necessary and whether their burden is being shared equitably. More broadly, the question is whether the American public feels that it understands the choices the nation faces and has a voice in choosing among them. There is another point about national leadership in the 1980s that should be emphasized because it has important implications for the quality of life of future generations. Both the New York City fiscal crisis and the nation's energy problem illustrate the temptation to formulate policy that responds to immediate problems rather than long-term requirements. We are reminded of a remark made by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, that the main problem in government is that the urgent steals time from the important. It has been suggested, not entirely facetiously, that what this country needs as much as an Environmental Protection Agency is a Grandchildren Protection Agency, one that is responsible for considering the impact of current policy on future generations. That suggestion raises some very difficult questions: How, exactly, can we reckon the extent to which current policies may jeopardize the lives of future generations? What is a responsible balance between concern for the present and concern for the future? How can we create political institutions that are responsive to the needs of the future as well as the present? Given the tendency of the electorate to vote in protest, to use elections as an occasion for registering dissatisfaction with current conditions, how can elected officials act in such a way as to gain re-election, while also making prudent plans for programs and policies that may not pay off except in the medium- to long-range future? It is one of the weaknesses of a democratic system in which representatives have to seek re-election every few years that the orientation is to short-term policy making. This will be a particular problem in the years to come because some of the major programs that we will have to undertake or expand-such as a more ambitious effort to achieve energy independence-are likely to take decades to achieve. In the short term, such projects impose considerable costs; it is only in the long run that their benefits become apparent. This means that the politicians who must sustain the political costs of getting such projects started are unlikely to reap the political benefits of their eventual success. As a result of the growing ecological awareness, the past decade has seen increasing concern for gauging the impact of current decisions on future generations. To some extent, government has been responsive to this concern. Congress, for example, passed the foresight provision, Quality of 134 which requires the study of future effects of proposed legislation. But despite repeated warnings about the lack of an effective foresight capability, the executive branch is not much better equipped today than it was several decades ago to examine the long-term implications of current trends. Analytic facilities toward this end have been proposed by various advisory bodies, such as the Advisory Committee on National Growth Policy. One facility that was intended to provide foresight capability on a continuing basis, the National Goals Research Staff, was in operation only briefly during the Nixon administration. Most recently, President Carter initiated a study of probable changes in natural resources, population, and environment through the end of the century. The study, called Global 2000, also explored the capability of the federal government to make long-term projections and engage in effective long-term planning. The Global 2000 report points out the dangers of allowing current trends to continue in the areas of world population patterns, resources, and environment. It concludes that the executive agencies of the U.S. Government are not now capable of presenting the President with internally consistent projections of world trends in population, resources, and the environment in the next two decades, and that important decisions-involving billion dollar federal programs and even the national security-are based partially upon current, seriously deficient foresight capabilities.' Those conclusions are neither new nor surprising—all the more reason for concern about why such analytic facilities are not a recognized and well-established part of the executive decision-making process. But there is a much larger question here than simply the matter of what our analytic capabilities are or what sorts of institutions have been created to carry them out. At the basis of this Panel's call for a foresight capability is a moral concern, and one that has a particular relevance in today's policy-making arena: Recognizing our indebtedness to past generations, what do we owe to the future? Are we, by maintaining current consumption patterns, "eating into the endowment," compromising the ability of future generations to enjoy the lifestyles we take for granted? One of the basic tasks of the humanities is to remind us of our interdependence, not only with people in other cultures, but also with past generations. To recognize that tie between past and present is also to be reminded of obligations to future generations and of the necessity of adopting an attitude of stewardship that recognizes the claims of future generations to a quality of life at least equivalent to the one we enjoy. National leaders must be judged not only by the skills they show in orchestrating a 135 cacophony of special interests, but also by the concern they have for the commonweal, for the well-being of our children and our children's children. Ultimately, as political philosophers such as Thucydides and Machiavelli pointed out centuries ago, the ability of a society to solve its problems rests not so much on the quality of its leaders, or the appropriateness of its institutions, as it does on the character of its people. We have suggested throughout this report that a profound readjustment of attitudes, values, and expectations is underway. No matter how successful this nation is in attaining more rapid economic growth, there is no way of returning to the realities of the postwar era of dynamic growth. Some truly fundamental changes have taken place since then. The new realities that America faces in the 1980s require certain traits in its citizens that are by no means easy to cultivate. Difficult decisions will place great demands on our ability to deal with complexity. The prospect is both disturbing and challenging. We must begin to strive for a new level of understanding, one that comprehends those complexities, for in the end the policies that the nation's leaders propose in response to the new realities will be effective only if the nation supports them. In Conclusion 1. Yankelovich, Daniel, "Economic Policy and the Question of Political Will," in The Economy and the President: 1980 and Beyond (Hoadley, Walter, ed.) (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1980), p. 25. 2. Report of the National Goals Research Staff, Toward Balanced Growth: Quantity with Quality (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1970), p. 169. 3. See, e.g., Sheppard, Harold L. and Sara E. Rix, The Graying of Working America (New York: The Free Press: 1977), p. 29; Wilson, John, After Affluence: Economics to Meet Human Needs (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1980), Ch. 4. 4. Yankelovich, Daniel and Bernard Lefkowitz, "The Public Debate on Growth: Preparing for Resolution," prepared for the Third Biennial Woodlands Conference on Growth Policy (October 28-31, 1979), p. 1. 5. See generally, Bell, Daniel, The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism (New York: Basic Books, 1976). 6. Rohatyn, Felix, "The Coming Emergency and What Can Be Done About It," The New York Review of Books, Vol. XXVII, No. 19 (Dec. 4, 1980), pp. 20-26. 7. The Global 2000 Report to the President: Entering the Twenty-first Century, Vol. One, prepared by the Council on Environmental Quality and the Department of State (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1980), pp. 3-5. References Biographies Robert S. Benson is President of Children's World, Inc., which owns and operates child care centers in 95 locations nationally. Mr. Benson received his B.A. from Harvard College and his M.B.A. from the Harvard Business School. Previously, he has worked for the Office of the Secretary of Defense and has been a community organizer for the National Urban Coalition, where he created the National Priorities Project that produced the report, Counterbudget: A Blueprint for Changing National Priorities. Mr. Benson has served on the committees and boards of several organizations concerned with early childhood development. Gwendolyn Brooks is a poet and writer. A native of Topeka, Kansas, Ms. Brooks has lived in Chicago since early childhood. She has written 15 books, edited two anthologies, and created almost a dozen volumes of poetry. Among her many works are A Street in Bronzeville, The Bean Eaters, The Tiger Who Wore White Gloves, and Beckonings. Her autobiography, Report from Part One, was published in 1972. She is the Poet Laureate of Illinois and received a Pulitzer Prize for Poetry. Joan Ganz Cooney is President of the Children's Television Workshop, which produces "Sesame Street," "The Electric Company," and "3-2-1 Contact." She holds a B.A. in Education from the University of Arizona. She is a member of the Board of Trustees for the American Film Institute, the Educational Broadcasting Corporation, and The American Cinematheque. Ms. Cooney is the recipient of numerous awards and honorary degrees for her contribution to education and communications, including the Society for the Family of Man Award. Marian Wright Edelman is Director of the Children's Defense Fund, an organization concerned with children and families. Since her graduation from Yale Law School, Mrs. Edelman has been active in civil rights and public affairs. She created and directed the NAACP Legal Robert S. Gwendolyn Joan Ganz Marian Wright 138 |