Dear Nelson: I have read the texts of your Philadelphia and Chicago speeches. As a statement of basic values, in a free country, and as generalizations defining great objectives, I think they are admirable. Moreover, I think that every public figure owes it to himself and to others to make such a profession of faith and conviction.1
Difficulties arise, of course, when we begin to apply basic truths to human problems. This is natural because in almost every field of thought and action humans seem to distribute themselves almost according to a natural law, from one extreme to the other. The noticeable fact is that under what has been called "nature’s curve," the extremes comprise small percentages of the whole; what might be called the compatible group is about two-thirds of the aggregate. Most people believe that in general they belong to the "middle-of-the-road" group.
While in the field of moral truth or basic principle a statement tends to be black or white, the task of the political leader is to devise plans along which humans can make constructive progress. This means that the plan or program itself tends to fall in the "gray" category even though an earnest attempt is made to apply the black and white values of moral truths. This is not because there is any challenge to the principle or to the moral truth, but because human nature itself is far from perfect.
It seems to me that the principal objective is to make progress along the lines that principle and truth point out. Perfection is not quickly reached; the plan is therefore "gray" or "middle-of-the-road." But it is progressive! Just as a tree does not instantly reach full stature when it is planted as a seedling, progress must be attained by steps, some of them at times discouragingly small. But as long as we do attain discernible progress and fight stagnation or recession with all our strength, I believe that we are on the right road--and people who seek to live by this doctrine should claim and deserve the name of progressives.
Respecting your idea about groupings of nations, I am not quite sure of your meaning.2 We now have numerous political alliances and of course we are promoting in various areas international economic unions or "cooperatives." As of now the United Nations does not achieve the objectives you foresee for these groupings because of the intransigence of the Soviets--indeed, because your whole idea starts off with the transcendent value we ascribe to the human. This, of course, the Soviets deny.
However, I assume that from times to time you will be making additional speeches, based upon the truths and values described in the two I have just read. Constructive, progressive policies or solutions to specific problems will, I think, tend to follow the broad pattern of human thinking and behavior; that is, acceptable solutions will generally not be extreme in one direction or the other. I repeat, I think you have discussed the truths and values eloquently in the two speeches I have just read.
With warm regard, As ever
