Dear
Bernie:1 Thank you very much for sending me the memorandum by Mr. Lubell.2 It is intriguing and appealing. It puts into definite words and into concrete recommendation an idea that I have frequently heard discussed but never in terms of practical suggestion.
The point not mentioned by Lubell in his memorandum--a point which was an essential part of your own Atomic Energy Control Plan3--is the method to be applied by the world in determining the actual "butter-gun" ratio in effect in any particular country. In a nation such as ours this is fairly easy to determine because of the openness of our processes. The hearings and debates in Congress provide a very accurate estimate, even without the use of expert analysts.
I do not mean to be hunting for defects in the idea, but I do mean that any peace proposal of today must contain, as an essential part, the provisions that will make enforcement possible.4
I have been looking forward to talking with Mr. Lubell, but I have not yet had that privilege. So when you communicate with him, won't you please ask him for a little bit of additional explanation on the point I raise?
His idea comes at an opportune moment, not only by reason of Stalin's death, but because we here have been earnestly seeking for a dramatic approach to this whole question of peace and disarmament.5 This morning I cannot go into the details of the various projects we have been discussing, but I do assure you that it is a very lively issue with this administration.
A somewhat different thought prompts a reference to a particular paragraph in his letter, which reads:
". . . The need to stand guard against this possibility sets up tremendous problems for us. As only one illustration, take the matter of government controls under conditions short of war. Such controls clash violently with our free market habits. Yet to hew blindly to the doctrines of the free market, regardless of the risks of war, would actually help invite aggression."6
The one word that I think makes this paragraph completely correct is the adverb "blindly." Assuming the indefinite extension of a period of strain and tension, I feel that measurable abandonment of our accustomed economic practices would bring in its wake consequences that could be most significant and permanent. I definitely believe that the preservation of individual liberty requires what we generally refer to as a free economy. We can for short periods, and must in great emergencies, apply specific controls to this whole economy to make certain that the over-riding needs of the state are satisfied ahead of any other consideration whatsoever.
But to accustom our population to living indefinitely under such controls will gradually bring a new conception of the relation of the individual to the state--a conception that would change in revolutionary fashion the kind of government under which we live.7
In this problem I think that eternal watchfulness and study are indicated. I readily agree with Mr. Lubell that if we blindly adhere to past habits, we can eventually get into a most sorry mess. On the other hand, if we blindly trust to legal controls for long periods and under conditions short of real emergency, we will likewise grievously suffer.
This is already too long a letter, but I do want to hear a bit more about the particular point I raised.8
With my warm personal regard, As ever
