Raw Footage of an Unidentified Man Speaking on Democracy (Part 1)

My. Fellow students the president of my university said to me that when you get introduced as generously as I've been introduced the best thing to do is to take it. He says it's much better to have a little Taffy while you're still alive than a lot of Epitaph a happier dead. Time. I'm grateful for this bit of taffy although I must say it is. It came not as an unmixed gift. I think it's the first time I've ever been introduced to so attractive and new by a low feminine audience as a man who is still going after sex. Maybe it's all a dream I don't know. I remember on one college campus

on which I taught and they used to tell a story about a professor who dreamt that he was lecturing to his class and woke up to find that he was. This barbarous topic that's been assigned to me. It's a barbarous topic because I think words like ideology are pretty barbarous. Nevertheless gives me a chance to. To say some things this evening that have been on my mind a bit. Partly I suppose you can't talk about. About the meaning of democracy without talking a little bit about your own credo. And in what I'm going to say I'm going to try to talk about both. I guess it was John Adams who once said that the best

government is the government of the rich the well-born the able and Fisher Ames I think who put it a little differently but basically the same idea. The government of the wise the rich and the good. One of the same Federalist gentleman announced that those who own the country ought to run it. It's good to remember that early in our history some of our founding fathers had some real skepticism about democracy. I thought mainly in terms of the government of the respectable and the property. It's also good to remember that they were Ransford these these phrases that I've just suggested to you just mentioned to you were answered by Thomas Jefferson who when he heard about all these groups wondered out loud whether there really were a few who were as he put it a few who were born

booted and spurred to ride mankind and whether the rest of mankind was born simply to be written the same Thomas Jefferson who when he was told that men are unfit to govern themselves. I asked. With a deliberate naivete I asked are they then fit to govern. I start with some of these paradoxes. I start with Jefferson because he's one of my culture heroes. I have another hero not nearly as well known a very dear friend of mine. Who used to be a Democratic congressman from Texas a fellow called Maury maverick. I remember Maher used to come round to see us a good deal when I was teaching in various places. He'd say You professors with those six syllable words of yours when you start talking about democracy. Actually said Democracy is a rather simple thing if you tried to find it and I said all right you defined it.

He said why democracy is freedom plus groceries. That's all. And I've carried that around with me a good deal ever since in my mind. Democracy is freedom plus groceries. Freedom not just for some of the people but for all the people not just some of the time but all the time. Groceries Similarly in the sense of economic security at that time I recall that this was a rather adequate definition for me. About 20 years have elapsed since then and we've learned a good deal in those 20 years we have seen countries for example which tried to make a cult of freedom go down to destruction. We've seen social systems which tried to insure groceries that is to ensure economic security become totalitarian. We've learned that freedom often may go along with

a suicide imperative. We've also learned that economic security may be linked may be compatible with. Totalitarianism And so this formula which looks so neat actually is not adequate. And I would like to get a bit. More complex a bit deeper into the problem to see if we can work out a somewhat more satisfactory idea system for democracy. But before I do before I tackle anything like that I'd like to say a word about the context within which our democracy is functioning. Because actually you don't start with definitions and formula in a vacuum. You start with a context a framework you start with felt needs and urgencies you start with challenges you start with problems to be met and then you say how do you meet

these. What is a what is democracy is a going concern democracy is a going idea system that is adequate to meet these. Now I want to start with a revolutionary age in which we live. I've traveled around a bit in the past 10 or 15 years on almost every continent and almost every type of social system. And the one overwhelming generalization that you bring back with you of course is that there is scarcely a part of the world which has not been caught in this revolution of our time. I call it a triple revolution a triple revolution because one aspect of it is a revolution of formerly colonial peoples against their imperialist masters. The second aspect is it's a color revolution of the colored races that constitute the vast majority of mankind against the

whites. And the third aspect is that it's an economic revolution or better a statist revolution that's revolution on the part of people. Who have been at the very bottom of the pyramid for a long time who are trying to thrust their way up. Landless people who are trying to get land. People without education who are trying to get schooling. People without any sense or dignity who are anxious to have some and as a matter of fact are beginning to throw their weight around a good deal. This is the triple revolution of our time that I don't say that this revolution is always healthy. It isn't. I've been in countries where I thought it was healthy in India in Burma in Israel in Tunis in Cuba I think I'm watching it hard but I think healthy there. There are other countries I've been in where I did not think it was healthy for example in Indonesia

in Egypt to give a few instances in some of the East European countries where I think it's been a somewhat different revolution. But whether healthy or not whether authentic or not. These are facts that we have to face. And the problem is how does a democracy like the American democracy face a world like this. Because in this kind of a world America becomes the target. We are associated with the European countries that have been traditionally the great imperialisms. A good deal of the infamy that is associated with their. History as imperialism is rubs off on us. We we are white. We are the target. That sense of the color revolution. We are capitalist We are the target of the economic revolution. We have great power

but the target of a good deal of envy. We have high living standards. Again we're the target of a good deal of envy. We have a relatively free society which ought to count for a good deal. And yet to so many of these people this does not anywhere near weigh in the balance. What happened to our vice president in South America what happened just a couple of days ago. In Bolivia to our embassy staff as a result of a rather irresponsible article in one of our national magazines that was published there which brought great popular demonstrations against America. What has been happening to American prestige in the Middle East. What's been happening to us in the Far East I need scarcely underscore any of these things. And one of the questions that keeps haunting us is what there is about America's position in the world given the things we know about our

democracy what there is about America's position in the world in the frame of this trip's revolution that makes us so vulnerable and so much of the target of hatred and hostility. And the paradox is made all the sharper. By the fact that America has a revolutionary tradition to be sure some of our recent scholars have pointed out that the American Revolution was not a in any deep sense a social revolution. First the Harts has pointed out that it was not a revolution against feudalism as in the case of the Europeans. And that for this reason we do not have to the same degree a tradition of class struggle a tradition of revolutionary ideology where for example the French have. And much of that is true and to the point. And yet after having said this I think we would have to reassert some historic facts.

If you look at this triple revolution that I've spoken of the first aspect of a colonial revolution against imperialism. We are the first nation in the modern world that that was able to bring about a successful colonial revolution against imperialism. We started the thing. We did not have a color revolution no good we are. We are the first nation in the modern world. That has done something about let's say the problem of the farmer. And that has made as part of our whole system the free farmer within a free economy and the kind of land tenure reform which so many which so many young intellectuals are dreaming about all over the world is a land tenure system which America has already achieved. We we have made the ideal of people living together. Every every religion from

every ethnic group we made that ideal a working reality although we're still having to fight out one important aspect of it in the struggle for civil rights in the south. And you say if this is so isn't it true that America does have an authentic revolutionary tradition I don't think we need to be apologetic on this score we do have an authentic revolutionary tradition. Vice President Nixon some months back. Was asked or do a talk at Harvard and he he said one rather interesting thing there and he said I wish I wish I heard let's talk about the Russian Revolution and more talk about the American Revolution. Well I can understand Mr. Nixon not wanting to hear so much about the Russian Revolution. I think we'd better hear a good deal about the Russian revolution that is to say I think we'd better. Think of it and study it analyze it try to understand it try to understand what it is that the Russians are using as one of the weapons of their

appeal. So I don't sympathize with that first part of Mr. Nixon senator but I do very much with the second part. I wish we heard more about the American Revolution. And I think one of the reasons we don't hear very much about it is that there any any idea of this kind any or any traditional idea of this kind becomes a weapon in current struggles. And those who are trying to hold on to to their particular privileged corporate and property position those who are afraid of successive movements of reformation and reform like the New Deal. People like that of course don't want to put very much stress on the revolutionary tradition in America. Just as they don't want to put stress on the whole dynamic tradition in America. They would much rather stress the the elements order stability of conservatism.

But I think that if we're going to be genuine and if we're going to think in terms of what America can do in the world as a whole here is one of our weapons and one of our valid weapons before and through this evening I'm going to say something about this revolution I'm going to suggest it now and then come back to it. And that is that to me in many aspects it is an unfinished revolution. We're not through with it. It runs like a thread through the whole of our history it's been interrupted a number of times. We've forgotten a good deal about it now. We many of us would like to forget all about it now. And yet we are being compelled to face it. It's one of the things I'm happy about is that there is this challenge to us from the communist world from the Muslim nationalist world. This challenge which is compelling is to examine the dryness of our revolutionary powder because unless I miss my guess.

We're not going to be able to survive in within this world framework unless we go back and re-examine the nature of this revolutionary tradition and ask ourselves if it's an unfinished revolution in what way can we win it. Now. Just one other element of the total frame. We really were living on the edge of an abyss. Of course we're conducting our whole education adventure on the edge of an abyss. I teach over at Brandeis. Here you are students here we. Haven't come in. We have come with all the other universities in the country with the whole educational enterprise namely this is a very perilous thing we're doing because remember what W.H. Auden once said. He spoke of the double man the sense we're all double men double women we wade live on two

levels on one level we have our little private universe. We make our plans we look ahead. We cherish our dreams. But on another level we must be aware that there are forces around the world outside. That can pick up this little private universe of ours and smash it like an egg shell. Here we are in and these university buildings and yet we ought to be aware that at any moment there are forces in the world outside that can pick up our laboratories and not dormitories and our library is all the rest. And her little over the edge of the abyss. That's what I mean when I say that we're conducting education on the very edge of an abyss. Nevertheless the educational enterprise is worthwhile but it. I'm suggesting it because it symbolizes the perilous miss the whole of individual and collective living today a long time ago H.G. Wells

said that civilization itself has become a race between education and catastrophe. That's even truer today. There's been a good deal of talk about the weapons race but to me far more important than the weapons race is the intelligence race. And in this intelligence race I would suggest that it's not just a race between ourselves and the communist world although that's one aspect of it. By the way I don't minimize the weapons race and I don't minimize our our struggle for the world who with communists. I think you need weapons you need adequate weapons. I make a distinction between adequate weapons and and gaining the supremacy of weapons. It's a rather grim thought that each side now has adequate weapons that is attic weapons adequate enough to destroy the other and to destroy a good portion of humanity. That's what I mean when I say that I

don't think the crucial thing is the weapons race we have. Both sides have weapons. We've now reached the saturation point in the weapons struggle. Similarly I don't underestimate the. Crucial character of the struggle for the world with the comet as one of the important elements in my thinking because I believe that one of the imperatives of democracy is of any system of life is survival. But I think it's also worth pointing out that in one sense we and the Russians and the Chinese and the rest. Are all on one side in the race. It's a race between all of us together on one side and on the other side. Chaos. On the other side the adversary there's a sense in other words in which we're all in the same boat. I don't suppose that ever in history has any social system based on the

principle of freedom and participation and consent. I suppose that never in history has such a social system have to place a task as complex and multiple and difficult. As the task I've just outlined. Where it has to finish an unfinished revolution where it has to grapple with all sorts of difficult problems internally where it has to carry on a struggle with a rival power system in a rival ideological system. For the uncommitted peoples of the world. And where at the same time it has to carry on a struggle against chaos itself against the adversary. That's a tall order. And it's within this framework that I want to ask. What is this democracy of ours like. What is its ideology.

And beyond the ideology how are we. How are we functioning how we tarrying some of these things out and what can what must we still do. I start with as the principle of participation is the first element in our democratic ideology and that is Sandy Endo one spoke of the leaves of grass concept of democracy. He said it rather accurately he doesn't go along with it. He meant a kind of Whitman esque feeling that every person counts for one like Leaves of Grass and that all of us participate in this whole democratic experience we call the sometimes majority government. But it's the principle of participation of all. There's another principle and that is something that Mr Santana felt much closer to and that many other conservatives like him feel closer to. And that's the principle of the constitutional system.

It is this principle the principle of consent and the freedom of consent of the individual to the majority will love freedom of the individual even in the face of majority well. Protection of minorities. The doctrine of civil liberties the rule of law. All the rest of that. And obviously this is a similar this is an equally crucial portion of the Democratic credo. There's a third however. Participation is one of freedom and consent are second. But beyond the political. Beyond the ideological there is a third and that is the open society. People in the ordinary living are not simply voters they don't just struggle for the right to write to speak and write and so they have to make a living. They're members of communities they're members of classes.

And one of the crucial elements of our democracy is the mobility in our society the mobility within our class system. They relativize stress the word relative the relative openness of the economy to Enterprise. Although one of the massive facts about our recent economic history is the concentration of power. And yet if you look at this in comparative terms we are comparatively at any rate an open society and so that's the third element in the total scheme. And the last of my four principles of a democracy. To suppression is one freedom of consent. The second the Open Society is the third. The last is what is it all for. To the best of my ability I would say what it's all for is for life's purpose of society is to live better

lives for life and for growth. Its for richness of experience its for development of potential its for personality its for fulfillment its for. I was going to say happiness because Americas I happen a society but I dont like the term happiness. I prefer other terms I prefer a joy as for joyousness its for all these things. I it's hard to find a single word for it. But I think in my own phrasing I think I've found a word I can tell you a little bit about a trip I made this spring. I took an academic year off and I last summer I went to Western Europe a bit and then in the spring I thought I'd move on a bit and I went to North Africa and some of the Arab countries and then I swung back through a couple of the East European countries and one of them was Poland. I enjoyed

my stay in Poland very much. Poland by the way is a communist country perforce not because it wants to be. If the Poles had an election tomorrow perhaps 95 or 98 percent of them would be would vote anti-communist. There are a number of intellectuals in Warsong who we're talking with and who talk our language. And I remember sitting around with a number of them one evening was after my massive book that you heard a little about it had been published and one of them said to me your book is a thousand pages Mr Lerner and I don't intend to read it right away but could you tell us in a single word What's the most important thing about American civilization. I said You mean compress a thousand pages into one word he says That's right. Well I don't know whether you've ever had that experience of having somebody playing gotcha with this challenge in a single word What's the most important thing about American civilization. And I know it very hard. Very rapidly. What would have a word be the word freedom. Is it

equality as a democracy. Is it consent. Is it tolerance. Is a dynamism. What is it. And suddenly I found myself saying access. I said access and this poll said well I've heard of success in America. I haven't heard very much about Access What do you mean access and I said well I have to go back to Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson said there that all men are born free and equal I said you know we don't really believe it. We hope that they're born free. We try to do our best about that. We fought a war over that civil war over that. But we don't really believe that they're born equal. Every parent knows differently every teacher knows differently every employer knows differently. Every army commander knows differently. People have on very unequal. But what we tried to do in our civilization what we try to do in our society is to try to give each of these an equally born

individuals equal access. The kind of opportunities that are necessary for them to develop. To grow. To fulfill themselves. To stretch themselves to reach the limit of their potential. And I think I would apply this word access to this fourth aspect. Of our Democratic scheme. As we're dedicated to the proposition enough that we all men the living you know. All that you owe all men happiness you know. All that you're all men fulfillment you know. Or even that you're over the most security you don't. I think the only thing that society owes to all people. All the people in it is some kind of equality of access to the opportunities to the to the life chances to the life chances in that society and the life chances in America are pretty good. And the problem for me the thing that I want to fight for most fiercely actually

is to make sure that not a single American youngster gets stunted in in his gross body because of lack of access to health and air and food and sunshine and medicine that are needed for him to grow up. And to make sure that none of them. Grow up stunted in mind and in spirit with a scar on their hearts because of lack of access in another and other way. This for me is my democratic credo. It's what I would call the ideology of our democracy insofar as it can be put conceptually. I tried to use certain key words for each of those for. Each of them obviously is terribly complex and obviously there's a good deal more to democracy than that. And I hope to have made that clear too before I'm through.

But first I want to deal with some of the obstructions in the path of each of these. For example some of the obstructions in the path of the principle of participation non-majority room. It's all very well to believe that an every man ought to have his vote. Equally it's a very different thing to believe that by that fact alone you're going to get good government or good leadership you won't. I can get very recent about this and very personal. I watched the last two campaigns one thousand fifty two in one thousand fifty six. I watch them very closely at the conventions on the campaign train and one of those years. Mr Eisenhower's campaign train and in the thick of the battle. As a journalist and as a as a professor right through. And I have some rather sad things to say about that experience. Not sad simply because my

people lost. No but sad because something is happening to this whole process. Majority will and majority rule in the choice of our leaders. It's hard to say what's happening except to put it perhaps this way it's no longer as. As Harry Truman used to used to call Mineta against the one party press or one party. That's part of it it's not the whole picture. It's not even the they use the liberal use of money by. By people with money on the side that's going to protect their their property position their corporate position that's also part of the picture. But I think the crucial part of the picture lies somewhere in the sentence from Emmanuel come out. If you go back to count you remember you remember that one of his imperatives was to deal with human

beings as subjects and not as objects. And I must say there's a good deal in that that has a great bearing for us today because one of the things that is happening is that we are beginning to deal with human beings as objects and not as subject. As targets for manipulation. I'm talking obviously of the whole approach in 52 by which General Eisenhower was who came back from Europe as a triumphant hero was built up not only as the military hero that he was but as a great potential civilian leader which was not and never could be by which he was sold to the people in much the same way in which you sell some breakfast food commodity in advertising or over the radio. I'm speaking I'm speaking in other words with the manipulation of the minds of people I saw the same thing happening in 56

even before the convention when a little group of people decided that this very sick man who should have been given a chance to to to live in a quieter and more leisurely way to this very sick man had to run.