Dear George: When we were talking on the phone last evening, there was a matter that I intended to take up but allowed it to slip my mind. It was your feeling, as expressed to Al Gruenther, that the individuals that I have selected to head what I call my "Coordinated Policy" or "Goals" Committee are not up to the job.1
The selection of people for this kind of thing is a very tricky and tough business. First of all, if it were headed by a big businessman, I think it would probably be boycotted by labor--the reverse of this statement is probably also true. In these circumstances I decided to go into the educational field to find a man of the professional qualifications and national standing who could fill the bill as Chairman. I think my own personal choice would have been my younger brother--but, he has the wrong name. There were two college presidents that I thought of, but upon approaching them found that they were so heavily committed for the next year and a half that it was impossible for them to undertake the job.2
Arthur Burns has established for himself a national name and he is known as one of the sounder and more realistic economists.3 While he is not pure "Adam Smith," he is certainly a long way from the Schlichter school.4
Since he was in my Administration for a long time, he of course is known as a Republican and I found it necessary to hunt for a Deputy Chairman who was known to be a Democrat and an intelligent man. I went to Frank Pace.5 I understand clearly that he heads a company whose principal business is with the government, but the only thing I am doing in the whole business is to try to get the show on the road--there will be no government influence or connection with the matter except as the different Task Forces want to get from the different Departments facts and statistics. I discussed these two names with a number of my friends and while, as I say, there seemed to be no ideal solution, these two seemed to fit the bill fairly well. At the same time I approached Clark Kerr, President of the University of California, who has a very fine reputation in this country and who has been known as a sort of champion of labor.6 His tentative acceptance gave me a counterbalance for Frank Pace in what might be called the purely economic field. With these three men I hope--once we can see that private financing has been made adequate--to consult together in order to get two or possibly four more members of the Board. I do not want anyone who is carrying a torch for any "ism" or is too much controversial. On the other hand, I would like to get a very fine lawyer--possibly a lawyer who has acted in some capacity as a mediator in labor- management disputes, is known as a "Constitutional" lawyer. Alongside him I would like also to get a solid businessman who has a good name and reputation, but who is not easily classified as "big business."
Now, to be a bit more specific about the purpose I have in mind. Every day there come questions to my desk that deal with matters that are more than merely transitory and temporary. It would be a great help to me if I could have the results of a study that tries to visualize the future of America, both at home and internationally, and what we should be doing to realize those hopes. What we are talking about here is the coordination of the policies that should guide us as a people. These would of course deal with education, health and well-being of our people at home, the growth of our economy, the soundness of our fiscal arrangements, and all matters that are related to these fundamental subjects. Our success in going forward on these lines will be affected by our standing in the world and what we do to make the world a place in which our national ambitions can be realized. Such a study would therefore involve the coordination of policy, domestic and foreign, to achieve these goals. So I have referred to the Committee, for convenience, as a "Goals" Committee.
The final report must be such as to command the confidence of our people. The result would be far wider than merely giving some guidance to the political officials. We would hope to have it so publicized that thinking people in every walk of life and in every corner of our country would see that their daily decisions will be more often correct if they conform generally to the great policies and goals we have set for ourselves extending on for the next eight to ten years.
This does not mean that the study, no matter how well executed, will be perfect. But it will provide a series of logical conclusions useful to the busy Executive, whether in business or in government, to ponder and consider. From such an effort it seems some good would almost certainly result.
I should like to point out that we are talking about such practical matters as the cost of the Atomic Energy Commission, of the Defense Department, of the mutual security program, the cost to the Federal government of every kind of domestic program, many of which include grants to states, the building of roads, and assistance to farmers. If we could get a better national understanding and better executive decisions in any one of these areas, we could in a single year possibly save ten times the amount that the study itself would cost, even though that cost would not be negligible.
Such a project could not be carried out except through a series of Task Forces and the men on the Task Forces would have to be assisted by researchers and analysts.
I am quite certain that the project is worthwhile. While it is quite possible that I have not obtained the ideal personnel, I still think they are people that could turn out a good honest result.7
******
Needless to say, I am sorry I can’t see my way clear to a visit to the Cedar Point Club but it just seems impossible in view of the schedule I have laid out for myself.
Give my love to Pam and all the best to yourself. As ever
