A few days ago I came across a work of David J Hill, LL.D., “Science of Rhetoric: An Introduction to the Laws of Effective Discourse” copyright 1877. Dr. Hill was also noted on the cover as President of the University of Rochester and author of Hill’s Rhetorical Series and the Elements of Psychology.
Hill’s inaugural address was quite the measure of the expectations of education in 1888…
The flavor of Hill’s thinking on the nature and content of collegiate liberal education may best be appreciated by selected excerpts from the address. “All education consists in the formation of certain… predispositions for particular kinds of action.” “The law of all education is the progressive translation of imperfect and incomplete conscious acts into the fixed determinations of a mechanical automatism.” “Liberal education does not aim to form the specialist, but to prepare one to be a specialist by making him, in a large sense, an educated man.” The essential elements of liberal training included “certain attainments of knowledge and certain qualifications for conduct.”
In his own distinctive prose, Hill defined his philosophy concerning the several disciplines indispensable for a liberally educated man. “Ability to read ordinary Latin at sight is absolutely essential. All the Greek he can learn is likely to prove valuable.” He should acquire a reading knowledge of modern languages “and a fair speaking knowledge of at least one.” As for mathematics, “No education can be called ‘liberal’ which has not enabled the recipient of it to perceive the mathematical necessity that runs through all natural relations, and to make those calculations which are needed in the exact sciences.” “Some knowledge of substantive science” constituted yet another ingredient of liberal education, and science had so vastly proliferated as to demand “a great revolution in pedagogical methods”–to wit, far more laboratory experience under the direction of specialist professors. Philosophy, to shape “the intellectual and moral character of students,” should retain its traditional and exalted place in the college curriculum. And attention must be devoted to “eliciting those sentiments of the heart which bind the learner to his species and his Creator, fit him for the family and society, the Church and the State… ”
Should young men be equipped for a variety of professions and vocations? Certainly. “The scholar is needed not only in literature, in science, and in the learned professions, but even more imperatively in politics.” Yet the training they obtained should “not be narrow in scope and vocationally channeled [sic]. The best preparation for the specialist is a broad, general culture which lifts him at once from the circumscribed condition of an intellectual mechanic to the dignity of a philosopher.” The doctrine that a college should prepare men “to earn a living by some practical art,” Hill repudiated as heretical, comparable in fact to the theory that “the leading attribute of a successful president of a college [is] dexterity as a commercial traveler rather than scholarly attainments.”
…though the outline of those times is what should be considered if we are to understand the present.
Brazil became a republic and Paris attracted hosts to a great international exhibition, featured by the soaring Eiffel Tower. The Second International of Socialists was founded, and in France the Boulangist ferment, which at its zenith threatened to sweep away the Third Republic, petered out ignominiously. Beyond the Rhine, ambitious William II dropped the pilot of the German Empire, Prince Otto von Bismarck. The Hapsburg Monarchy was morally shaken by the death of Crown Prince Rudolf, almost certainly by his own hand. In a significant real estate transaction, Great Britain, in exchange for territorial concessions in Africa, ceded the strategic isle of Heligoland to Germany; and the celebrated British empire-builder, Cecil Rhodes, started his South African Company. And, as additional veneer on its “westernization” facade, Japan received a constitutional form of government.
What has that to do with today? Change; or as BO referred to it, fundamental change; or as the oligarchs refer to it, The Great Reset.
That ‘Great Reset’ title is, of course, pure BS propaganda; nothing but an effort of psychological manipulation. The Sixties was a time of change, too, except back then everything was not televised. We’ve been hornswoggled into accepting their concept model for the United States is democracy and few of US understand how they did that. The science of rhetoric is important if you want to understand politicians and their handlers. So much of the following link’s content has been pasted below because the political rhetoric is at high pitch. It’s like a rubber sword fight in places.
By the time it got to McGeorge Bundy, the tone changed somewhat.
From https://1997-2001.state.gov/about_state/history/vol_xxxiv/zb.html
- Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs (Cleveland) to Secretary of State Rusk/1/
Washington, November 4, 1964.
/1/Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Central Files, 1964-66, SOC 13. No classification marking. Drafted by R. Gardner (IO) and L. Van Nort (OES) on November 3 and cleared by Lee and William D. Rogers (AID) and Robert Barnett (FE).
SUBJECT
Your Luncheon with Mr. John D. Rockefeller, III, Thursday, November 5, 1964
Mr. Rockefeller is expected to request your support for a Presidential Commission on Population./2/ Mr. Rockefeller obviously hopes that such a Commission would enlarge the area of public consensus on governmental measures for dealing with the population problem. At bottom, the issue is whether a Presidential Commission would advance–or delay and deter–operating decisions which will have real impact.
/2/In a November 6 letter to Secretary Rusk, Rockefeller confirmed that he had discussed a Presidential Commission with Rusk at the meeting. (Ibid.) Rockefeller wrote in a second letter on November 11: “We can quickly agree, I think, that the problems of population are among the most critical now facing mankind. Hardest hit are the two-thirds of the world’s people who live in the developing countries, but all of us are vitally affected. Here at home our growing population presents us with problems of urban congestion and sprawl, of relocation of industry and political reapportionment, of mass higher education, of leisure and outdoor recreation, of voluntary fertility regulation, of immigration policy, of economic growth–all basic to the realization of the Great Society. Abroad in our efforts to aid the developing countries, we are confronted with population growth at a rate unprecedented in human history–a rate that threatens to defeat the struggle for social and economic development in which such countries are so deeply involved.” (Ibid.)
The following considerations are among those you may wish to bear in mind in responding to Mr. Rockefeller’s proposal:
- The United States offered in Deputy Assistant Secretary Gardner’s statement before the U.N. General Assembly in December 1962, to “help other countries, upon request, to find potential sources of information and assistance on ways and means of dealing with population problems.”
- Since then the U.S. has become publicly committed in a series of statements by the late President Kennedy, Ambassador Stevenson, Deputy Assistant Secretary Gardner, and by votes cast in the U.N. Asian Population Conference and in ECAFE, to supporting provision through governmental bilateral and multilateral channels of all forms of assistance for dealing with population problems, with the clear exception of the shipping of manufactured contraceptive devices.
- In actual practice, both the U.S. Government through its AID program and the U.N. agencies have so far limited themselves to technical assistance in the traditional fields of demography, statistics and census taking, together with verbal encouragement of attention by less developed countries to their population problems. Neither AID nor the U.N. agencies have so far specifically earmarked funds in direct support of family planning programs. From a political point of view there may be advantages in avoiding such earmarking and in supporting family planning only indirectly through general budgetary support or support for health and social welfare services. But direct support may well be necessary to accelerate progress in countries such as India, Pakistan and Turkey which are having difficulty in finding funds to implement what are specifically described as national family planning programs.
- The question of U.N. technical assistance to national family planning programs, debated earlier in subordinate bodies, is likely to be a major issue at the forthcoming General Assembly. Two years ago–before the public statements referred to above–the U.S. voted in the Second Committee for a resolution calling for technical assistance, but abstained in Plenary in the separate vote on this issue, which we will now probably have to face once again.
- An increasingly vocal body of Congressional opinion led by Senators Clark and Gruening and by Congressman Udall, has been demanding evidence of effective action by AID to cope with the population problem. They may well introduce legislation in the forthcoming Congressional session earmaking AID funds for this purpose.
- On balance, we believe that a Presidential Commission would not succeed in extending the area of consensus to the necessary operating decisions, and might by its deliberations render such decisions more difficult and controversial than if they are dealt with in the normal way./3/ You may wish to communicate to the other Department participants in advance of the luncheon your own views on the Commission and on the other points raised in this memorandum./4/
/3/On December 22, Rusk wrote Rockefeller: “I have been giving thought to the considerations which you advanced in your helpful letters. While we may not see eye to eye on your tactical suggestion of a Presidential Commission, we in the Department will continue to seek ways of encouraging wider recognition of the implications of this problem and explore opportunities for further progress.” (Ibid.)
/4/No Presidential Commission was established, but the President did include a message on population in his January 5, 1965, State of the Union message: “We seek not to extend the power of America but the progress of humanity. We seek not to dominate others but to strengthen the freedom of all people. I will seek new ways to use our knowledge to help deal with the explosion in world population and the growing scarcity in world resources.” (Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1965, Book I, p. 4)
- Memorandum From a Senior Adviser to the Vice President (Rielly) to Vice President Humphrey/1/
Washington, November 27, 1964.
/1/Source: Minnesota Historical Society, Papers of Hubert H. Humphrey, Vice Presidential Files, 1965-68, 150.E.12.7 (B). No classification marking. A handwritten note at the top of the page reads “Draft.”
SUBJECT
Conference on “Pacem in Terris” sponsored by the Fund for the Republic
As the enclosed letter/2/ indicates, the conference on Pope John’s encyclical “Pacem in Terris”/3/ will be held in New York on February 17-20. You will recall that we discussed this some months ago and passed the word to Robert Maynard Hutchins/4/ that you were interested in attending and addressing the group. They are now moving ahead with plans to make a definite schedule for the conference. As the enclosed letter indicates, their plans are a bit grandiose. They had hoped to get Khrushchev, the Pope and President Johnson. I doubt if they are going to end up getting any of them.
/2/Not found.
/3/Pope John XXIII’s encyclical, Pacem in Terris, urged international cooperation for peace and justice and committed the Church to a concern for all human problems.
/4/Hutchins, President of the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, was the chairman of the convocation. The Center was an American non-governmental organization and was hosting the conference as part of the UN International Cooperation Year.
As Harry Ashmore’s letter indicates, they want you to put the arm on the President and get him to make a commitment on this. I do not think I would be in any hurry to do so. This strikes me as the type of conference where it might be better to have the Vice-President as the star, rather than the President. I think it is going to be a first-rate conference with very high level people from the intellectual, journalistic and diplomatic world attending./5/ But it is designed to be a high powered intellectuals’ conference, not a conference given to cautious diplomatic statements. I am not at all sure that this is the right medium for the President. I see no harm in having him open the conference but I’m not sure that he would want to schedule a major speech there.
/5/Other speakers scheduled to attend included U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Adlai Stevenson, Chief Justice Earl Warren, Senator J. William Fulbright, Ambassador George Kennan, Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Abba Eban, three former Presidents of the General Assembly, historian Arnold Toynbee, Nobel Prize-winning scientist Linus Pauling, and theology professor Paul Tillich. (UN Press Release ICY/22, February 9, 1965; Minnesota Historical Society, Papers of Hubert H. Humphrey, Vice Presidential Files, 1965-68, 150.F.13.7 (B))
To be perfectly blunt, I am somewhat reluctant to see you bypassed as the star of this conference. This would probably be the best foreign policy speaking engagement you would get in the next year. The subject of the conference would permit you to give a very high level speech which would really combine all your major foreign policy interests–arms control and disarmament, relations between the developing and the developed world, foreign aid, international organizations, United Nations, and peace./6/ If the President is inclined to attend, by all means I would not discourage him. But I don’t think I would exert any pressure at this time.
/6/On February 17, 1965, Humphrey delivered a long speech at the conference, in which he explained that statesmen “cannot ignore the implications for the survival of mankind of new discoveries in technology, biology, nuclear physics, and space.” He also clearly enunciated the new threats to peace and security: “In Pacem in Terris John XXIII returned to a theme he had discussed in Mater et Magistra when he stated: `Given the growing interdependence among peoples of the earth, it is not possible to preserve lasting peace if glaring economic inequality among them persists.’ If control of nuclear weapons is a central issue in improving relations between East and West, accelerating the economic development of new nations is essential to harmony between North and South.” Humphrey spoke of the need for social justice: “Those who have been `more blessed with this world’s goods’ must heed the Pope’s plea to assist `those political communities whose citizens suffer from poverty, misery and hunger and who lack even the elementary rights of the human person.’ We must do this out of compassion–for we are our brother’s keeper. And we also do it out of self-interest as well–for our lot is their lot, our future their future, our peace their peace. This planet is simply too small for the insulation of the rich against turbulence bred of injustice in any part of the world.” (Remarks of the Vice President, February 17, 1965; ibid.)
- Memorandum From Robert Komer of the National Security Council Staff to President Johnson/1/
Washington, April 27, 1965.
/1/Source: Johnson Library, National Security File, Robert W. Komer Files, Population Control 1965-March 1966. Secret. Copies were sent to McGeorge Bundy, Bill Moyers, and Douglass Cater. An attached covering memorandum reads: “Mac–Here’s a little flank attack that I think might just penetrate LBJ’s defenses. It’s a hard dollar and cents argument for taking a more serious view of birth control in the LDCs. Any harm in just trying this out on LBJ? It might score, and he did tell Gaud he wanted to talk aid this week. The study mentioned is a paper by Steve Enke, a RAND economist. Didn’t want to overload LBJ but you ought to read it.”
While you’re thinking about foreign aid, here’s a fascinating statistic. A recent study claims that if economic resources in many LDC’s were devoted to retarding population growth rather than accelerating production growth, these resources could be 100 times more effective in raising output per capita! In many of these countries, spending only about one percent of their present overall development outlays on reducing births could be as effective in raising per capita output as the other 99%.
The above figures are just one good economist’s./2/ However, even if they’re off somewhat, there’s no doubt of the rapidly declining cost of population control because of new devices. This could have immense significance for areas where we are investing massive amounts of development capital–all of Latin America, India, Pakistan, Turkey (to take just our biggest clients). The process of getting these countries to the stage of self-sustaining growth, and thus reducing the longer term foreign aid burden on us–could be greatly foreshortened.
/2/Komer sent the studies to which he is referring to Bill Moyers the next day. They include two papers by RAND economist Stephen Enke, “Economic Programs to Prevent Births” and “Lower Birth Rates–Some Economic Aspects,” as well as summaries of recent polls concerning birth control. (Memorandum from Komer to Moyers, April 28; ibid.)
I’m not propagandizing for a big US push on the still sensitive issue of birth control. Things are already moving in this field at a pretty good pace. But the relevance of figures like the above to the achievement of our foreign aid goals is so striking that you may want to consider ways and means of gradually using our foreign aid more as an incentive to major efforts in this field by the less developed countries themselves. You might want to include this subject in your aid talks with Bill Gaud.
Would you like to hear more about this?
R.W. Komer/3/
/3/Printed from a copy that bears this typed signature.
- Memorandum From Robert Komer of the National Security Council Staff to the President’s Special Assistant for National Security Affairs (Bundy)/1/
Washington, August 4, 1965.
/1/Source: Johnson Library, National Security File, Robert W. Komer Files, Population Control 1965-March 1966. Secret.
Mac–
We’re moving on population control. Califano is setting up a task force/2/ (perhaps more at Moyers’ urging than LBJ’s; Bill is a bug on this).
/2/No other references to the Califano task force have been found, and no mention of such an entity appears in later State Department internal histories on this topic.
The argument will be over how much splash we can make without setting up counterpressures, both here and abroad. Much will depend on what the Vatican finally comes out with.
Another problem is that little in the way of legislation seems called for. Most of what’s needed can be done by Executive action. This creates a special message problem, so I suggested linking population control abroad at least to the war on want./3/
/3/In a letter dated August 30 to UN Secretary-General U Thant at the second UN World Population Conference in Belgrade, President Johnson wrote: “we must now begin to face forthrightly the multiplying problems of our multiplying population. Our government assures your conference of our wholehearted support to the United Nations and its agencies in their efforts to achieve a better world through bringing into balance the world’s resources and the world’s population. . . . It is my fervent hope that your great assemblage of population experts will contribute significantly to the knowledge necessary to solve this transcendent problem. Second only to the search for peace, it is humanity’s greatest challenge.” (Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1965, Book II, p. 951)
Incidentally, population research in government is abysmally low–only about $500,000 directly attributed.
RWK/4/
/4/Printed from a copy that bears these typed initials.
- Memorandum From the Under Secretary of State (Ball) to President Johnson/1/
Washington, September 22, 1965.
/1/Source: Johnson Library, National Security File, Memos to the President, Vol. 15. No classification marking.
SUBJECT
White House Conference on International Cooperation
Recommendation
- That you agree in principle to the proposed program of the White House Conference on International Cooperation/2/ scheduled to be held November 28 through December 1, 1965./3/
/2/The attached proposed program is not printed. To commemorate the 20th anniversary of the United Nations, 1965 was designated “International Cooperation Year.” On October 2, 1964, President Johnson announced U.S. participation in the ICY. He told the representatives of the more than 200 bipartisan participating groups that international cooperation was “a clear necessity to our survival. . . . The greater the nation the greater is its need to work cooperatively with other people, with other countries, with other nations.” The President also announced his intention to call a White House conference in 1965. (Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1963-64, Book II, pp. 1186-1188) On November 24, 1964, Johnson named a Cabinet committee under the chairmanship of Harlan Cleveland to coordinate U.S. participation. Three objectives designated by Cleveland for the ICY included: “1. An inventory of ongoing projects and programs involving international cooperation. 2. An intensive public relations campaign in the U.S. to stress the magnitude and effectiveness of international cooperation. 3. A series of suggestions for future international cooperative projects.” (Memorandum from Joyce to Pollack, February 17; Department of State, SCI Files: Lot 68 D 152)
/3/The “approve” line is checked. A handwritten note by the President reads: “If I’m available which I doubt.” In a September 23 memorandum to the President, McGeorge Bundy “warmly” supported the recommendations, but added, “I would put all this even more affirmatively if I did not feel that you were wary of additional engagements.” (Johnson Library, National Security File, Memos to the President, Vol. 15) Gordon Chase commented to Bundy in a September 28 memorandum that the President’s hesitancy “probably” reflected a “general reluctance to get tied on firmly to anything so far in advance.” (Ibid.)
- That you make remarks at the final plenary of the Conference on December 1, 1965. (Text to be provided.)/4/
/4/The “approve” line is checked. A handwritten note by the President reads: “See above.”
- That following the final plenary there be an early evening reception at the White House./5/
/5/The “approve” line is checked. A handwritten note by the President reads: “See above.”
Discussion
Following your designation of 1965 as International Cooperation Year (ICY), you appointed a Cabinet Committee to coordinate the Government’s participation. The private sector was engaged through the United Nations Association.
In response to your public requests (excerpts enclosed),/6/ the Cabinet Committee and the United Nations Association created joint committees on various areas of international cooperation. We expect a number of the committee reports will contain proposals worthy of consideration for your State of the Union message. You will recall that this was discussed when you recently joined us for a luncheon in the Department.
/6/Not printed.
It may be desirable for you to release some of the recommendations before the opening of the Conference. We plan to make specific suggestions to this end.
We have developed the enclosed tentative program of the Conference which would personally involve you, high government officials and congressional leaders.
You would participate in the final plenary session of the Conference on Wednesday, December 1, by receiving the reports and recommendations of the Conference and making appropriate remarks. This would be followed by an early evening reception at the White House.
The Congress passed a concurrent resolution/7/ supporting the ICY program and designated six Senators and six Congressmen to attend the Conference. Other legislators will also participate. We expect about 1200 top citizen leaders and 300 government officials to participate. The Conference will, therefore provide you and the United States Government with the opportunity to present graphically the efforts of the Administration to achieve peace and cooperation in the world.
/7/Senate Concurrent Resolution 36, agreed on June 22, 1965. (79 Stat. 1429)
George W. Ball
- Memorandum From the President’s Special Assistant for National Security Affairs (Bundy) to President Johnson/1/
Washington, November 4, 1965, 9:30 a.m.
/1/Source: Johnson Library, National Security File, Memos to the President, Vol. 16. Confidential. A handwritten note indicates the memorandum was received at the LBJ Ranch on November 6 at 9:10 a.m.
SUBJECT
Should we go Ahead with the White House Conference on International Cooperation Year?
- Jake Jacobsen has passed me your message, and I have not done anything further on this matter until I could get back to you. But neither have I issued any general stop order./2/ I want to do just what you want done, but I don’t think I should cancel or postpone this Conference without a definite decision from you. It is now scheduled, by your repeated public affirmation, for November 29-December 1. No one short of the President should make any decision to derail what the President has repeatedly ordered.
/2/Bundy had raised the issue with the President in a memorandum on November 2: “At the outset, let me say that while I don’t blame you for your concern about the number of White House Conferences, the record shows we are pretty firmly committed to go through with this one as scheduled. In addition to the fact that many leading private citizens have already contributed much time and effort in preparation for the Conference, the public record leaves us little room to maneuver.” (Ibid.)
- My memoranda to you have failed to speak adequately of the history of all this. It began in 1964 after the UN General Assembly designated 1965 as International Cooperation Year. You gave that designation your enthusiastic support.
(1) First in your June, 1964 speech at Holy Cross you said,
“I propose to dedicate this year to finding new techniques for making man’s knowledge serve man’s welfare. . . .
“We intend to call upon all the resources of this great nation–both public and private–to work with other nations to find new methods of improving the life of man.”
(2) Then on October 2, 1964 you issued a Proclamation of International Cooperation Year. The operating clauses of this Proclamation are as follows:
“Now, therefore, I, Lyndon B. Johnson, President of the United States of America, do hereby
–proclaim the year 1965 to be International Cooperation Year in the United States of America;
–rededicate the Government of the United States to the principle of international cooperation; and
–direct the agencies of the Executive Branch to examine thoroughly what additional steps can be taken in this direction in the immediate future.
I also call upon our national citizen organizations to undertake intensive educational programs to inform their memberships of recent progress in international cooperation and urge them to consider what further steps can be taken.”
(3) On the same day you addressed a gathering of notables in the East Room and made an eloquent and moving announcement of plans for a White House Conference on International Cooperation:
[Here follow excerpts from the President’s remarks on October 2; see footnote 2, Document 274.]
(4) With that send-off, people went to work. On November 24, 1964, you designated a Cabinet Committee under Dean Rusk to prepare for the White House Conference. Committees were formed on a whole range of topics, and the interest of leading private citizens was engaged in a year of preliminary work. They really are leading citizens, and I attach two pages of representative names of those who have taken an interest in the Conference (Tab A)./3/
/3/Not found.
(5) On March 4, 1965, you received Bob Benjamin and gave the whole undertaking another strong boost.
“On October 2, I proclaimed this twentieth anniversary year of the birth of the United Nations as International Cooperation Year in the United States.
“I am highly pleased by the extent of voluntary support being given to this observance by citizens throughout the country. Mr. Benjamin’s progress report this morning was inspiring. I believe Americans today fully recognize that international cooperation is the one sure way toward peace. The depth of such citizen support is a source of strength for all of this nation’s policies and purposes.
“I am hopeful that the White House Conference on International Cooperation which I have called for November 29 to December 1, can be a landmark session. I hope the conference and the preliminary discussions leading toward it can be a source of new and thoughtful evaluations of what we can do in every major field of international cooperation.”
(6) Since then the wheels have been rolling. Thirty Committees of private citizens have prepared reports which are now going to press. Invitations have been printed. Committee and Panel Chairmen have arranged their programs. A remarkable group of Americans have responded to the challenge you gave their leaders in the East Room a year ago. All of this can do good. Little if any of it can do harm. You started it in a great speech. Why should it be stopped now?
- It may be that I have failed to respond to some special concern of yours. Here are some cases of possible objections with brief answers.
Objection One: The Conference will mess up the White House for three days.
Answer: All that the White House is committed to is a single reception which the President needs to attend only if he is in town.
Objection Two: The Conference will put forward a lot of embarrassing proposals.
Answer: There will be no wild proposals, because the private committees have shown themselves very responsible. Moreover, the freedom of action of the executive branch will be fully protected./4/
/4/On November 19 the Bureau of the Budget informed Chase that the ICY report on food and agriculture was “closely parallel” to a proposed Presidential statement on food. However, “BOB has informally made the point to me that if this report comes out, it will substantially decrease the chances of the President making a food initiative anytime in the near future–i.e. he won’t want to appear to be following the ICY Committee’s lead.” (Memorandum from Chase to Bundy, November 19; Johnson Library, National Security File, Subject File, White House Conference on International Cooperation, ICY–Tabs 26-31)
Objection Three: Some far-out type may use the White House for his own protest on Vietnam, or something else.
Answer: This is always a possibility when any group is asked to the White House, but the very presence of 1,000 other well-behaved peace-lovers will be the best possible answer.
- So my strong recommendation is that we should proceed on schedule. I can think of no reason whatsoever for cancellation, and the only good reason for a postponement would be to allow you to take a larger part in the Conference after your convalescence. Such a postponement can readily be arranged if you wish–though it might raise unnecessary questions about your health, and it would also increase the burden on you at a later time. The only other alternative I can see is to proceed with the Conference, enlist the help of Mrs. Johnson and the Vice President, and keep the load on you as light as possible.
Carry on with Mrs. Johnson and the Vice President
Postpone it on grounds of health
Speak to me/5/
/5/None of the three options was checked.
McG.B.
P.S. Arthur Goldberg just called me on another matter and I checked this problem with him. He asked me to pass this message: It really would be disastrous with all the supporters of the UN if we cancel the Conference. He and Dorothy Goldberg will be delighted to do anything they can to pitch in and keep the load on you as light as possible.
- Editorial Note
The White House Conference on International Cooperation was held November 29-December 1, 1965, in Washington. President Johnson, who was in Texas, did not address the conference, but Vice President Humphrey read a message from the President at the opening session on November 29.
In his message to the conference, which the President called “a Town Meeting of the leaders of the Nation,” he urged the participants to seek “new ways to raise the world’s millions up from poverty, new policies to conserve and develop the world’s resources, new methods to rid the world of destructive disease; new means to increase commerce between nations; new safeguards against the overriding danger of war; new avenues to world peace.” (Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1965, Book II, pages 1128-1129)
The administration found that many of the conference’s reports contradicted stated policy or supported programs targeted for extinction. According to an early Bureau of the Budget reaction memorandum, the report on population–a “tricky and sensitive subject” called for more extensive and dramatic U.S. action, when the current U.S. policy was “not to be doctrinaire and to use soft approaches.” Regarding the human rights report, another memorandum noted: “This report proposes to press forward the U.S. into international cooperation in human rights on a broad front. The efficacy of the recommendations involves judgments of U.S. domestic political aspects and how far U.S. goes in surrendering sovereignty or binding its internal affairs by international agreements. These are ticklish problems.” (Memoranda from Chase to Sisco, November 12 and November 17; both in Johnson Library, National Security File, Gordon Chase Files, International Cooperation Year)
White House staff members hoped that the conference would be forgotten. “The one outstanding piece of business left over from the ICY conference,” Harold Saunders wrote Bundy on December 17, “is how to organize (or scuttle) the follow-up. . . . Sisco has sent all the reports to the Cabinet Committee requesting reaction to their recommendations by 22 December. So far the citizens’ committees haven’t done anything but talk about organizing themselves to follow through. Sisco hopes a quick informal reaction to the recommendations will pre-empt them. My sense is that we want to keep communication informal and let it trail off.” Bundy wrote on this memorandum: “I agree.” (Memorandum from Saunders to Bundy, December 17; ibid., Name File, Saunders Memos, Box 7)
- Editorial Note
In late 1965, as White House staff began to review the issue of population, the State Department’s population expert, Robert Barnett, was asked to prepare an overview for White House use. Barnett reported, “Gordon Chase (White House) says it seems to be what was needed for the aid review now afoot over there.” (Memorandum from Barnett to Read, November 22, 1965; National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Central Files, 1964-66, SOC 13) After providing a historical overview stretching back to the Eisenhower administration, Barnett set out a series of principles by which U.S. Government policy could be guided. He made two points. First, the United States could “treat the population problem scientifically without anxiety that to do so will provoke obfuscating ideological dispute as to propriety of that activity.” Second, the U.S. Government “should advocate no specific or elaborate national policy with respect to population questions beyond the policy of stating readiness to respond to requests for help originating at home or in foreign countries with needed resources, financial, scientific, technical, and personnel.” (Ibid.)
In a series of major messages in the first 2 months of 1966, President Johnson raised the issue and followed these guidelines on at least six occasions. On January 20, in an address in Independence, Missouri, he said: “The hungry world cannot be fed until and unless the growth in its resources and the growth in its population come into balance. Each man and woman–and each nation–must make decisions of conscience and policy in the face of this great problem. But the position of the United States of America is clear. We will give our help and support to nations which make their own decision to insure an effective balance between the numbers of their people and the food they have to eat.” (Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1966, Book I, page 42) He spoke again on February 1: “The United States cannot and should not force any country to adopt any particular approach to this problem. It is first a matter of individual and national conscience, in which we will not interfere.” (Ibid., page 119)
A National Security Action Memorandum, dated November 21, 1966, and annotated “draft not used,” includes a covering memorandum that urged immediate action, but cautioned: “There are admittedly some tough issues to be resolved, both in policy and in tactics. . . . There’s also the political question–whether pushing hard encourages opponents to fight back when we might get just as far by moving ahead quickly. I gather you’ve decided this is urgent enough to risk a fight. In any case, this in-house shouldn’t cause trouble.” The matter went no further. (Johnson Library, National Security File, Robert W. Komer Files, Population Control 1965-March 1966)
McG B
https://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/biographies/mcgeorge-bundy/
https://www.encyclopedia.com/people/history/us-history-biographies/mcgeorge-bundy
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/2719480/Document-19.pdf
Dahl
Robert A. Dahl speaks of “the three great milestones in the development of democratic institutions—the right to participate in governmental decisions by casting a vote, the right to be represented, and the right of an organized opposition to appeal for votes against the government in elections and in parliament.” In enumerating these three great achievements of democratic government, Dahl also implies that they are embodied principally in three main institutions: parties, elections, and legislatures: Dahl, Robert A. (ed.), Political Oppositions in Western Democracies (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1966), p. xiGoogle Scholar. See also William Nisbet Chambers “Party Development and the American Mainstream”, especially pp. 18–19, in Chambers, and Burnham, Walter Dean (eds.), The American Party Systems: Stages of Political Development (New York: Oxford, 1967)Google Scholar.
https://peoplepill.com/people/robert-a-dahl/
https://prabook.com/web/robert_alan.dahl/1301105
Of course, one doesn’t need to have read Science of Rhetoric to recognize Domestic Enemies; all we have to do is pay attention.
These goblins been around for a long time…
From https://web.archive.org/web/20010706190013/http:/globeusa.org/globeusa/images/Octobernewsletter.pdf
GLOBE USA Receives Grant from Rockefeller Foundation
In August, GLOBE USA gained another prominent supporter by receiving a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation. A longtime a supporter of making policymakers aware of global trends and issues, Rockefeller approved a grant for GLOBE USA to highlight the changing role of national legislators as globalization and international institutions take traditionally national policy issues into the international arena. The grant will be used to improve GLOBE USA’s website and produce a publication and a briefing for members to be held at the beginning of the 107th Congress.