24
NAT HENTOFF
the private sector and tailors its welfare programs and regulatory
activities to conform to the accumulating pressures of a vast array of
private interests, ... Far from cutting away the base of the private
sector, the governmental bureaucracy has become a means through
which private power-from banks to labor unions-has strengthened
its grip on the development of the city, and has subordinated the
general welfare to the private interest.
Abroad, this symbiotic relationship is equally and pervasively clear.
An example is the degree to which private interests affect the nature and
focus of the American government's "aid" to Latin America.
Obviously the precedents and pressures endemic to "the system"
would greatly affect any President who could be elected now. However,
on certain specific issues-most notably Vietnam-the name of the man
in the White House could matter.
If
it were Mark Hatfield, for example.
Or perhaps Robert Kennedy. The reason is that in this sphere, Johnson
has been driven by an irrationality that is against the essential interests
of "the system." Consider the nonpublic statements of members of the
economic establishment in Seattle who hope fervently the Vietnam War
will end so that the time will be closer for that booming city to start
trading with China.
In
sum, "the system," though it hardly gives priority to human over
material values, is not by its nature impelled to destroy us all, physically.
Johnson may be.
2. Inflation can and probably will be managed through more re–
sourceful and more long-range fiscal policy in contrast to the bumbling
overemphasis on monetary policy remedies in recent years. As for poverty,
I am surprised anyone can still ask how serious the problem is. And it's
getting worse as the children of the poor, in large part, are also being
left out of the economy.
The problem is certainly soluble if the nation's resources were al–
located differently. (See, as a primer, the A. Philip Randolph/Leon Key–
serling "Freedom Budget.") It doesn't have all the answers, and it omits
a number of basic questions, but it does indicate the difference between
confronting the problem and gilding it.
In
any case, for real change to
take place in the allocation of our resources, there will have to be a new
politics to elect those who will support what has to and can be done.
3. The meaning is that Johnson is not to be trusted. Nor are Rusk, •
McNamara, Shriver, etc. A more interesting question might be why this
split did not occur with such force during the administration of Johnson's
predecessor. Many intellectuals then were beguiled by style over sub–
stance. Since Johnson'S style is so unattractive, it has been easier for them
