I want to talk with you about some problems and set a stage for something that I think needs to be a very important subject for discussion and I'm not going to talk about the state's response to President Reagan on federalism. First place as far as Federalism is concerned. I don't believe there is a new federalism. Take the relationship between the federal government and the state governments is determined by the Constitution and then is many fundamental ways along since adequately paid it. I'd rather talk instead about decentralisation centralization by how to achieve the goals of the Constitution of the United States. And I'm not going to talk about the states answer because the states are after all surrogates and nothing more surrogates for the people people who live in that particular political jurisdiction as a political jurisdiction, which convention it's a figment and when you get right down to it the Constitution either lives or it does not live and if it lives anyone living anywhere in this country is entitled. To experience a certain of the elements of free men and women. I really am pleased to be here for a number of reasons to be Associated even a small away with the Humphrey Institute gives me great pleasure. Believe it or not even conservative Republicans can be stirred by men like Senator Humphrey. He was a passionate participant. In life's Affairs and I believe that the salvation of this nation depends more upon passionate participation in any Orthodoxy or any titles or partisanship. Damn, so I can leave because I'm a great fan of Harlan, Cleveland. He wrote one of the most important books that I have ever read and I'm going to refer to it later in this talk and he was kind enough to come to Vermont last year to help us put together a day-long program for all the managers in Vermont state government. Devoted to trying to make them better stewards of the people's business and I happened to be a great admirer also up Kurt Carlson who sponsors are these collectors and has a demonstrated his capacity to succeed in many different fields and to show his concern. I'm here because of the general subject and because it is to me so important that all of us become much more involved than we have been in shaping the fabric of this Society. If we are to achieve our goals, I believe that man's Destiny is his own. I think it's going to be shaped by his determination by his values by his nerve by his intelligence. I don't believe that our future has been determined. I think it's at risk. And we're going to the side and Essence whether we can have the values that We crave n also the Comforts that we seek or not. Will be what we make of ourselves and I think it's important to note that we can fail. I'm just stressed that all of my useful life people have talked as though this nation could not fail. This nation can fail, but it must not. And we must determine whether or not it will and I think that's an ocean worthy of passion a might also say that it distresses me that people have been trained in the last decade or to not to feel public patch. Not to care so much as they need to about those decisions that determine whether or not this is a fair Society or not. 6 years ago, I just happened to reread to tocqueville on America and I was very very interested in his notion that somehow or other for reasons which even he didn't understand Americans viewed their government differently than did most people of the world and have higher expectations for it in some cases even dream for what might be accomplished by a free people and the way what about our business with a strange mixture of of discipline then and system and up convention. And believe in the power of the people to decide wisely about their future and then really just as chance would have it. I happened shortly thereafter to reread the Federalist Papers, and I have not read them since College. I was amazed at how many of the arguments which were then going on in public policy had been amply anticipated. By the authors of the Federalist Papers, I was surprised to find out how many current discussion is being debated endlessly and sometimes I fear fruitlessly by the United States Congress had been much more cogently put and the arguments considered in Wade back 200 years ago and that although you might not quite see the connection. I just happened to read maybe five years ago at this point Carl Sagan's book dragons of Eden. I was tremendously impressed with Sagan's notion of man's adaptability his incredible faith and man's ability to adapt to circumstances to turn the events which impinge upon him. In such a way that emerges I'll stronger. More capable of dealing not only with those adversities and with the history but somehow or other prepared also to deal with the new challenges and he dealt with it in genetic terms and biological terms. He didn't deal with a new social term. I'm just by coincidence. I had barely put down Sagan's dragons of Eden whenever at Harlan Cleveland's future executive. And it's that late since I brag about him tremendously at home. You will forgive me perhaps if I brag about him here. I don't think anyone has written more knowledgeably about the special challenges to government in these complex times and Harlan, Cleveland. And anytime I appoint anyone in Vermont state government. I give him a copy of the book future executive and often in discussions and cabinet sessions staff meetings. Thereafter will discuss the Cleveland approach to the analysis of multiple facets of public programs. And then I guess it was three years ago. I read crime and cons charts for the future. And that's a scholarly as I'm going to get cuz there's a reading list and I believe that if you read those books that you will become convinced either of the following points or some others. I don't believe that you can read those books and not feel that there is a test. And that we are the ones being tested but not just as individuals rather as Representatives. Pokemon caught each of them had such different things to say. Con grab some that all up when he hypothesized that we're in the middle now of a 200-year epic of man, one of the most the determinant of in history started with the Industrial Revolution any charts that the changes that that has wrought in our society list some of the risks to are a future problems of energy the problems of population the problems of War. The problems of the tremendous disparity between the rich and the poor people of this Earth, which is instantly greater now than it has ever has been in the history of mankind. We're not talking now about the difference between the standard of living of a sir in a rich King's Kingdom and the standard of living of the members of the king's court. We're talking about the difference in the standard of living between the average person in the richest 10% of the nations of this world and the average down living of the poorest 10% of the nations of this world. And of course, points out that which we all know that you cannot deal with the problems of War and Peace without dealing with the problems of the fiscal disparity which exists throughout this world because war is a result not a cause of misery and degradation of the human spirit. The con is an optimist a scholarly futurist who is an optimist. He says we will succeed. He says we do have the resources. We have them physically. We have them technically we have them intellectually the solve the problems to bring population under control to find reasonable alternatives for energy including a conservation and to increase the standard of living of the average person on this world more towards the top rather than by leveling towards the bottom so that the kind of stresses and strains which bring about International tensions can disappear. Lacan says there's one caveat. To that delightful scenario. He says man must manage well. Well, what do we mean when we talk about man managing well? I believe we talked about making democracy work. Is it conceivable to you that managing? Well could mean Successful Pyrenees I think on because there would be a contradiction in terms you could do well by some people but at the expense of their sense of dignity and we would not have managed well and I don't believe very likely would have solved problems. What does it mean that we can simply trust in democracy to work and believe that every time the people make decisions they will make them. Well, we know better. And so we can see the challenge in front of us and after reading those books. I came to the following conclusions, which have everything to say about my views on what is now referred to as federalism first. I believe that this nation. He's facing a clear and present danger and that for demographic reasons, which we cannot change when this nation and its democracy faces clear and present danger them the hope of reaching me out, which con smoke is also in danger. I don't think the social compact which we study about in schools can be seen nearly as a philosophic notion and reality is also a pragmatic test whether or not people will Aid and abet and assist orderliness in Societies or not. How does matter of fact no one is compelled to honor the social Compact and many do not honor it. And only when the vast majority of people are willing to honor the social compact because they believe it is fair. Do we have a chance of being civilized of honoring our obligations to one another and so if the social compact fails people in this or any other Nation we must anticipate troubles. and there are too many problems in this country right now for us to truthfully say that this nation passes the ultimate test the pragmatic test of the social compact Theory minardi's are not in fact finding the opportunity to improve their circumstances and to be equal in fact A matter of fact you can purchase tikli show that there is less upward mobility and movement and opportunities for Success now than there was 40 or 50 years ago. I know lots of reasons for that. I don't think it is evil in the simplistic sense of that but nevertheless it is true. And certainly it is true from the point of view of someone who is unemployed and 16 and black who happens to live in some urban area where there are no jobs. And where is a matter fact if there were jobs, they would not find themselves with the skills necessary to perform those jobs were such a person the social compact theory is not doing well or for the agent someone who has been encouraged to say even to put aside so they could be independent and their old age who then finds that years. Of the ravages of inflation leave them at risk and vulnerable and were shot surprised at their own vulnerability. And so we find substantial numbers of people without purpose and sickly young people without purpose or hope attend to be hostile to the system into society and this combined with inflation rates and interest rates and the concerns about a defense. Have all led to eye problems, including those of international compatibility, but more than anything else. My conclusion is that when these any or all of them an aggregate impinge upon the sense of trust the people living the Democracy have in their system something has to change. Rejection or combined with involvement wouldn't be so bad. But I think it is awful if people reject the system and distain to participate in changing it. number two I'm convinced that the answer is not in more government. But he better government. I am convinced but it is arguable. I not acknowledge that it is arguable. I am convinced that so much government is part of the problem. For years, we have been told that if we simply did more in this area or that area that the problems would go away and we have done more but we're not that it artfully would not done it thoughtfully. It is not just some business people who are materialistic the most materialistic people in this Society or the politicians who truthfully believe but if they articulated defense a spending program in defense or any place else that the matching of dollars with social concerns will yield success and it is not shop and we now know that is not so Many of our problems as a matter of fact are of excess but misplaced Zeal on the notion that more is better that we should know by now that it is not. Increments in the public sector have correlated badly to problem solving for those not mean that there is not a proper and justifiable place and it is our task to find out just what that place is and how to do it. I believe that we have tended excessively particularly in the last 50 or 60 years to treat the symptoms of problems and I become preoccupied with trivia and perhaps with minutiae. the great intern at the great debates that are going on now nationally tend to be about the results are not the causes of problems and we're just totally occupied dealing with interest rates rates is what bothers us. The mechanism by which Interest exist or money is saved or people put aside and defer the right or the access to goods and services now for a purpose and order that later. They should have an additional reward. The debate is about rates inflation rates. That's what concerns people in both of those cases. Some people would legislate the answers. They would say do whatever you want to about money money supply savings and legislate interest rates, which is more of a kind of problem, which has brought us to our present situation defense spending The Debaters on spending. And I don't know how to participate in that kind of a debate in the vast majority of American people do not know how to do paid to participate thoughtfully and such a debate and one of the consequences is the Congress has no time for overall Solutions. One of the things I have no time for Is analysis of the proper relationship between the federal government and the states and local governments? They have no time for finding out why it is that the programs which are in Play Store not working. What are the biggest Inhibitors to a thoughtful sorting out of the roles of the federal government the state and local governments is the widespread notion in the Congress that they are too busy dealing with other problems and it just occurs to me. That's not likely to change. They don't have time to deal with Afghanistan Poland in the Falkland Islands. They don't have time to deal with money and banking they don't have time to deal with defense adequately. So why then are they trying to spell out every detail of 500 narrow categorical Grant programs and tons and tons and tons of rules and regulations, which tell those of us who do have time if we will take it. To do the business, making the American dream live? Four people in the states in the counties and communities of this country. We got to stop dealing with problems after they occur and take the time to get ahead of the problem. And that's only going to happen in my judgment if we learn how to delegate. To appropriate people within this country. appropriate shares of the total National responsibilities I believe it's a fundamental thesis of democracy is valid and abused. We don't have to change anything fundamental about this country at all. But we do have to change. The fundamental thesis Ops 2 are being ignored one. Is that government must proceed with the consent of the governed? Is it true? 20 x 10 could you honestly say that 240 or so million people in the United States have been consulted and have given their consent. For the mash the thousands of individual actions and decisions and policies and statements and regulations and programs which add up to their governance and a second fundamental tenant is that decisions made by an informed majority will tend to be better than decisions made by any other process. I believe that with every fiber of my being but how about decisions made by an ignorant majority? Would anyone subscribe to the notion that what's important in the phrasing for majority is majority. That that can exist without the modifier inform. Now since the concept of a tyranny is intolerable and if you will agree with me the government by an ignorant majority is also intolerable. There is only one possible course of action left to us. We must find a way to have a truly informed which already because only then for majority can in fact give his consent and only then do you have the consent of the governed? So much has changed since the 18th century when they have Federalist Papers were written. Those papers were written by a group of people from common cultural philosophic heritage common, ethnic Heritage some very very homogeneous society uniform economic circumstances. The people are almost uniformly concerned with production and not the distribution of wealth many of the arguments that we have today and need to have today did not exist in those time. The principles that were applied can still be applied. But clearly we must make some changes in order to bring them up-to-date because in my judgment the principal cause of our problem and it has everything to do with the debates about the so-called new Federalism is that our society has become huge and complex and specialized and do burst and none of those things are bad, but they do call upon us to change the application of the principles of our government if it is to work, We got two centuries now of centralization and at the same time of the expansion of our society and about tremendous growth in tremendous immigration and tremendous determination to spell out every more clearly what we mean by the rights the fundamental rights of the people and in the course of doing that the underpinnings of our society have become considerably you wrote it. What we need to do seems to be at this point is to go back to the fundamentals and decide how to apply them in these times. Categorical grants and rulemaking and narrowness is not the answer to complexity and specialization. Decentralisation is the answer. That is the only way that we can be reasonably sure that people know enough to make the kind of decisions for which they must be responsible. What amounts do is we have to stop letting the Georgia's do it in Washington. Do we have to take the government back into our own hands and some people are very frightened by that notion because they say that is going to put burdens on me and I submit to you we have to decide whether we can and will carry those burdens or whether we will take the risk of losing the democracy. Not a problem with this notion of mine is that it challenges the status quo and one of the saddest lessons that I have learned in the 20 some years that I've been involved in public policy is that when the status quo is challenged the most likely result is going to be one of two equally unattractive responses. Either an intensification of feeling in defense of the status quo a settling down. I I'll circle the wagons routine in which the status quo becomes the status quo only more sub. Or a wholesale abandonment of all of the principles underlying the status quo including those which work and which need not have been changed at all. Answer presently what we're hearing nationally is simply a modern view of that one side says problem is the United States going to be simply soft in the soon as you hear someone say that, you know, either that they're lying or they don't know what to talk to you about. The problems are never going to be simply soft. But they say will you simply cut spending you simply send the responsibilities back to the States you simply get the government out of the people's hear you simply make the economy well and when you make the economy, well the nation will be well and you increase the capacity for defense so that we don't have to worry about others and that's all you have to do and they're wrong. I believe the other side says you shouldn't do that. You shouldn't do any of that because if you do that you will throw away Justice. Only the central government understands and can be held responsible for justice and the principal role of this nation is to secure Justice. And so we cannot tamper with it. We cannot threaten it. We cannot disperse that responsibility because if we do there will be some places where Justice is inadequate the like they're either both wrong or both. Right? And the question is not whether they are part right both wrong or both right? It's question of which part of each thesis is right. The Federalist Papers translated into modern circumstances, I think give us a clue. A question isn't a new federalism. It's a question of a working federalism and Order decide that we have to understand what the state's role is and moving right along. I don't think you can do that without recurring for a moment to what all the roles of government are not try to do it with one ordered summaries governments. As far as I know. These are the only things that governments can do governments can legislate. They can decide what they conventions and standards are they can enforce they can arrest the people who don't follow the rules or enjoying them somehow or other to follow the rules. They cancer they can set up a program traffic lights or water treatment. They can tax. Hahaha, they can text and that's of course a route and only a route to other things but an indispensable part of the power of government. In one of the things that I can do. And that is they can distribute. Distribution is not necessarily service but is not taxation by itself. It's a special utilization of the fruits of Taxation. And so the real question is not federalism. It's this how shall we centralized or decentralized each of these powers in order to achieve our dream of a free people in these times and order these circumstances. I believe we should centralized certain National goals. I think as a nation we should legislate a national standards of decency of The Human Condition. I think it's silly to try to describe in an hour away a national standards of decency and to hypothesize that it should apply to Income Maintenance, but not to education that doesn't make any sense to me. It seems to me that the National Standard in the reasonable expectations includes each of the following. I think every citizen has a no-fault, right? a no-fault right to adequate nutrition do a healthy environment to personal health to education. the free movement and security a person and property the question is how can they achieve those rights and Harmony one with the other and I suggest the national government can and property should and is the only Forum that I can think up that would be satisfactory to me. To define a National Standard of decency in each of those areas. And so that philosophic debate with tremendous pragmatic overtones how to be the business of the federal government and to that extent nationalized. The standard is that they ought not to be so comfortable outside my room to people or two communities or two other associations for a free choice and making added Investments along those same lines second late. I think we should centralized the fundamental Equity of Taxation. Many people who quote The Federalist Papers use them to show that the Federalist didn't never contemplate many of the roles which the federal government now assumes. But they ignore what it is that was said by way of reason for assuming what the federal government do what the state governments would do. For example, it was thoroughly agree that Customs would be a federal responsibility and that was in essence four geographic regions are for father said no one has the choice of whether or not they are in a state which is on the coast and through which our customers must pass and it would not be fair for the state would simply has that advantage to reap the benefits while the people Inland where to pay the cost isn't it clear that the same thing in 20th century term that it wouldn't be fair. If those States would happen to have energy resources were to reap the benefits and people throughout the rest of the country where to pay the consequences. It wouldn't be fair if suncorp some communities had a very large corporations with tremendous earning power and whose workers incident later and high wages to produce products, which were then shipped to other places where there was relatively little industry where people had to pay the high prices of the products and similarly had to tax themselves fully to carry the burdens of government. So clearly the equity of Taxation must be a federal responsibility. I submit that we need to decentralized Administration and service. The reason we should do that is wherever accountability of program he is at a local level. Wherever people are going to experience the benefits of a program or the problems of the people who are going to know whether is working well or not must be the ones who are responsible for Designing it. For running it for changing it and that clearly involves such things as education and Roads and criminal justice. But since each of those is a derivative of the fundamental constitutional rights, it does not follow that if these programs are delivered at the local level that they should be fully paid for at the local out. So I submit that there is a fourth principle which is the federal government must distribute by assignments first jurisdiction. They must distribute some of their capacity by way of Taxation to ensure that people do not have to choose between neglect of essential public services and unconscionable tax burdens. I have not yet referred to the current debates about federalism. I've intentionally not done. So because it seems to me that the more we talk about the present debate the more it is assumed that if those debates in the present negotiations mature that the world will be one way and that if they fail it will be another way. And I would not be a powerful notion to me. Regardless of what happens presently between the Governor's in the white house or between the people and the Congress. This debate must be resolved. I have a some principles here, which I might address if you wish me to about that debate, but I think it's much more important to it for us to focus on what we can do. The goal is not any one particular solution the goal among others must be to recognize that there is a problem that if it isn't addressed this year, then it will have to be addressed next year. And if not, I'm sure it'll have to be addressed the year there after I don't think it's very likely that we're simply going to drop the whole discussion and go back to one large centralized Society spending more than people can afford to accomplish results, which the people find unsatisfactory. I'm also convinced the most important thing of all is to have people understand that if they pick up the banners of self-determination will this democracy succeed it will take meetings not just like this but meetings have an entirely different short throughout this country and which people recognize that they have to care not just about the results, but about the process that yields those results if democracy is to succeed. We've got to have a new era in which there is considerably more participation by people in government and we've ever had before The Alternatives Journey suppose it were a tyranny of the informed. Would that make you feel any better? I hope not. Poor decisions by an uninformed majority and the risk of failure of decision. Soulmate is so great. That I charge you if I may do that, but picking up the ultimate responsibility for success or failure in this Venture. Thank you very much. When are the State Warriors? The trust of your remarks was that there are some problems in a free Society with who has influence. About the strength of a democracy is that influences? Not deny to any one. Are you saying some have to take make more of an effort how to utilize their Birthright that others and that's true. But what would the remedy be would it be to put some restrictions upon the exercise of their Birthright by the privilege is a compatible with anyone's notion of democracy. I think. So said what we have to do is to encourage those for whom it is a struggle then facilitate of their participation and you and I are to work together to do that. By the way. What I would say is today a Carlson lecture series does that and many other things do that? Nothing would be more important than someone else suggested then perhaps I having a more discussion about philosophy the philosophy of government in schools. I think we have really become a distressingly specific. In our society. I'm so one way to address the concern to which you refer would be to take another look at our whole educational structure, but that's not done overnight for today and tomorrow and next year. I think that if we ask people to participate fully and if we demand that their participation be accepted and received that will be pushing the Giant in the right direction and is altogether better to take a step in the right direction and then to I make too long a list cuz I have the barrier. Let's distinguish between public and private Affairs certainly in a public affairs. There is no fee assessed on your registering to vote or you're participating in a local hearing about the local education. You can probably write a letter to the editor without paying a p I would just wager that you are participating. I just do that statistically I would say here's a person who comes to a lecture and Rises to make a statement. Well golly. I was just that you participate quite a bit and it just can't be sawed the people not able to participate what you seem to be saying is there are some things in which you are not able to participate and those are things are essentially works on a private group has exercised its right to establish a private Forum. I don't think that the two are incompatible. I certainly as long as the franchise is free and Universal and as long as we require as we do in most federal state and local public policy decision-making assistance are public hearings and the right of all citizens to Common to participate in to give testimony. They are participating and then you have to say well do the people who hear that testimony act upon. It looks really they don't act upon all of it because a lot of it is contradictory. So clearly they have to make some decisions and some judgments and if the judgment is not what you would look at it that does not mean that you have not participated. A year ago. I was a president shortly after his election with a mandate to do something about the spending and Taxation levels in this country inn in the inflation rate and interest rates in a bunch of other things propose a very substantial budget cuts that is true in so doing he did not make any suggestion that these burdens would be turned over to the states a year later in February when the president address to Congress. He spoke about a swap between the federal government and the states of certain programs and the turn back to the states of certain programs. And he said and I quote there will be no winners and the losers and he solemnly guaranteed in his repeated that guarantee 15 times at the Swap would be accomplished so that no additional burden would fall on the states and the S7 has been quoted many many times but no portion of the Federalist and debate was intended to impact upon either the federal or the state budgets. How to be truthful some people who don't want the states or local governments to undertake these responsibilities have attempted to convert the argument about who does what into an argument about spending the argument is not about spending and I submit to you there is no way that the federal government is going to resume The Reckless spending which characterize the seventies it cannot afford to do. So the reason it cannot afford to do so is because you cannot afford to do so and so now the question is, how are we going to manage or straight? But it is absolutely not true that the debate about federalism has to do with shifting burden from the federal government to the state governments.