POINTS AFTER .
..
THE BEST AND THE BRAINIEST
I don't know the origins of the myth that the best and the
brainiest were enlisted to preside over the fiasco of Vietnam. Obviously,
some intelligent and sophisticated people acted as advisors to Presidents
Kennedy and Johnson. But most of the brain trust in both administra–
tions were academic ·"experts," which meant that they were scholars or
administrators who had never exhibited any range of political knowledge
or speculation. And while they differed widely in their views, few of
them had the kind of detached, critical mind one associates with the
outstanding political figures of any time. So far as I know, no sharp
and independent thinkers were ever consulted on any questions of foreign
policy. In fact, it appeared that it was precisely this kind of thinking
that was excluded from government circles; one simply assumed that
the main qualifications of the government intellectuads were academic
prestige and a second-rate mind.
Who were these bunglers who are still thought of as the best and
the brainiest - not only by Halberstam - and why? Some, like the
Rostows, were ideologists dressed up like hard-headed pragmatists.
Some, like McNamara, had the kind of whiz-kid mind that is adulated
by those who are afraid of thinking. Some were reputed to have
"steel-trap" minds, which meant that they were incapa:ble of exam–
ining their premises. Some were liberal professors. But what they all
had in common was a style and a background that seemed to desig–
nate them as members of a ruling elite.
This country does not have an intellectual class brought up to
fill
the interstices of government, as does England, for example. But the
closest thing to it here is that part of the academic and business com–
munity that is attracted to power: generally the Democrats draw on
those from ,the more prestigious universities, those who think of them–
selves as liberals, as patricians who have signed up for humanity; while
the Republicans recruit those businessmen who think they are thinking
about the public interest, and the professors who pride themselves on
being "realists" and immune to liberal illusions.
Aside from the question of competence, the truth is that neither
group has a clear idea of national or class interest. The Republicans
pretend at least to be single-minded but the Democrats are between two
stools. Basically, opponents to the war in Vietnam fall into two camps:
the radical idealists and those who simply think it was a mistake,
militarily, economically, and politically. The Democratic intellectuals in
residence at the White House were mostly .not in the radical camp, and
though they shared some of the feelings of the New Left they did not
share its perspectives. Yet their contribution, in terms of the national
interest, in the terms, that is, in which the government saw the problems
of the country, was mainly to add self-deception to the general con-
