Some Thoughts on the Future of the United States Government by Admiral H. G. Rickover, USN

Some Thoughts on the Future of the United States Government

by Admiral H. G. Rickover, U. S. Navy

I believe we in the United States today must reassess our governmental machinery if we are to continue as a democracy. The reason for the reassessment is simple: conditions change and political systems which worked well in one age may grow weak and falter in another age. The failure may not be in the principles but in the workings of the government. In the proposal I am going to make, one principle must be clearly understood. I firmly believe in a democracy that recognizes the worth and dignity of the individual. Nothing that I am going to say alters that fact.

Democracies can be traced back to prehistoric times, when responsible adult males chose the leaders of their tribes. These people lived in close contact with nature. A failure of crops, a bad hunting season, could mean catastrophe. Therefore, the choice of leaders affected the entire group and called for the participation of the responsible members of the tribe.

A classic example of a democracy was Athens in ancient Greece. At times, the citizens of Athens rose to heroic heights. At other times, they descended to the depths of pettiness, bickering, and selfishness. These qualities, in the end, lost them their democracy. Plato, in analyzing the constitutions of the Greek city states, believed that 5,040 citizens were the ideal number for a democracy. He chose this figure in Athens because this was the largest number that could meet in one place—the Hill of the Pnyx—and still be able to hear the speaker. Incidentally, this is why oratory was so important in the ancient world. Greek democracy failed because it did not meet the needs of larger societies. Yet it has remained as an example for us. Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison in the Federalist Papers drew upon the Greek experience to explain the provisions of the American Constitution.

The Founding Fathers were confronted with a crucial problem—that of combining democracy, state government, and a strong central government. You are all familiar with the Continental Congress and the difficulties that plagued it during the Revolution because of the independence of the individual states. The struggle to create one nation out of 13 states was won by the narrowest of margins. The success was possible because the Constitution limited the powers of the general government and assigned all the other powers to the states. The relations between the states and the central government changed—slowly at first, but with increasing speed—as society after 1787 became more complex. Whether the United States was to remain a federation of states or to exist as a unitary nation was settled by the Civil War. After Appomattox there was no doubt that the center of power was in Washington.

That power, however, was shared by the three branches of our government—executive, legislative, and judicial. Within recent decades, power has flowed to the executive and judicial branches. To my mind, one of the most disturbing trends has been the power we have tacitly assigned to the Supreme Court to decide major issues. Some important questions are no longer settled by Congress, but by the Supreme Court. In fact, members of Congress have even sought to ascertain the Court's opinion before enacting legislation—although the Constitution specifies that the Court's appellate jurisdiction is the responsibility of Congress. Congress holds a unique position in the American system. The erosion of Congressional authority is a matter of great concern to all thoughtful citizens today.

The shift in the balance between one part of the government and another is natural and inevitable, and reflects the changing conditions of the country and our society. I am convinced, however, that the problems now at hand require a profound reappraisal of our government.

We find ourselves in a situation today far different from the one the Founding Fathers confronted in 1789. Then there were only four million people and a large virgin continent. Anyone could start his life again in the West where land was available. Our manufacturers had access to unlimited material and cheap energy—energy that was available almost for the cost of extraction. Thomas Jefferson's overriding concern was the fitness of people to govern themselves. Above all, he desired a society in which the common man had either the power or the capability to control his government. He feared an industrialized America. He felt that our government "will remain virtuous only as long as they are chiefly agricultural." "Those who labor in the earth are the chosen people of God." Commerce should be the "handmaid" of agriculture. The sight of Europe's slums horrified him. "Let our workshops remain in Europe." There was enough land to take care of our people for centuries to come. Yet only one hundred years later the frontier was gone and the United States had become the largest manufacturer in the world.

It is difficult to recognize how long the natural wealth of our country could insulate the citizen from the federal government. Funds to run the federal government came from internal revenues and excise taxes. Only in 1917 did the federal budget reach $1 billion. The military budget in 1939, on the eve of the largest war the world had yet known was $1,368,000,000.

The Great Depression raised serious questions in many minds as to whether our democracy would survive. Yet President Franklin D. Roosevelt's statement in 1933, ". . . the only thing we have to fear is fear itself," was valid. The country was rich. Material and energy resources were still available at relatively low cost. By using large quantities of our natural resources and cheap energy, it was possible to get the country going again.

But the natural wealth of our country, which has partly shaped our form of government, was running low. Shortly after World War II, some individuals began to envision the pressures which would come because of increasing population and the growing scarcity of cheap energy and materials. In 1952, a Materials Policy Commission was appointed by President Truman to study future energy and material requirements. That report was a landmark. It predicted our present situation, yet it went unheeded. I, myself, in charge of the Navy's nuclear propulsion program, became a close student of the energy situation. In the late 1950's and since, I have testified on the deteriorating energy situation. Although the facts were clear, not until the 1973 war in the Near East and its oil embargo did the issue begin to receive major attention.

The United States now finds itself in a position where energy costs have increased tremendously, and are far greater than the cost of extraction. Domestic oil and gas supplies are no longer adequate for our needs. They are expected to be largely unavailable for energy use in about thirty years. We will, therefore, have to depend on coal in one form or another. Possibly other energy forms, such as those from shale, the sun, wind, or fusion, may come—but we cannot be certain.

We are now facing our greatest crisis. Any government, a democracy in particular, can only survive so long as its citizens have faith in its efficiency and fairness. Can our government institutions meet the most severe challenge they have ever faced? I am no political scientist. I am familiar with history—with the politics and problems of governments, particularly with those of our own federal government. I have had practical experience with our executive, judicial, and legislative branches. All of you know the many years I have appeared before Congress, seeking your aid, and you know the respect I have for the legislative branch of our government.

From my experience and observation, I believe that politics generally deals with the present—not the future. Present issues are important, but problems we see on the horizon must also be considered. British politicians at the time of the Stamp Act; the French in the age of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette; and the Russians under Nicholas II, caught a glimpse of the future but turned away. We must carefully assess our problems in the light of the future and our commitment to democratic principles.

I believe a major problem is that the federal government has assumed obligations that were once the responsibility of private citizens and local governments. Our people have been taught to believe that when local resources are inadequate, the federal government should step in. And yet, paradoxically, the citizen feels that the federal government is far away—unresponsive and unheeding. We are reaping the problems facing a unitary government where nearly all of the authority lies at the center. With the scarcity and rising costs of material and energy, the purposes and functions of our institutions need to be studied again. They have to meet the needs of our citizens and maintain the democratic tradition.

The power and responsibilities of the federal government must be drastically pruned if we are to survive as a democracy. Our citizens and local governments must assume their proper responsibilities.

What, then, can we do? I have found in my own work that, when a problem becomes too large, it can become insoluble. It is wise to divide it into parts. It is then easier to find a solution.

For more than 30 years I have been in the fortunate position of observing the way our government operates. I am, therefore, bold enough to offer a suggestion. My idea is to divide the United States into several groups of states, say six or seven. Each group of states would choose a unicameral or bicameral legislature. Each state would elect one Senator and one or more Representatives to Congress. The federal Senate would consist of 50 Senators and the House members, based on population, would be about 100.

All functions would be removed from the federal government which can be performed by the groups of states. They would assume responsibilities for education, welfare, transportation, postal services, and other matters. The federal government would be confined to military and foreign affairs, and control of foreign trade.

Such far-reaching changes would require a Constitutional Convention. They would require the kind of wisdom and statesmanship possessed by the Founding Fathers, which were based on culture and practical politics. They were not content with a private life, no matter how successful. Based upon their experience and knowledge, they built a government and

endowed it with a flexibility so that each generation would have the chance to measure its own means against the age-old truth of political reality. The Founding Fathers could not foresee the exact challenge their descendants would face, but they provided them with the means to act. It is for us to furnish the same wisdom. Only the highest form of statesmanship will suffice to prepare our country for the future. The cause is greater than us all.

Political demands are of only limited relevance to the changes which will produce permanent reductions in the strains of society. The political methods of coercion, exhortation, and discussion assume that the role of politics is to solve conflicts when they have already happened. The ideal of a politics of prevention is to obviate conflict by reduction of the strains of society.

The great contribution of the English-speaking peoples to democracy has been the development of responsible political parties. They may differ greatly over issues, but they are deeply united upon the basis of our political system. The Republican Party is considered to be the more conservative element in our politics. Conservation means "to save." To be a Republican does not necessarily mean to be pro-business, which is what many of our citizens believe the Republican Party to be. I have the good fortune to know many of you. I know that, above all, you will do what your conscience tells you is best for all our people. I know that you are deeply concerned about the responsibilities of the government and its citizens, and the need to ensure that the principles of democracy bequeathed to us by our ancestors are not lost.

However, the task will be far more difficult than creating the Constitution in 1787. The vested interests that then existed—slavery and commerce—were prevented from becoming divisive issues. There were only six commercial corporations; today we have more than 2.5 million. We are now a nation of large influential interest groups, such as business, labor, welfare, education and many others. To persuade these powerful groups to act jointly for the common welfare will be one of the most statesmanlike actions in all history.

You have the opportunity to become the "Founding Fathers" for future generations.