August 25, 1978
Page 27907
LEADERSHIP AND FOLLOWERSHIP: ARE WE TOO REPRESENTATIVE?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the current issue of Newsweek contains an article by Mr. Jerry Tucker, a professor at Manchester College in Indiana. His article, "Up Against the White House Wall," contains some provocative thoughts for all 44½ dozen of us in the Congress, and for the country. As they read the article, I hope my colleagues will not be distracted by the chuckles and belly laughs they will find therein.
Mr. Tucker raises some fundamental questions about the nature of our society and the job of being a representative of a portion of it.
I say that not because I once tried to become President of the United States, or because I have in the past offered candy to a few of my friends' children. I say it because I believe a fundamental national debate over the uses of government has already begun.
Mr. President, I ask that the article by Mr. Jerry Tucker in the August 28, 1978, issue of Newsweek be printed in the RECORD.
The article follows:
[From Newsweek magazine, Aug. 28, 1978]
UP AGAINST THE WHITE HOUSE WALL
(By Jerry Tucker)
Only two things can permanently ruin a man's reputation. One is giving candy to someone else's children, and the other is becoming President of the United States.
For almost twenty years no American President has completed two full terms in the White House. We use up presidents like hot dogs at a bowl game and the reasons go deeper than Vietnam, Watergate or walking into doors. We like to see the top dog get sacked.
Ritual destruction of leaders is not new. In ancient Greece the first kings were sacrificial victims. They were fattened and fondled, but come spring it was deemed necessary to slit their throats to ensure a good harvest. Likewise, the Biblical prophet Hosea wrote: "They . . . devour their rulers; all their kings have fallen."
American mythology holds that anyone's son can become President. Yet, when we discover that the seat of power is occupied by an ordinary posterior, we feel cheated. It's not that we resent an equal exalted to power; rather, we need to feel superior to whichever poor hamster is running in circles around the Oval Office.
It was bad enough that Lyndon Johnson spoke with a drawl, but when he bared the Presidential belly and picked up a basset by the ears, he was finished. Gerald Ford stumbled a lot and forgot where he put Eastern Europe. The beauty of Richard Nixon was that he fully justified our desire to kick him around.
In Jimmy Carter's case we began by pretending shock at the lust in his born-again heart. Carter has been critized for defending human rights, having too many teeth and for committing statesmanship with Panama. If Jimmy could change water into wine, the pundits would complain about the vintage.
CUTTING UP
Freedom of speech is a highly competitive business. There is intense pressure in the media to create a daily sensation, even if it amounts to nothing more than an aide cutting up in a saloon. Reporters face a constant demand to fill up blank paper on days when little has happened. Deadlines lead even the best writers to cater to the public's taste for gossip and soft-core slander.
As individuals, members of the press are decent and conscientious people. As a group, the demands of professional success cause otherwise gentle journalists to swarm at the first scent of blood. With dreams of pulitzer prices dancing in their heads, the media fraternity justifies carnivorous copy in the name of "the public's right to know." Under these conditions, it is inevitable that every President will be pilloried in the Post.
Columnists feel helpless in the face of the social diseases of poverty, racism and militarism. After all, you can't pull down a slum with a slashing expose that landlords are putting ketchup on their cottage cheese. Social problems aren't good copy and it's easier to bang out a piece on a dead President's mistress. Surrounded by social cancer, columnists are more comfortable attacking the moral equivalent of warts.
The obsession with trivia reflects popular taste. Perhaps one person in a thousand could give a coherent summary of Federal urban policy, but nine out of ten would recognize the First Brother's mug on a six-pack. The press, politicians and public do not want to face tough issues. If we took social injustice seriously, we would have to accept responsibility for doing something about it.
HEROES ON THE HILL
The failures and excesses of the imperial Presidency gave Congress a golden opportunity to expand its potency at the expense of the executive. In twelve years we have moved from passive acquiescence in the Tonkin Gulf resolution to a ranking senator's complaint that the President is "interfering" in foreign policy. The heroes on the hill have inflated their egos without demonstrating an ability to exercise responsibility.
Congress is a body composed of 535 members, every one of whom is convinced he or she deserves a larger role in national affairs. Here are 44½ dozen people who think they are personally important just because they've in Congress. Consequently, collective Congressional accountability is as improbable as finding doctors who make house calls.
Legislators can make a splendid symbolic show on hard issues and avoid the consequences.
When angry farmers drove their $30,000 tractors into Washington to demonstrate their poverty, Congress passed a self-contradictory farm bill knowing the President would have to veto it. If you can't take the heat, punt.
The Congressional approach is quite practical; it recognizes that presidents go away even if problems do not. While presidents flounder for lack of support, Congressional committees huddle with special-interest and agency heads to block significant change. Presidents are expendable; buraucratic empires and campaign contributors are not.
RESPECT FOR AUTHORITY
The Founding Politicians wisely created a system in which the government cannot function unless there is cooperation between Capitol Hill and the White House. The Constitution succeeds admirably in checking ambition with ambition. Our current problem, however, is not checking power but rather the absence of effective power. By sacrificing Presidential authority to the twin gods of ego and expediency, we are left with a form of pluralistic anarchy in which neither Congress nor President can command respect.
The disrepute of government has not been created by Jimmy or Jerry or even Dirty Dick. Contempt for authority extends beyond politics to every segment and level of society. Good leadership requires followership, but our ethic for the '70s is look out for No. 1 and grab all the gusto you can get.
A nation gets the government it deserves. Self-indulgence, scapegoating and disrespect for authority are perfect ingredients for political decline. We shouldn't need a Russian hermit to tell us that a people unwilling to subordinate personal gratification to common goals has become a mob. No civilization has been able to dispense with acceptance of legitimate authority.
Staying afloat as a nation requires respect for the Presidential office. I am naive enough to trust a President until he gives me reason not to. I am cynical enough to believe that no President can singlehandedly stop organized greed, whip inflation or cure the common cold. Presidents are really not very powerful. and that's why they need all the help they can get.
(NOTE.— Tucker is a political science professor at Manchester College in Indiana.)