magnificent wartime commander and we might not have participated in victory without him.
But the problem now, as Sen. Muskie reminds us, is with the liberals and how they have drifted away from reality, and to answer it you still have to go back to the New Deal and Franklin D. Roosevelt without myths.
You begin with the glamour years, 1933-36. On the side of economics there were no myths in those days. The story of the Great Depression has never been told in excess. The country was on its knees, with the capitalists the most abject of the petitioners, and the Congress and the president could do little wrong. The "First 100 Days," as they are now celebrated, had few detractors. What was wrong with "throwing money at problems" when practically everything else had been tried to no avail?
But then you move on to the second phase of the New Deal and you begin to run into the blur of history. In 1937-38 we had a recession-within-a-depression even though the expenses of government had mounted and literally millions of citizens were on the federal payroll in one way or another. We had public works, and civilian conservation, and projects for artists, and grow- nothing money for farmers, and the dole for practically everyone not otherwise covered.
What would have happened had the second phase of the New Deal gone its full course? We will never know. All at once the war in Europe kicked up, we became the "arsenal of democracy," and we have been on a war economy ever since. We do not like to think of where we are in this sense, but it is the truth.
This brings us to the liberals and their lack of ability to "hack away at regulatory bureaucracy," to misquote Sen. Muskie only slightly. Why this shortsightedness, this affliction?
We return to the blurs and myths of history, to the first phase of the New Deal, the glamour years. For some strange reason the education of liberals has never gone much beyond this period.
They have been left with the impression that Franklin D. Roosevelt met the Great Depression head-on and whipped it to a frazzle. When you tell them it didn't come out that way you become a traitor to the cause. The first phase of the New Deal has become their historical benchmark and they have consistently returned to it for the solutions to subsequent problems.
In no other science would you presume that what worked in 1933-36 is good enough for today, but that is the peg on which the liberal movement, which is supposed to deal with the science of government, has been dangling since 1945. That was when the war ended and people started asking the same old question: How do we eat? Back to Phase One. Harry Truman was pure New Deal and so were John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. And so is Gerald Ford, when he isn't pure Calvin Coolidge.
The liberals should have paid more attention to an earlier hero, Thomas Jefferson. He came home from France to join the first Washington administration as secretary of state and was immediately struck by how conservative the country had become. Forever after he was against high taxes, bureaucracy and public debt. Smart fellow.