Beyond Bundy

MCGEORGE Bundy haunted Harvard last week, bringing back with him a conception of society and man's role in it that has recently come to be discredited around here. His argument, astringent and eloquent was, despite weaknesses, ultimately reassuring.

The Godkin topic was "To Govern for Freedom in an Age of Explosions," and Bundy's message was that the government is today the only possible agent of social reform. He pleaded with such fervor for the requisite extension of government powers that he almost ended up advocating a species of benevolent socialism for the United States.

To Bundy, it is the President who is best qualified to formulate, then carry out, the general public interest. Blithely demanding extensive authority for the Executive, Bundy must have been stopped short by the thought that a tyranny might well spring up out of such conditions.

Hence he scattered through the Lectures perfunctory proposals that the government be made "accountable" to the people. No elaboration was given though on the central issue of how such accountability is to be achieved. This neglect is not mere carelessness on his part.

The principle of accountability involves, for Bundy, a massive contradiction. If the public truly does become an efficient watchdog over the Executive, this would mean that the initial impulse for social change would always have to come from the masses themselves. Bundy's implied judgment-- that giving a veto power to the public would mean the end of all social action-- is clearly correct, given the present level of social awareness of the American people.

Bundy really conceives of top-down action in social matters. The government must take autonomous action in the public interest which can then be justified to a sluggish populace in terms of the government's general authority to act. This is why Bundy put so much emphasis on the need to educate the public to accept a wider role for the government. The people must be like passengers in a bus who give the driver authority to take them by any route he chooses to a chosen destination.

WHO then are to be the drivers? Bundy feels that the autonomous action of government will be fueled by the independent thinking of exceptionally intelligent men in government. These men are to be provided by the great Liberal Education Universities of America. Bundy spent a major portion of one Lecture urging students to acquire positions of great social power. It was to make government careers attractive to gifted people that he appealed for a "drastic upward movement" in the pay of senior government executives.

So Bundy's real defense against tyranny lies in his reliance on the good sense and liberal values of men actually wielding power. He constantly qualified his plea for more government by adding "for freedom." He urged future administrators to avoid arrogance and never to lose their "sympathy" for the general public.

Undeniably, intelligent and sympathetic men in positions of power can make a significant contribution toward creating a better society. Bundy himself, for all his Vietnam guilt, has served this ideal as President of the Ford Foundation, for example in his attempt to foster better television. David Rockefeller, who was harrassed at Dunster House last Sunday, went on to make a remarkably understanding statement Wednesday, calling for honest social action by business.

NEVER THELESS the limitations of a system which depends on personalities to bring about social change are obvious. Societies are structured around power; they reflect the interests of their units. Personal visionary action in such circumstances is severely constrained, as John Kennedy quickly found out.

In the New Industrial State, described by John Kenneth Galbraith, the government already has an extensive role in society but it is as a partner of the large corporations that make up the industrial system. Thus, for example if America's present dependence on weapons spending is to be reduced, more than a rational decision by some leader will be needed.

Otto Eckstein recently predicted that all the money saved from ending the Vietnam war will be channelled right back into the military budget instead of being used for social spending. Now David Rockefeller may put some quiet pressure to bear on the President to prevent this happening but by himself he can achieve nothing.

Bundy's arguments for big government were aimed mainly against Goldwaterite objections. He did not seem aware that there is another sort of objection. The radical fear of highly centralized, far-away, bureaucratic authority is inspired mainly by the sight of the government going wild in Vietnam while there are no means to check it. What happens after all when the driver of the bus, for all his good intentions, seems to be heading for the edge of a cliff?

SDS thus responds by talking of de-centralization of authority as a means of making the government accountable to the people. Bundy's contrary position, insisting on a wider role for government, would be less valid if the radical view consisted of more than slogans that sound instinctively right. We are justified in asking for more concrete and practical proposals from the left to deal with the problems of complex, technological society.

For the time being, Bundy's proposal for stronger government to be supplied by humane and thinking men is a good start. As education spreads, as systems of communications get fluider, future generations may be able to create and operate a de-centralized (and therefore truly accountable) system of government. Bundy's crusade for better government now will be a necessary complement to the more responsive system to come, not a substitute for it.