AMERICA II
255
fects. Even the irresponsibility of organized violence will not undo them
although they may for a time cause the pace of development to slacken.
Despite the joyful lamentations and cheerful despair of would-be
revolutionists who profess to see no progress towards a better social order
in the last few years and who declare the civil rights movement bank–
rupt, a sober comparison of the state of
the
union today and a few years
ago exposes the irresponsible wish-thinking behind these judgments.
There is no space nor need to present the material indices of the progress
made or detail the impressive record of legislation in the fields of social
welfare and civil rights.
I mention two things, however, that seem to me to symbolize both
how far we have come and the promise of better things.
Today the proposal of a guaranteed income for every family in the
United States is no longer a utopian fantasy but is a subject of serious
discussion. Granted that even this would not be enough to meet the
problems of poverty and that it would have to be accompanied by a
massive investment by federal, state and municipal government in the
sector of the public services. But can anyone imagine this or a similar
proposal being considered even a decade ago? As I write, a Negro
educator has become the Executive Officer of the Board of Education
in Little Rock, Arkansas, with the power to appoint all teachers. Could
anyone have imagined this at the time of the riot of the Southern
red-necks against Negro children at Little Rock-when even Senator
Fulbright was deafeningly silent in the U.S. about these outrages, but
discussed them-of all places-in Asia[!] where he denounced the attempt
to enforce the Supreme Court's decision as a "Republican gimmick"?
Of course it makes a tremendous difference who occupies the
Presidency of the United States because of the vast powers which go with
the office. For one thing the President is Commander-in-Chief of the
Armed Forces and can commit the military to actions fraught with
enormous importance to the country. For another, the character of the
Supreme Court which functions in effect as a third legislative body in
our political system largely depends upon him. (I shall not pursue the
question further because I have considered it at length in my
The Hero
in
History: A Study in Limitation and Possibility.)
Although
it
is true
that no President can undo the gains won, or extricate himself easily
from the errors made, by his predecessor, the nature and direction of
future programs lie in his hands.
For all his power, the outcome of ev;ents does not depend entirely,
often not even mainly, on the President. In our imperfect pluralistic
democracy, many different groups exercise a relatively independent influ–
ence on the shape of things to come. I see no reason to write off the
