SPAN: December 1974

IN THIS ISSUE:

WAS WOODROW WILSON RIGHT?

BY DANIEL P. MOYNIHAN

PRESIDENT FORD: A FAMILYALBUM

SPAN 2 A LETTER FROM THE PUBLISHER

As this issue goes to press, Delhi is looking forward to the October 27-30 visit of the U.S. Secretary of State, Dr. Henry Kissinger. The SPAN staffers, along with other journal~ists, are among the busiest of all. The next issue of SPAN will carry a series of special articles and exclusive photo'graphs to mark this event and to report on its significance to the future of Indo-American relations.

This month, SPAN looks back to another "chapter" in Indo-American relations-to the time of President Woodrow Wilson. Although it was a time of relatively few contacts between Indian and American political leaders, there may have been more cross-influences than is generally imagined.

Thus in Glimpses of World History, Jawaharlal Nehru says iof Wilson: "People had begun to look upon him almost as ',a prophet of the new freedom." In J. Bandyopadhyaya's The Making of India's Foreign Policy, Wilson is mentioned twice, both times in the context of idealism. There is a sentence in A. Guy Hope's America and Swaraj which reads: "The advocacy of self-determination by President Woodrow Wilson had buoyed up the hopes of Indian nationalists."

All these quotes on Wilson are rando~ examples, casu~lly chanced upon. They do not necessarIly prove anythmg. \ Except perhaps that there is a subject here in search of a thesis-writer-"Woodrow Wilson and the Indian National Movement." Perhaps too, though his name is seldom heard any more, there is an underestimation of Wilson's role in the growth of nationalism throughout the 20th century world.

The latter possibility is raised in our lead article this month [pages 5-9], in which Ambassador Moynihan examines Wilsonian liberalism and its relevance today. He finds the Wilsonian spirit still very much alive-from the working-class suburbs of Pittsburgh, to the barrios of Bogota, to the villages of India. He concludes that, even in a world which seems to be growing more cynical, Wilson's idealism will always have a powerful appeal.

If the world is indeed growing more cynical about idealism, it may be well for us to keep in mind how utterly uncynical and self-confident Wilson himself was about his ideals.

His steadfastness is revealed in his last public words-a short speech delivered to a small group of people who had gathered outside his house on November 1I, 1923 (he died I three months later). In that last public speech, Wilson said: "I cannot refrain from saying it: I am not one of those who have the least anxiety about the triumph of the principles I have' stood for .... That we shall prevail is as sure as that God reigns."

Perhaps what the world needs today is a strong dose of Wilsonian idealism linked with Wilsonian self-confidence.

-A.E.H.

I

I

Cinderella's Castle forms an impressive backdrop for Mickey Mouse (left), as he leads a band down Main Street, U.S.A., at Florida's Walt Disney World. See pages 36-41.

3 4 5 10 14

Was Woodrow Wilson Right? p~ , ~

h.

5l ;

J

I

('\

by Daniel P. Moynihan

{

HJS

/

~

\.-

. Yo d: A Familv Albu j , F 6'-'l"'" )fZ"o; · (, ~ ;::.

Yl-I II t ':> --; fit f".; tit ~ 1.

Teltfng Executives How ey/re Domg' tt

by Herbert E. Meyer ·-4u '01 Si •••/;·, 14' -:IfJ twL(;l~ Gerald

PreSI

. r.t.. - -

c

~

t~s

~'1€~Jt

20

.f..'

What's Happeniqg to the World's Money?

by Leonard Silk .- t l fl'

22 Fasl~~la's f!r,.}S{/.)

Cet /)

'04" 1.1

Ex,c 1p p £I ~ New Yotk

f"t'"({'r1et ' 11/ (-u.'

I

!<a tf1. S i

I

t,f;..

~v

(f

//trls-PtA

LI. Ct t<-L}

I or d by

f

J

y~l

for'tne 28 Eealherware fhts.' ("fit, IJ to the ~orld 31 Innkeeper fit. f'f{ •••- H<fvt d"''1v'nllS Bir; .. h, ~ L s Americans Are Talking About J <':'It: l 34 -"':---- 36 Walt Di~ney's World of Tomorrow );l€'e.~a . iho Industry That Feeds MultItuoes 42 The Fe I ( ,. rl tlie Lighter Sial 44 OnHe!'" Horizons in Indo-U.s. Trade 45 NelY .,rtt . l'.~,,, ~ il ~ It Works' 47 'I Hav£, Seen the/'1Past -and f ('" l1. C/. ~ S ~tt"i.

I

Of"

Malini Seshadri

-

b

William Brown

t

I.'

.

-

by Peter Blake

{

'r

,

1

;<)u:" ,. 'I

by Shirley Hartman

t':

t""

by Stephen Duncan-Peters

by Alistair Cooke

J #.

t9' "

,,(.

I' -

America: Boston 49 Touring Rt..-.. " .

C'i h t -J,..,;·/tlJa

",jO$$(). JttG /Is

I~

7

IJ')

f"'

j:".

Wl(/oAAJ..

iu

Front cover: A fine portrait of Mr. Gerald Ford and his wife Elizabelh, which reflects the warm companionship of a 26-year-old marriage. The Fords and their four children-Hall individualists"-form a close-knit family (see pages 10 to 13.)

Back cover: This painting of the Boston "tea party" is by Harold Von Schmidt, a well· known illustrator of books and' magazines. Von Schmidt's paintings used to appear regularly in the Saturday Evening Post. Now ·81, he lives in Westport, Connecticut. For a glimpse of Boston's tourist attractions, turn to page 49.

Managing Editor: Carmen Kagal. Assistant Managing Editor: S.R. Madhu. Editorial Staff: Mohammed Reyazuddin, Avinash Pasricha. Nirmal Sharma, Krishan Gabrani, M.M. Saba. Art Director: Nand Katyal. Art Staff: Gopi Gajwani. B. Roy Choudhury, Kanti Roy. Suhas Nimbalkar.

Chief of Production: Awtar S. Marwaha. Photographic Services: USIS Photo Lab. Published by the United Slates Information Service, 24 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-I 10001. on behalf of the American Embassy, New Delhi. The opinions expressed in this magazine do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the United States Government.

Printed by Arun Mehta at Vakil & Sons .Private Ltd •• Vakils House, Sprott Road, .18 Ballard Estate. Bombay-400038.

Photographs: Front cover-Fred Maroon. Inside front cover- © Walt Disney Productions.

21-1Uustration

by Masami Miyamoto, reprinted from Kaiser News, courtesy Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation.

28 (clockwise from bottom)-Millen Bedi. courttsy State Trading Corporation of India; Avinash Pasricha (2); C.P. Gajaraj. 29 bottom-R.N. Khanna.

31-Jim Hansen. 33-1.0.

Beri. 35-Ken Duncan. 36-41- © Walt Disney Productions except 38 bottom left-Stephen Espie; 39-Lynn Pelham. 43-Avinash Pasricha. Inside back cover, lOPGerald Brimacombe, courtesy TW A Ambassador: below-Massachusetts Department of Commerce and Development. Back cover-Courtesy of John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company.

AMBASSADOR MOYNIHAN ATOPENING OF HIRSHHORN MUSEUM On October I, 1974, dignitaries from many nations met in the courtyard of the new Hirshhorn Museum in Washington, D.C., for the opening ceremonies of one of the greatest repositories of modern art in the world. U.S. Ambassador to India Daniel¡ P. Moynihan attended the ceremonies in his capacity as chairman of the board of trustees of the Museum. The Museum will be part of the famed Smithsonian Institution whose Secretary, S. Dillon Ripley, called the Hirshhorn art collection "an answer to a prayer, filling a gap in the capital's chronicling of art history."

President Ford was unable to attend the opening ceremonies because of his wife's illness. In a letter to the Ambassador, however, the President said that "Joseph Hirshhorn has made a truly outstanding gift to our nation." He noted that "the priceless collection of modern sculpture he has assembled and the Museum which .will house it" will become "treasured additions to the Smithsonian system and to our national heritage."

The main speaker of the evening was the donor of the Museum's collection, Joseph Hirshhorn, 75, an American multimillionaire.

Hirshhorn, who had originally come to the U.S. from Latvia as a poor six-year-old immigrant, went on to become a legendary figure in U.S. business and art. When the 5' 4" tall millionaire stood on a case of Champagne so that he could see the audience over the podium, those present sa'wthe personification of a typical rags-to-riches American success story.

In his speech, Hirshhorn referred to his gift of 4,000 paintings and 2,000 sculptures which trace the development of modern art from the 19th century to the present. He said: "This is but a small repayment for what this nation did for me and for others like me who came here as immigrants. What I accomplished here in the United States, I could not have accomplished any place else in the world."

Hirshhorn earned his fortune through financial investments and uranium mining. His passion for art collecting began with calendar reproductions he cut out and pasted on the wall near his bed as a child. A conservative estimate of the value of the collection he donated to the Museum is $100 million.

The Hirshhorn collection contains enough material to hold one-

Ambassador Moynihan (center) with Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Hirshhorn at one of the four openings of the Hirshhorn Museum in Washington.

Government museums and research institutions specializing in art, science and history.

Demands fortickets to the Museum inaugural were so great that program arrangers scheduled four openings: October 1, for some 2,000 foreign diplomats, U.S. officials and other politically prominent persons; October 2 for members of the international art community, including artists, collectors and curators; and October 3 for two separate receptions for 9,000 Museum patrons. Ambassador Moynihan, who was present for all four "openings," drew on a poem to celebrate the second night's opening-the night for the artists. He said: "The first night we had the influential people. Tonight we have the important ones. I think of a poem by Louise Bogan:

Come, drunks and drug-takers; come, man shows of the works of De Kooning, Albers, Cornell, Dubufperverts unnerved! fet, Duchamp-Villon, Nadelman, Lachaise, Man Ray, Manzu, Receive the laurel, given, tho late, Ernst, Matisse, Picasso, Degas, Rodin, Giacometti, Still, Noland on merit; to whom and many others. and wherever deserl'ed.

Commenting on the imposing collection, the Washington Post said: It is "so rich, so eclectic and inclusive" that it ranks "as Parochial punks, trimmers, nice people, one of the few museums capable of tracing the mainstreams and joiners true blue, the tributaries of the art of the past century."

Get the hell out of the way of the Not to be outdone by such superlatives, New York Times art laurel. It is deathless critic Hilton Kramer said: "Mr. Hirshhorn's magnificent gift to And it isn't for you. the nation is unlikely to be equaled in our lifetime."

Besides his collection valued at $100 million, Hirshhorn also "I offer you the toast of the artists. Those who are in the contributed $1 million of the $17 million needed to construct the Museum. The rest came from the American Government. Th~ Museum, and those who will be. Those who are not and will not.

Museum was authorized by the U.S. Congress in 1966 as part of They each set a standard of achievement and nerve offailure which the Smithsonian Institution, the prestigious complex of American the rest of us can only admire."

0

LITERARY CRITICS MEET IN MUSSOORIE Literary CrItIcIsm in India has come a long way since the days when the Pandyan kings of Madurai used to judge the merit of a Tamil poem by whether it sank or floated in the great tank of the Meenakshi temple (if it sank, it stank). Today, the "in" thing in Indian and American literary criticism is the "interdisciplinary approach," and this was the theme of a threeday seminar recently sponsored in Mussoorie (September 10-12) by the U.S. Information Service. Thirty-eight Indian and American scholars (see names listed below), including the American critics Richard Ellmann and Jonathan Culler, who are now teaching at Oxford, met for a series of panel discussions and presentations of papers.

The basic premise of the seminar was that students of literature today are no longer hampered by the rigid ideas of the "New Criticism" of the 1940s and '50s, which held that literature should be studied only as "pure literature." In examining the works of writers, today's critics feel free to draw ¡on many Three participants at the Mussoorie literary seminar: Prof.

Harish Chandra {[eft}, Prof Richard El/mann, Dr. N.S. Pradhan. disciplines, including anthropology, linguistics and sociology.

Professor A.G. George set the tone for the seminar in stating that, of all the humanistic and social disciplines, literary criticism from the whole field of human knowledge. Literary criticism showed the greatest tendency to use interdisciplinary approaches. in the United States, of course, dates from a much later period; He recalled how T.S. Eliot had dismissed the idea of "pure but it has always shown a strong tendency toward the interliterature" as "pure nonsense." He cited Eliot's life-long con- disciplinary approach. viction that literary debates are essentially debates about systems Literary criticism apart, of course, the Mussoorie Seminar of human values. Professor George went on to say that many strengthened the bonds of co-operation between American powerful forces in American life and thought made it impossible and Indian academic communities in one of those areas of¡ for a scholar to practice literary criticism in isolation. "mutual interest" discussed at last January's top-level meeting Judging from the titles of the papers presented, very few of of U.S. and Indian scholars in Delhi. Leaving much good will the seminar participants felt literature should be studied in and mutual praise in its wake, the Mussoorie Seminar might be isolation, or as "pure literature." A sampling of titles reveals seen perhaps as the beginning of "an interdisciplinary approach the eclecticism of the seminar's approaches: "Interdisciplinary to Indo-American friendship."

Trends in American Shakespearean Literary Criticism" by Dr. Rupin Desai; "Relationship of Biography and Criticism" by Professor Richard EHmann; "Psychology and Modern American The 38 Indian and American scholars participating in the Mussoorie Literary Criticism" by Professor D.S. Maini; "Existential Literary Seminar were: Dr. V. N. Arora, Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi; Criticism in America" by Professor A.G. George; "The Theo- Prof. A. A. Ansari, Aligarh Muslim University; Mr. Harish Chandra, logical Dimension in Modern American Literary Criticism" by Christ Church College, Kanpur; Prof. Jagdish Chandra, Dr. M. L. Raina and Dr. D. R. Sharma, Panjab University, Chandigarh; Dr. Jonathan Culler, Father G. Panicker; "The Social Context and, Literary Theory Brasenose College, Oxford University, England; Dr. Rupin W. Desai and in America" by Dr. S.M. Pandeya; "Marxist Literary Criticism" Dr. Shanta Kadambi, Delhi University; Prof. Bidhu Bhushan Das, Director

by Dr. M.L. Raina; "Anthr~ological, Archetypal Approaches of Public Instruction, Government of Orissa; Mr. K. S. Dhillon, L. B. to Literary Criticism" by Dr. V.N. Arora. Many of the younger Shastri National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie; Prof. Richard Indian scholars present at the seminar had been students of Ellmann, Oxford University, England; Dr. Nissim Ezekiel'; Bombay University; Prof A. G. George, North Eastern Hill University, Shillong; Prof.

Professor Ellmann when he used to teach at Northwestern Naresh Guha, Jadavpur University, Calcutta; Rev. Father Peter Hiscock University in Evanston, Illinois. At the conclusion of the seminar, and Rev. Father W. S. Rajpal, St. Stephen's College, Delhi University; Professor Ellmann congratulated the Indian participants for the Prof. R. K. Kaul and Mrs. Francine Krishna, Rajasthan University, Jaipur; high quality of their papers as well as the high quality of the Prof. Ashok Kelkar and Prof. S. Nagarajan, Poona University; Prof. M. K. Naik, Karnatak University; Dr. Raj Kohli, Kirori Mal College, Delhi over-all panel discussions.

University; Prof. M. G. Krishnarriurthy, Jodhpur University; Prof. D. S. The meeting had its humorous side, as many of the participants Maini, Punjabi University, Patiala; Mr. U. S. Mathur and Dr. C. D. Sidhu, told stories about how the role of "critics" is not always appre- Hans Raj College, Delhi University; Prof. C. D. Narasimhaiah, Mysore ciated by writers or society. ("A drama critic is a man who leaves University; Dr. Raj Nath and Dr. N. S. Pradhan, S.G.T.B. Khalsa College, no turn unstoned," said George Bernard Shaw.) And the point Delhi University; Dr. S. M. Pandeya, .Banaras Hindu University; Rev ..

Father Dr. G. Panicker, Mar Ivanios College, Trivandrum; Prof. P. S. was also made in some of the discussions that an interdisciplinary Sastri, Nagpur University; Dr. Isaac Sequeira and Dr. Vern Wagner, approach to literary criticism is really nothing new at all. Cen- American Studies Research Centre, Hyderabad; Prof. V. S. Sethuraman, turies ago, Sanskrit scholars engaged in vigorous literary debates S. V. University Postgraduate Centre, Anantapur; Dr. R. S. Singh, Kuruin the royal courts of India with their arguments drawing widely Icshetra University; Mr. P. C. Verma, Hindu College, Delhi University. D

Dear Sir: Your special section on "The Age of Computers" [June 1974 SPAN] is instructive and entertaining, but 1 am surprised that you should ignore the man who inspired the research that led to the development of computers-Sir Jagadish Chandra Bose.

On Bose's discoveries, a distinguished British author wrote: "Centuries hence, men may point to Bose as a conveniently identifiable point from which to date the dawn of the new thought (just as today we put our finger on Socrates when we wish to focus our view of the beginning of that new thought which inspired the West for centuries").

This great turning point in human thought was Sir J.e. Bose's conclusion, arrived at through various experiments, that plant tissues have all the characteristics and responses of animal ones, the difference between plants and animals being only in degree. Bose proved that even minerals and metals are capable of responses, similar to those in animals and plants, when electric current is inducted into them. His experiments led scientists in Europe, after World War II, to suppose that seemingly inert matter has the same communication and control activities of higher organisms with brain centers and electronic controlled mechanisms. Thus in a sense Sir J.e. Bose was the father of cybernetics, or the science of modern electronic computers.

Bose himself described the origin of his discoveries in these modest words: "It was the watching of a weed that grew by the roadside of Calcutta that led to the extension of my work from the realm of the inorganic to the great mystery that underlies all organized life and its diverse manifestations. " CHARLES

NEWTON Calcutta

Dear Sir: I enjoyed the articles on the computer [June 1974 SPAN], which gave an idea of its awesome, all-pervasive role in today's world. But the computer can carry perfection too far, as the following anecdote will show.

A man who was away from home for two months received an electricity bill (prepared by a computer, of course) for zero dollars, zero cents. This meant he had to pay

nothing, so he did not. Soon after, the computer sent him a cold note threatening to cut off supplies if the bill remained unpaid.

He sent the electricity company a check for zero dollars, zero cents, and promptly received a letter of acknowledgment from the computer, with a receipt for zero dollars, zero cents!

SHANKAR

SHRIV ASTA VA Ranchi, Bihar

Dear Sir: SPAN covers many fields of endeavor, but does not pay enough attention to agriculture. I would not expect SPAN to go into detail in this specialized field-in the manner of a magazine like World Farming~but it could certainly carry articles on American agriculture, the manufacture of fertilizers and insecticides, tractors and other machinery, land reforms and so on.

These would interest agricultural economists in India.

DR. S.e. MATHUR Head, Agricultural Economics R.B.S. College. Bichpllri P.O. Agra. Uttar Pradesh

[We thank Dr. Mathur for his suggestion.

An article on hydroponics appeared in the November 1974 issue of SPAN.-Ed.] Dear Sir: I am Impressed by Paul Samuelson's concept of NEW or Net Economic Welfare [June 1974 SPAN]. Not because it is new-it is merely a combination of GNP or Gross National Product and QOL or Quality of Life-but because he favors an over-all view of various factors relevant to our environment. Hence his criticism of the chib of Rome project, "Limits to Growth" -which takes just such an over-all viewis mystifying.

To quote from the project's report: "Our industrial system is now headed for too many people in relation to their food and living space, for too much production in relation to their finite stock of natural resources, for too much pollution in the exploitation of these resources." The human mind can follow one specific trend at a

time, but fails to perceive the net effect when we have several trends, all interacting mutually. It is a sophisticated problem in operations research, which is exactly why a computer is required-merely as a tool, not as a thinking brain. The skepticism about the project by Samuelson and others such as Henry Wallich, who' make naive statements like "a computer is only as good as the man who programs it," probably results from their conditioning by cartoons that depict the computer as a huge black box that wants to rule the world.

The "Limits to Growth" study has not tried to make any precise forecasts, because suitable quantitative gauges have not been devised for many of the inputs. But the study has projected present trends in a logical, meaningful way.

Professor Samuelson's contention that science can solve our problems is not correct. Science can provide only technical solutions to particular aspects of a problem and not the socio-economic solution that is really required. For example, scientific methods have definitely improved the technique of ocean fishing, yet the catch of fish has gone down because the technical solutions have not considered factors such as oil spills, dumping of chemical and nuclear wastes and indiscriminate killings.

It is heartening that Professor Samuelson realizes that zero population growth is necessary, that GNP should not be our only God, that pollution has to be curbed.

He has only to realize further that these have to be done now, if man is to survive.

SUBIR SARKAR Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, West Bengal

Dear Sir: Claire Sterling's article "Should the People Know What the Government Is Doing?" [July 1974 SPAN] exposes certain political and social problems as never before. The age of electronic diplomacy has consigned the individual to obscurity in,the matter of politics and diplomacy. But the common man does not know this fact yet.

He is still under the illusion that his role has not changed since the 18th century. The mass agitations in a number of democracies are mainly because of this.

DR.KRUSNACHANDRAJENA . Reader in History Berhampur University Orissa

WAS WOODROWWILSON RIGHT? In this, the 50th anniversary year of Woodrow Wilson's death, Ambassador Moynihan points out that millions of people throughout the world still associate the United States with Wilsonian liberalism, with expansion of personal liberties, with belief in the natural goodness of man.

I

tis 50 years since Woodrow Wilson died, but it does not seem 50 years: more like 250. We are uncomfortable with Wilson in the 20th century, he seems more the kind of man who came early rather than late in our national life when of a sudden we were to find that far from being the youngest of governments we had become virtually the oldest. Yet none would disagree that he shaped this century as no other American has done. Herbert Hoover in his last book, The Ordeal 0/ Woodrow Wilson (they were very alike, Wilson and Hoover, though Hoover was the more prolific author), put it fairly: For a moment at the time of the Armistice, Mr. Wilson rose to intellectual domination of most of the civilized world. With his courage and eloquence, he carried a message of hope for the independence of nations, the freedom of men and lasting peace. Never since his time has any man risen to the political and spiritual heights that came to him.

There was no one like him, then; there have been none since.

Except perhaps Lenin. That case could be made. Men alike primarily in the way they differed from their own people whom they were nonetheless able to inspire and to mobilize as no leaders before or since have done. But as an American figure, he is singular.

If we do not quite know what to make of Wilson, this is not least because it is still so uncertain what he made of us. The American people, the object of his highest hopes, his strongest passions, were not somehow part of his being. The apocrypha has it that he once began an address to a peace-conference occasion saying that when he thought of mankind he did not think of

men in dinner jackets. Which only extends the mystery from what he thought of Americans to what he thought of mankind. It is clear enough that once he entered politics he came more and more to think about the working masses, sweaty in those days and scarcely Calvinist, whose' party he was soon to lead. (The International Labor Organization, established by the Versailles Treaty, was by no means, to his thinking, the least of the organizations of the League system. He had contrived for Samuel Gompers to head the commission. at Paris which drew up its Charter. The speeches on his great trip through the West in 1919 are remembered as explanations and defenses of the Covenant of the League.

But he also spoke repeatedly of the ILO, asking that more heed be paid to the charter of rights for the working man embedded in the peace settlement. In turn the inclusion of the ILO had more to do with the defeat of the treaty in the Senate than standard histories are so far wont to record.) He came to think, surely, of mankind as including persons who spoke languages other than English (although not necessarily those who spoke English with an Irish accent). And in his Western speeches he would say so with a candor-engaging and unashamed-now quite foreign to American public life.

"Do you know where Azerbaijan is?" he asked his audience, speaking ofAhe Paris peace conference in San Francisco on September 18, 1919: Well, one day there came in a very dignified and interesting group of gentlemen from Azerbaijan. I did not have time until they were gone to find out where they came from, but I did find this out immediately, that I was talking to men who talked the same language that I did in respect of ideas,

WOODROW WILSON \continued

Woodrow Wilson, Ambassador Moynihan observes, 'set in motion an extraordinary world dynamic of political independence accompanied by a rhetoric of personal freedom .... ' in respect of conceptions of liberty, in respect of conceptions justice ....

of right and

It is at such points, of course, that one inclines to quarrel with Wilson: How can he ask us to believe that he believed such things? Worse: what if indeed he did? And for a new generation influenced, if at all, by Wilson, then at most by what I should suppose is now an attenuated Wilsonianism, there are vastly greater difficulties with his concluding assertion: And I did find this out, that the Azerbaijanis were, with all the other delegations that came to see me, metaphorically speaking, holding their hands out to America and saying, "You are the disciples and leaders of the free world; can't you come and help us?"

I suppose there are among us those who would be willing to advise the Azerbaijanis on the correct pricing policies for crude oil. But for the rest ... no, we fall back in disbelief-even such as I, taught, if anything, to move forward in acceptance.

What then does it matter what he thought of manl9nd? It matters because therein resides the essence of his quest for legitimacy in the world order, a quest which still eludes us, and which, if I am not altogether wrong, honesty requires that we acknowledge cannot any longer be successfully pursued in strictly Wilsonian terms. Wilson's vision of a world order was a religious vision: of the natural goodness of man prevailing through the Holy Ghost of Reason. The beliefs from which this vision came, while still widespread and deeply felt among individuals, are no longer seen to imply political belief as well. Wilson in that sense speaks to us with a diminishing, ever more distant voice. And yet a distinct one to which today we need to listen again.

certed powers of all civilized people. They believe that this sacrifice was made in order that other sons should not be called upon for a similar gift-the gift of life, the gift of all that died-and if we did not see this thing through, if we fulfilled the dearest present wish of Germany and now dissociated ourselves from those alongside whom we fought in the war, would not something of the halo go away from the gun over the mantlepiece or the sword? Would not the old uniform lose something of its significance? These men were crusaders. They were not going forth to prove the might of the United States.

They were going forth to prove the might of justice and right, and all the world accepted them as crusaders, and their transcendent achievement has made all the world believe in America as it believes in no other nation organized in the modern world. There seems to me to stand between us and the rejection or qualification of this treaty the serried ranks of those boys in khaki, not only these boys who came home, but those dear ghosts that still deploy upon the fields of France.

He tells of visiting 'a cemetery in France where French women tended American graves: France was free and the world was free because America had come. I wish some men in public life who are now opposing the settlement for which these men died could visit such a spot as that. I wish that the thought that comes out of those graves could penetrate their consciousness. I wish that they could feel the moral obligation that rests upon us not tb go back on those boys, but to see the thing through, to see it through to the end and make good their redemption of the world. For nothing less depends upon this decision, nothing less than the liberation and salvation of the world.

What is one to make of this? Was he right? We have almost given up asking such questions, much less answering. But this, surely, is clear. It was very lat~ in the history of the West to put any large public question in such terms. Carl J. Friedrich and Charles Blitzer are correct, surely, that with the religious revival of the 17th century, and the wars of that century, "Once again, and for the last time, life was seen as meaningful in reliedied, as recorded, in Washington in 1924, but of course gious, even theological, terms .... " For the last time. he died in the public sense five years earlier on his way But was he right? In 1944, a quarter-century after the Pueblo back from Pueblo, Colorado, when he suffered an incapacitating speech, when we seemed well into the hideous future Wilson had stroke. He was only once ever again to speak in public, on Armi- , foreseen, Gerald W. Johnson asked this question: stice Day in 1923, a short while before the final end. The Pueblo speech deserves to be reread. It is surely a premonition, an evocah is not a pleasant idea, for if he was right, the rest of us were wrong .... tion almost, of death. A speech from the cross. A speech, to be Dead men scattered from the Solomon Islands to haly suggest that we may sure, by a Presbyterian St. Jerome, contesting texts to the very have been wrong. Fine ships by hundreds shattered and sunk suggest that we may J:1avebeen wrong. Billions upon uncounted billions wrung from our end, but a Passion withal. It is a premonition of his own death, toil; mourning in every city and town, in crowded tenements and lonely and a prophecy, I suppose, of the death of the Western civilization farmhouses, weeping women and prematurely old men ... suggest that we that would not be saved. Excepting always that thos~ who be- may have been wrong. lieved would be saved, the city would not be saved: The city And "those dear ghosts that still deploy upon the fields of would be lost to war and rumors of war.

The biblical cadence, the New Testament ecstasy in that extem- France"-what do they suggest? pore speech are as moving as anything in the language of the vents up until the time Johnson wrote, and in the three American Presidency: decades since, suggest at the very least that the United States Again and again, my fellow citizens, mothers who lost their sons in France remains as uncertain as ever about the terms on which the then have come to me and taking my hand, have shed tears upon it not only, but President of the United States helped, first, to set in motion an they have added, "God bless you, Mr. President." Why, my fellow citizens, extraordinary world dynamic of political independence accomshould they pray God to bless me? I advised the Congress of the United panied by a rhetoric of personal freedom; and sought, secondly, States to create the situation that led to the death of their sons. I ordered to establish a world order which, by legitimating and channeling their sons overseas. I consented to their sons being put in the most difficult parts of the battle line, where death was certain, as in the impenetrable diffithese forces, would sufficiently contain them. Events suggest furculties of the forest of Argonne. Why should they weep upon my hand and ther 'that having failed, or having insufficiently succeeded, in the call down the blessings of God upon me? Because they believe that their second effort, the United States has commenced to recede in its boys died for something that vastly transcends any of the immediate imd commitment to the first. The events in this instance are better palpable objects of the war. They believe and they rightly believe that their known than the argument to be made for them, for indeed the sons saved the liberty of the world. They believe that wrapped up with the argument lies essentially in the acceptance of the seemingly inliberty of the world is the continuous protection of that liberty by the con-

H

E

eluctable events. If the Wilsonian thesis was too wordy, a shade too eager to persuade, its antithesis stands in something very like "dumb insolence"-a serious charge in British courts martial, not least because it is so difficult to prove and impossible to bear.

In a word, events increasingly persuade us to act as if Wilson were wrong.

Our susceptibility to such doubts goes far back. Wilson as President failed, did he not?: never. good for a reputation. More importantly perhaps, for Americans, as in the course of the 1920s the person emerged from the President, it came to be seen that the person himself was not without failings. Johnson writes: "He was full of faults. They stuck out like spines upon a cactus he was arrogant ... bullheaded ... puritanical ... vengeful . icy ... blistering." His racial attitudes were certainly deplorable.

At times he displayed a measure of selfless devotion to political gain such as to qualify as a case history in Puritan aberration. In this regard, his speeches just before entering active politics as Democratic candidate for Senator from New Jersey in 1907 are of textbook quality. Addressing the Southern Society at the Waldorf Astoria, he feared that "America has fallen to the commonplace level of all the other nations" because she had abandoned her egalitarian ideals.. "When she ceases to believe that all men shall have equal opportunity she goes back upon the principle on which the nation was founded." And how best to have equal opportunity? By not discriminating. Which is to say by not having a graduated income tax. "There is only one sort of taxation that is just, and that is taxation that does not discriminate." Or redistribute income: "I know of only one legitimate object of taxation, and that is to pay the expenses of the government." ("WOODROW WILSONATTACKSPATERNALISM," went the New York Times headline, "Government Can't Do Every~ thing, He Tells Southern Society.")

Familiar stuff. In office, of course, he became a guarded advocate of graduated taxes, and devised more than a few new ways of spending them. There are words for such behavior and they are directed, with no sp~cial impact, to most public men.

The craft of President ordains a certain craftiness. But Wilson¡ had rather implied that he was not to be measured by any such standards. The greater the shock, then, when the doings at Versailles began to leak out, as inevitably they were to do, and it became unavoidably clear that in dealing with leaders of the Allied Powers, Wilson, in order to win the Covenant, had accepted many more "lesser evils"-Hoover's term-than were ever proposed in the way of reservations to the Treaty ofVersail1es which the moderate Senators had held out for and with which it would have been ratified. In a word, he did for Clemenceau what he would not do for Senator Frank B. Kellogg or Senator Porter J. McCumber; he was willing to bend a principle for Lloyd George, but not for William Howard Taft or Elihu Root or Charles Evans Hughes.

Further and fatefully, a kind of corrupt Wilsonianism carried on as a dominant theme of American foreign policy for years after him. The Republicans who took over scarcely abandoned his ideals. To the contrary, the 1920s were nothing if not the era of American-inspired disarmament conferences and treaties renouncing war as an instrument of national policy. The problem was that, as with the Great Experiment itself, the men in power were willing to proclaim the ideals but not to enforce them. Or, some would say, to proclaim ideals that were unenforceable. It comes to much the same thing: irresponsibility.

In what must surely be the best writing yet on this subject, Ernest W. Lefever has given the name of moralism to this kind of irresponsibility; it is, he says, the corruption of the foreign-policy traditions of both "rational idealism" and "historical realism," of Tom Paine

arid Walt Whitman on the one hand, Burke and Madison on the other. Moralism evades both of these moral traditions. Morality is a synonym for responsibility. Moralism is a conscious or unconscious escape from accountability.

There is first of all in this mutant a fundamental hostility to authority. "The soft moralistic view.tends to distrust the state, especially its coercive power, while Western ethical thought affirms the necessity of the state and insists on the responsible use of its power." In another variant, it sets the most unavailing of all criteria for worth: "Soft moralism tends to associate virtue with weakness, just as it associates vice with power." Whence the lunging forward to do good and the reeling back when it is learned what will be required-"This strange combination," to continue Lefever, "of reform-intervention and security-isolation [which] turns foreign policy on its head." The first task of foreign policy in what we would hope to be our ethical tradition is peace and security. Moralism substitutes-for this-the modes and objectives of internal policy to the disadvantage, even de.nigration, of first things. When it fails, moralism will typically prefer no foreign policy to a necessary one.

The reform-intervention phase of this mindset became manic in the years just after the period in which Gerald Johnson wrote.

From Lake Success onward to about the Bay of Pigs, it seemed at times almost to prevail (again with Republicans succeeding to and acquiescing in a kind of Democratic heresy). A necessary counter-argument was made by men such as George Kennan, and before the era was over "Wilsonian idealism" had become synonymous with dangerous nonsense: the prattle of soft and privileged people in a hard and threatening world. Vietnam, with its own sequence of "reform-intervention" and "securityisolation," appeared all the more to confirm the folly of that world view. That the subsequent "neoisolationist" argument came so often from precisely those who had earlier made the case for intervention seemingly settled the matter: a tendency of thought, a tone of voice, a tintinnabulation of the school-yard bells that we had best as grown-ups put behind us.

B

ut this was a c?rruption ?f ~ilson. Surely we ca~ accept t~at now, what With the naivete of the Kellogg-Bnand treaties behind us and the worst of the cold-war obsessions also, and with the United Nations over to one side, doing what it does and about what it can do. The essential Wilson remains, the Wilson whose singular contribution to the American national experience was a definition of patriotism appropriate to the age America was entering at the time of his Presidency, which is to say patriotism defined first of all as the duty to defend and, where feasible, to advance democratic principles in the world at large. (In this he expanded the original-and singular-American definition of citizenship as a matter not of blood or soil or religious faith, but of adherence to political norms.) Always to defend themprudently if possible, but at the risk, if need be, of imprudence.

One suspects this came easily to Wilson in an intellectual sense: Scotch-Irish, his father a Presbyterian minister, his mother a Presbyterian minister's daughter, in whom, Richard Hofstadter wrote, the Calvinist spirit burned with a bright and imperishable flame. "Their son learned to look upon life as the progressive fulfillment of God's will and to see man as a 'distinct moral agent' in a universe of moral imperatives." His belief in his coun- . try was an extension, a secularization 1 suppose, of his belief in his God, a belief of concreteness and content virtually absent from the Presidency since. (Kennedy, however, believed in God. I think this to be true, although I do not know it. It rather embarrassed some of those around him, for it had become unfamiliar in the Presidency, even awkward. At the time a member of the

Patriotism, said Wilson, 'is not a mere sentiment; it is a principle of action, or rather is a fine energy of character and of conscience operating beyond the narrow circle of self-interest.'

White House staff assured me that he was not really a Catholic, but, well, like a Unitarian.)

The American people in the aggregate appear to retain their religious beliefs and practices very much intact. But such conviction has all but evanesced among political elites in the United States much as it has done, for example, in Britain. And in the absence of religious conviction, it' is not possible to establish an obligation of the Wilsonian kind to the state. Our elites accept the state rather as Margaret Fuller accepted the universe, and it might be said of them what Carlyle said of her: By gad, they had better. If, for Wilson, the properly directed state was an instrument of his Calvinist God, then obviously for Wilson patriotism, however physically demanding, posed no intellectual problems.

But it does pose intellectual problems for the American and British political elites today: It is, verily, a crisis of faith.

There remains, however, in both countries-and very much in both countries-a strong ethical sense with respect to public matters, a sense of justice and procedure, a feeling for law, which is wholly serviceable as a belief system around which to organize a national life. What was missing then and is missing now is the dimension of duty. Again, it appears as a problem not so much of people in general as of elites. Hofstadter describes Wilson as "the preacher of a mission of world service to the most insular and provincial people among all the great powers." He could have added-and would have done, I think, had the point .been raised-that Wilson succeeded to a considerable extent in this mission. The American people were with him on the Covenant, as were, overwhelmingly, the peoples with whom he was in touch abroad. If survey research tells us anything, it is that this conversion, warts and backsliding and all, is very much intact a half-century later.

I

tmay be noted in this connection that of all the institutions of American public life, the one which has never wavered in its Wilsonian commitment is the one perhaps most expressive of the popular ethos-the labor movement. Presidents have come and gone, and the labor movement has disagreed with most of them on these matters, and shows not the least distress at having done so. One does not know how long this will continue. It may be a generational phenomenon. But so long as it does continue, the American labor delegates to the annual International Labor Conference will insist, for example, that a free trade union is what Samuel Gompers and his associates thought to be a free trade union when they drafted the ILO Charter in Paris in 1919, and only that, and that no necessity or convenience of state has any power to make them pretend that a captive trade union is a free trade union. None. The case could generally be made that the mass of the American people has remained substantially loyal to the standard Wilson raised. It is the others who come and go.

This is the kind of thing Wilson knew. He was a learned man.

He knew, for example, that you could trust Gompers, who for his part told an audience in Paris, doubtless also in dinner jackets, "You do not know how safe a thing freedom is." (Oh for the age when English was spoken.) Wilson knew that the most distinctive fact of the American polity'was the degree to which it had informed the thought and action of or.dinary citizens with a conception of patriotism that elsewhere, in democratic nations no less than autocratic ones, was rare to the point of being a preserve of privilege.

In his Southern Society speech of 1907-reflecting the frame of mind in which he forsook the academy for politics-Wilson took patriotism for his topic, quoting Tennyson's lines:

A nation still, the rulers and the ruled; Some sense of duty, Something of a faith, Some reverence of the laws ourselves have made, Some patient force to change them when we will, Some civic manhood, firm against the crowd.

"Patriotism, properly considered," he said, "is not a mere sentiment; it is a principle of action, or rather is a fine. energy of character and of conscience operating beyond the narrow circle of self-interest." Then an unusual point, as if to emphasize how explicit he meant to be. "Every man should be careful to have an available surplus of energy over and above what he spends upon himself and his own interests, to spend for the advancement of his neighbors, of his people, of his nation." That the specter qf statism hovers about such words need not be contested. It always will, when attachment to the state rather than mere submission is proposed. But the state as an extension of the moral force and responsibility of the individual is a different thing from the state as the mere monopoly of force. The Wilsonian state might properly claim its tithe in energy and resource (whether or not raised by graduated income taxes!).

This at least is not moralism, it does not discover virtue in weakness. It argues, rather, the unique and necessary virtue of strength, of men and women becoming all they are capable of being, beyond anything accorded them as possible in the past.

For, said Wilson, it was in America that the ordinary citizen was first "put in the way" of such "statesmanlike thinking."

I like to recall that passage of de Tocqueville's in which he marvels with eloquent praise at the variety of information and excellence of discretion which our polity did not hesitate to demand of its people, its common people.

It is in this, rather than in anything we have invented by way of governmental forms, that we have become distinguished among the nations, by wha"t we expect of ourselves and of each other.

Is it a sustainable vision? Hard to say. The history of this century is that of men and women enduring the most awful trials in pursuit of visions every bit as secular, differing only' in their willingness to submerge the individual in the mass. Wilson argues the elevation of the individual, the differentiation of each. It may be more than we can do: But this very thought, so much a product of the events that followed Wilson, is the essential case for trying.

And the context for any such effort remains exactly that which Wilson first perceived: the worldwide struggle between free soci~ eties and those not free.

Wilson conceived of patriotism not as an instrument of the state, but as an expression and extension of the moral capacities of the individual, specifically of men seeking freedom in its many manifestations. He saw that in the age then commencing such a patriotism would be meaningful only as it manifested itself in a world setting, engaging its energies in a world struggle. Democracy in one country was not enough simply because it would not last. In 20th-century America Wilsonianism has been disparaged for enthusiasm, much as high Anglicans disapproved of the Meth-

odists of 18th-century England. And yet the Methodists, had they been ordained, almost surely would have kept the English people in the church, and possibly also their bishops. Instead the people wandered away into nothingness.

Does not the American faith in democracy face something of this dilemma, and are we not adopting much the same course at the silent behest of men who know too much to believe anything in particular and opt instead for accommodations of reasonableness and urbanity that drain our world position of moral purpose?

It may be that no other leadership is coming our way and we will have to make do. But before becoming too accepting, or admiring, of the course events are taking, we still have time, surely, to consider where such a course is likely to lead. Granted, we may end up alive: no small virtue in a policy, explicit or implied. But we shall also very likely end up lonely, which is no small disadvantage.

It comes to this: The Wilsonian world view is already half achieved. Most peoples of the world live in independent states demarcated along lines of hoped-for ethnic legitimacy. This very achievement makes for intense difficulties with the remaining internal ethnic divisions. Nevertheless the principle of self-determination has not only succeeded at the level of a norm but has also largely been implemented.

The quality of the incumbent regimes is another matter. Few measure up to Wilson's hopes. umerically there are not many more democracies now than in 1919 (although of the two additions to this short list, India and Japan are scarcely insubstantial).

Even so, most of the other regimes dare not speak of themselves except in terms of Wilsonian ideals. In other words, these idealsseen widely as American ideals-still establish the internal right to govern, just as, equally, Wilsonian ideals establish the national right to exist.

D

oes this not impose a duty? Wilson would have thought it did. Not many do today. Very well, then, does it not at the very least make a certain claim on our calculations-namely, that it is not a circumstance likely to go away, and like it or not, it is going to influence, even dictate, a great many things we shall find ourselves doing, even as it does already? The reason for this is quite external to the political eschatology of Wilsonianism.

It resides, rather, in a political reality for which he had no little distaste: that of a multiethnic population. We are a nation of nations and inextricably involved in the fate of other peoples the world over.

This was already wholly clear at the time Wilson governed, although he does not give the impression of having understood just what forces his principles of self-determination of nations had set off within his own nation. Indeed, he saw perhaps too many Azerbaijanis in Paris (ene could wish he had got to know Ho Chi Minh, who was then busy about the conference) and perhaps too few Irish in Washington. The loss of Irish support damaged the prospect of the Covenant-and scarcely improved the peace treaty, if self-determination was what it was supposed to be about. Less noticed at the time, the first armed rebellion (the "Ghadar" rebellion) against British rule in India had been planned in Stockton, California, among immigrant Sikhs in the early years of the war, and after aborting in India itself, was prosecuted by the American Government when the United State entered the war.

But offsetting these losses was the support of all those CentralEuropean nationalities whose homelands gained independence through the treaty, such as the Republic of Czechoslovakia which was formally proclaimed in Pittsburgh during those months. This was a foretaste of the pressures to which American foreign policy

would be subject in the years of world-power status to come.

The reality has exceeded any expectations and will in all probability go on doing so, for while the matter has not received much attention, the United States is quietly but rapidly resuming its role as a nation of first- and second-generation immigrants, almost the only one of its kind in the world, incomparably the largest, and for the first time in our history or any other, a nation drawn from the entire world. The Immigration Act of 1965 drastically altered the shape of American immigration and increased its size. (I should not be surprised if one-third of the population increase of the United States today consists of first-generation immigrants or their children.) Our immigrants in wholly unprecedented proportions come from Asia, South America, and the Caribbean. (In fiscal year 1973 the 10 top visaissuing posts were Manila, Monterrey, Seoul, Tijuana, Santo Domingo, Mexico City, Naples, Guadalajara, Toronto, Kingston. I would expect Bombay to make this top-10 list before long.

By the end of the century there should be a million Asian Indians in the United States-unless, that is, the Secretary General of the United ations is successful with his recent proposal that a worldwide system of emigration taxes be established in order, somehow, to benefit the underdeveloped nations.)

I

nshort, by the end of the century, given present trends, the United States will be a multiethnic nation the like of which even we have never imagined. This means at least one thing. There will be no struggle for personal liberty (or national independence or national survival) anywhere in Europe, in Asia, in Africa, in Latin America which will not affect American politics. In that circumstance, I would argue that there is only one course likely to make the internal strains of consequent conflicts endurable, and that is for the United States deliberately and consistently to bring its influence to bear on behalf of those regimes which promise the largest degree of personal and national liberty. We shall have to do so with prudence, with care. We are granted no license to go looking for trouble, no right to meddle. We shall have to continue to put up with things obnoxious about which there is nothing we can do; and often we may have to restrain ourselves where there are things we can do. Yet we must play the hand dealt us: We stand for liberty, for the expansion of liberty.

Anything less risks the contraction of liberty: our own included.

It is not likely to be a formally welcomed role. The political elites of most of the world are poisonously anti-American, and will remain so while the spell of Marxism and the British universities-what Orwell cited as the "right Left people"-persists.

This circumstance is well known and much noted. Our own intellectuals are becoming demoralized, even victimized, by it (although I should think such influence will much diminish over the next 30 years or so). Less well-known is the parallel circumstance that the peoples of the world remain extraordinarily faithful to Wilsonian ideals, no longer much if at all associated with him, but still widely associated with the United States and giving every sign of persisting. Among these peoples, I count the American people: not as an act of piety or wishfulness but rather, and assertively, as a fact repeatedly established by voting behavior and opinion research. Wilson's photographs are nowhere to be seen, but in the working-class homes of Pittsburgh, in the barrios of Bogota, in the villages of South India, portraits of John F. Kennedy will be found next to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, or Bolivar, or, as I have once seen, Gandhi, for Kennedy, too, was in the Wilson tradition. It is not the only tradition of American foreign policy, and that it can be an aberrant one no one any longer questions. But that we lose it at the risk of the ethical integrity of the nation ought not to be questioned either.

0

~tntlb i.1J1nrb: 1\ 1J1amily1\lbum \.

America's first family (above) is close-knit and unpretentious-a "normal American family" is how Elizabeth Ford, the First Lady, likes to describe it. The Fords have four children-Michael, 24; John, 22; Steven, 18; and Susan, 17.

The Fords were married on October 15, 1948. At that time, young Gerald Ford was running for election to the U.S. House of Representatives from his Michigan District. A now-famous anecdote tells how the bridegroom was so busy campaigning that he was late for the wedding and appeared wearing dusty brown shoes with his freshly cleaned gray suit. In any event, his district elected him by a large margin.

As Mr. Ford's political career gained momentum and he became floor leader of the Republican Party in the House of Representatives, he found himself involved in many nationwide tours and often had to make as many as 200 speeches a year. Mrs. Ford concentrated on

child-rearing responsibilities, and was known to her children as "the disciplinarian."

Despite the discipline, the Ford children are individualists. Michael is working on a doctorate in theology but does not plan to become a minister. He married a pretty schoolmate, Gayle, last July.

John-who is tall, wryly humorous and a good athlete-is studying forestry and conservation at Utah State University. Steven graduated from high school last June, and is now working for a year on a cattle ranch in Utah. He recently bought a motor cycle with the money he earned as an elevator operator in the U.S. Senate building last summer. Next September he will begin his college career at Duke University in North Carolina. He would like to become a dentist. Blonde and graceful schoolgirl Susan, who is in the tradition of perky Presidential daughters, asserts that the White House will not change her life; she will keep on wearing blue jeans and will

Opposite page top: A baby photograph of Gerald R. Ford with his mother Dorothy.

He was born in Omaha, Nebraska, on July 14,1913.

Left: A portrait of the President. Below left: Mrs. Ford in her living room.

Below: Gerald and Betty Ford with their family in a 1957 picture. From left: Michael, Mr. Ford, John, Mrs. Ford with Susan, and Steven.

Above left: Gerald Ford. then two-alld-a-halfyears old. poses with his pet dog. Below: During World War II, Mr. Ford served as all officer of the U.S. Navy for four years.

n

baby-sit whenever necessary for old neighbors in the Washington suburb of Alexandria, Virginia, where the Fords own a cozy home.

The Fords love that home. It was built the way they wanted it, and they lived there for 19 years. It has warm rooms, comfortable furniture, a large kitchen with a circular table-and no dining room.

Visiting diplomats, blase about formal dinners, used to enjoy an infomlal buffet served by the Ford children around the kitchen table.

The one luxury the home has is a heated pool where Mr. Ford used to swim twice a day. He will miss this in the White House, whose swimming pool was converted into a press room by President Nixon.

Besides swimming, President Ford enjoys golf, tennis and skiing, and he and the family do a lot of the latter at their vacation home in Vail, Colorado. Says Dr. William Lukash, the President's personal physician, "I am blessed with a patient who has an understanding of the importance of physical fitness. He will make my job easy."

President Ford is a man of astonishing energy and stamina. As a Congressman he often flew to Denver after a day's work, delivered a speech, flew back to Washington, had a swim at 3 a.m., slept for four hours and started the next day with no hint of fatigue. In his first eight months as Vice President, he maintained a killing travel schedule, flying 160,000 kilometers and speaking to various groups.

"I don't get much sleep," he admits, but it doesn't seem to matter.

Mrs. Ford takes her responsibilities as First Lady very seriously.

She held the Bible for her husband's swearing~in as President. "I felt I was taking that oath too," she said. As First Lady she would like to promote the arts in America, perhaps through the National Endowment for the Arts. She hopes to make the White House "a fun place." She says: "I really don't consider it my house. I consider it the home of the people of the United States."

0

Above: President Ford takes a swim with his dog Sugar in the pool of the Fords' Alexandria, Virginia, home. Below: Young Congressman Ford works at the desk of his Washington office in January 1949.

THE SCIENCE OF TELLING EXECUTIVES HOW THEY'RE DOING Perhaps it isn't a science at all, but an art-the att of striking a balance between completely crushing the employee being evaluated and inflating his expectations beyond reason.

It is a universally acknowledged truth that uncertainty is bad for business. It is not so often observed that uncertainty is also bad for businessmen-bad for their health, their peace of mind, even bad for their performance as executives.

And of all the uncertainties that have kept executives from sleeping. peacefully at night, probably none are quite so unsettling as those related to the difficulty of figuring out their boss's real opinion of them.

It is partly-but only partly-to relieve This article has been reprinted with special permission from Fortune magazine. Copyright ÂŤ:> 1973 Time. Inc.

executives of such anxieties that American business has developed a remarkable institution called "performance evaluation."

Formal, regularized evaluation programs are now more or less omnipresent in large U.S. corporations. Not all corporations do it in precisely the same way, but the exercise ordinarily includes a face-to-face meeting, held at least once a year, at which each executive gets 'a fairly explicit judgment of his performance from his immediate superior.

Typically, this verdict has been approved at least two levels above the man or woman being judged-i.e. the executive

doing the judging clears it with his own superiors. The evaluations are ordinarily recorded on special forms, which then become part of the executive's permanent employment record. At most companies, these systems are used to judge the performance of virtually all executives, from the lowest-ranking recruit up to and often including the chairman of the board (whose performance is evaluated by the directors).

While just about all corporations have adopted performance-evaluation systems, their effectiveness is still a matter of dispute. It is not always clear that the judg-

ment delivered to executives reflects the time to read hundreds, even thousands, true sentiments of their superiors. At of evaluation reports in an effort to see Xerox Corporation there is a rule that no what's going on down there among the one who has been with the company for troops. The man at the top can get a sense more than eight years may be fired with- from the reports of where the talent is, out the approval of Chairman C. Peter and where it isn't, and which parts of the McColough. In almost every instance, says company are likely to need the most execMcColough ruefully, he discovers that utive-development help in the years ahead. the candidate for firing has for years been The system can also be rather helpful rated highly in the company's evaluations. to the executives being evaluated. For one All of which suggests that for an eval- thing, the meetings with a supervisor can uation to be useful and meaningful it provide an occasion on which it is natural must be delivered by someone who's and possible for an executive to get on the capable of imparting some painful truths. record some views of his own about his The worst mistake an evaluator can make job and about the possibility of handling is to let some executive who's barely mak- it differently. At some companies-Texas opporing it leave the session harboring delusions Instruments, for example-this tunity to get an executive's own views about great prospects in his future.

At the same time, the evaluator has to about his situation is considered to be be careful not to make the event too pain- as important a part of performance evalful: He doesn't, presumably, want to uation as the delivery of the superior's crush the executive being judged under an judgment.

At the First National City Bank one avalanche of devastating criticisms. Finally, it is important that the judgments being delivered really do concern performanceand do not reflect the personal preferences and prejudices of the evaluator.

Performance evaluation is, then, something of an executive art and science in itself. Indeed, one important benefit of the system is that it helps top management to make some further judgments about the .executives who judge others.

American business got into performance evaluation for several reasons. One reason, plainly, had to do with salaries: By providing the corporation with a structured, detailed record of each executive's performance during the preceding year, the evaluations made it possible to put salary administration on a rational basis.

In addition, the evaluation systems are used to help identify the executives who have some real potential for moving into the higher-ranking jobs in their companies.

Supervising executives often include in their evaluation reports an outline of the preparation and experience a lower-level executive requires for his next promotion.

For example, a supervisor might recommend that bright executives whose experience is limited to the U.S. market be given some exposure to international operations.

Or he might recommend that a production man tapped for higher things be shifted for a while into sales.

In short, performance evaluation is being linked increasingly to companies' long-range planning efforts. And quite a few chief executives these days find the

supervlsll1g executive has gone about as far as it is possible to go in giving his subordinates a chance to express themselves in performance evaluation. E. Newton Cutler, Jr., a Citibank senior vice president, simply hands his subordinates their own blank evaluation forms and tells them to fill in their ratings themselves.

"It's amazing how honest people are," Cutler marvels. "They put things in that are detrimental to their own progress and promotion." The procedure, which represents Cutler's own variation on the bank's evaluation system, has a built-in safeguard against things getting out of hand: Cutler himself makes a final review of the ratings.

Performance-evaluation systems also tend to protect an executive from being held back or treated unfairly. Virtually every system requires that supervisors justify their conclusions, both to their own supervisors and to the executive being

Personnel men complain that there's an acute shortage of real bastards in American-business.

'Everybody likes to be a nice guy,' they say, 'and hand out outstanding-performance ratings.' evaluated; hence the chances of discrimination based on race, sex, taste in clothing, or plain old-fashioned personality conflicts are minimized.

And, of course, evaluations do a great deal to end the awful uncertainty that comes from not knowing what the boss thinks. Dr. Abraham Zaleznik, a psychoanalyst and a professor of social psychology and management at the Harvard Business School, is among those who believe that this uncertainty really is bad for businessmen. "It's important to know that your own image of yourself, and of your performance, squares with your boss's image," Zaleznik says. "Disparities between the two can lead to personal stress and do real physical damage."

Formal performance-evaluation systems are not at all unique to American business. In fact, a system remarkably similar to many being used today was developed by Saint Ignatius of Loyola some time after he founded the Society of Jesus in the 16th century. Saint Ignatius used a combination reporting-and-rating system that was intended to provide a comprehensive portrait of each Jesuit's activities and potential. The system consisted of a selfrating received from each member of the order, reports by each supervisor on his subordinates' performance, and special reports sent directly to the society's FatherGeneral from any Jesuit who believed he had information relating to his or his colleagues' performance- that - the FatherGeneral might not otherwise receive.

In the U.S., however, the performanceevaluation systems being used by business have been influenced mainly by some systems first developed in the Federal Government. In 1842 the U.S. Congress passed a law requiring the heads of executive departments to make an annual report "stating- among other things whether each clerk had been usefully employed and whether the removal of some to permit the appointment of others would lead to a better dispatch of the public business."

When James Polk became President in 1845, he ordered that these annual reports be sent directly to him. During the following decades a multitude of evaluation systems were tried and then abandoned-one system developed in 1879 by Carl Schurz,

for the Pension Office, attempted to measure employees' performance simply by counting the errors they made in a year.

But as the century entered its final decade, it was the military that had developed the most precise, workable perforrnancerating system. In 1889, President Benjamin Harrison, impressed by what the War Department had accomplished, suggested that civilian agencies adopt similar techniques.

His suggestion was generally ignored, and so Harrison issued an executive order requiring agencies to adopt the military system. The order was obeyed in some agencies more than others, and the inability of any President to establish a comprehensive, standard system of performance appraisals for the executive branch has continued right down to the present.

In part, the Presidents' difficulties reflect a powerful reluctance by members of Congress to let any Chief Executive have too much power over the presumably nonpartisan civil service.

American business has proceeded with greater dispatch. Exactly which corporation was the first to develop a formal evaluation system for executives, or when, is unknown. General Motors Corporation (GM) had a formal evaluation system for its executives as early as 1918, but GM doesn't know if it was first. The real trend toward formal, regularized, written systems didn't begin in earnest until after World War II. The procedures vary quite a bit from one company to another. Sometimes the. evaluator doesn't put anything on paper until after the judgment has been delivered -the written record becomes, in effect, a report on the meeting with the executive being judged. At White Motor Corporation, on the other hand, the supervising executive calls in his subordinate only after completing the rating form and then clearing his conclusions with his own superior.

Thus when an executive is invited in for a friendly chat, the verdict on his performance has already become a matter of record.

The form presented to the White Motor executive being evaluated includes, in addition to the traditional photograph and biographical data, a series of questions the supervisor has answered regarding the executive's major strengths and weaknesses.

Also, .the supervisor has placed a check next to one of the following phrases: outstanding, satisfactory plus, satisfactory, marginal, or "unsatisfactory-must be replaced." At White Motor, supervisors are required to state how soon their subordinates will be ready for promotion, and to outline to each subordinate what steps should be taken to prepare for future jobs with the company.

After being presented with the company's opinion of him, the executive is asked literally to sign on the dotted line.

(His signature signifies awareness, not necessarily agreement.) The interview concludes with a discussion of the executive's performance; according to the White Motor Corporation supervisors' manual, he should leave the session "with a sincere desire to impwve."

If an executive feels that he has been treated unfairly-more precisely, if he thinks he should be rated higher-he is encouraged to protest during the course of the interview itself. According to H. Herbert Phillips, the company's vice president for personnel and industrial relations, most differences of opinion are resolved right then. But if the executive is still not satisfied, he is entitled to appeal his rating directly to the company's personnel department. Someone will be assigned to hear both sides, then either back up the supervisor or suggest to him that the subordinate might actually have a point, and that his rating be reconsidered. "If it's the sort of personality conflict that just can't be resolved," Phillips says, "we usually wind up suggesting that the subordinate be transferred to another department."

The questions dealt with on Sperry Rand Corporation's performance-evaluation forms deal mainly with "promotability." Once a year, at evaluation time, the company's managing executives (about 1,000 in all) fill out "replacement charts," in which each supervisor lists the two or three subordinates he considers most qualified to replace him. Then, when the evaluations take place, the supervisor is supposed to be clear about any steps that must be taken to prepare these executives for their eventual promotions. The supervisor himself is rated on how well he plans the promotions.

~

(

At the heart of Sperry Rand's evaluation system is the so-called AROT column, in which four kinds of data are listed: the A refers simply to the executive's age; the R represents a performance rating (on a scale from 60 to 100); 0 is organizational data (for example, the supervisor states whether the subordinate should be kept within his division or might work elsewhere in the corporation); and T stands for the time required to prepare the particular

executive for his next promotion.

John Grela, Sperry Rand's vice president for organization and development, says the emphasis on promotions makes it easier for a supervisor to point out flaws in an executive's performance when the two sit down for the annual interview. "I knew we couldn't get people to sit down and say, 'You are bad here,' but a supervisor can deliver criticisms more easily when he's recommending a plan for future promo-

tions." Grela says proudly, "It works."

The completed forms are shown to the executive being evaluated after they've been cleared with the supervisor's own superior. At Sperry Rand each executive's performance-evaluation forms are reviewed at least once a year by a committee consisting of the company's chairman, its president, and Grela. They meet with the supervisors to discuss the executives they've rated, and in effect rate the supervisors on how well they're doing in preparing subordinates for promotions. "We feel that part of a manager's salary is based on how well he develops people," Grela says. "If he isn't doing that, he hasn't earned that portion of his salary."

At TRW Inc., performance evaluations involve not only an executive's supervisors, but his peers as well. Before the judgments about an executive are made, his supervisor solicits the opinion of the men and women who work alongside him. "It's a regular part of our procedure," explains Stanley C. Pace, a TR W executive vice president, "but we do it informally. What happens is that at some time during the year-usually not just before the evaluations are written-I make it a point to chat with each subordinate's colleagues' to see what they think about his performance.

Everyone here knows that this is done, and the purpose of it is to encourage teamwork.

We don't want anyone around here to think he can get away with being nasty or unhelpful to everyone except his boss."

Pace believes that checking informally around the office from time to time is the sort of thing that should be done by any good manager, regardless of whether a formal, annual evaluation interview is held with each executive. "One benefit of having these annual interviews," Pace adds, "is that they force me to get off my duff and talk to people."

At Worthington Corporation, a subsidiary of Studebaker-Worthington, Inc., the man personally in charge of performance evaluation is Chairman Edward C. Forbes. His system is about as precise and quantitative as any in existence; it actually measures an executive's performance out to the second decimal place.

Once a year, every top-echelon Worthington executive drafts a list of his objectives for the coming 12 months, then sends the list directly to Forbes. He and the executive decide how important each objective is to the company and assign numerical priorities to them, ranging from three for

'It's important to know that your own image of yourself, and of your performance, squares with your boss's image. Disparities between the two can lead to personal stress and physical damage.' the highest down to one for the lowest. At the end of the year, Forbes sits down again with the list (and with the executive), decides how well the executive did on each of his various objectives, and rates the man's success in achieving each objective on a scale of one to 15.

Each of these scores is then multiplied by the priority previously attached to it.

The resulting numbers are added together and, finally, divided by the total number of weighted objectives for the executive's numerical rating. (When events beyond the control of any executive-such as a natural disaster in a particular marketing arearender an objective meaningless during the course of the year, Forbes simply eliminates that objective from the equation.)

The number that emerges from all this arithmetic is then worked hard by salaryadministration officials at Worthington. It is combined with a variety of other numbers, reflecting, for example, the division's profit, the executive's current salary grade, his position within that grade, and his age,

in order to determine the future salary.

In gauging an executive's promotability, Forbes relies on a curiously (for him) unmathematical evaluation system. He calls it RUST-an R means the executive must retire within a year, U means his performance has been unsatisfactory, S stands for satisfactory, and T, which is in there for reasons more euphonic than logical, signifies a potential for promotion. The same system Forbes uses to rate his top-echelon executives is also used, by them, to rate their own subordinates. The evaluations they perform may then be reviewed by Forbes-whose judgment on all executives at Worthington is the final one.

Ultimately, of course, all those quantified results in performance-evaluation systems come back to somebody's personal judgment. The point of forcing evaluators to be quantitative is to ensure that the judgment is as objective as it can possibly be. White Motor Corporation's Herbert Phillips, for example, considers it among his primary responsibilities as chief of per-

sonnel to ensure that each supervising executive focus attention on his subordinates' results-and not on their personalities.

There is no doubt that the main problem about objectivity is the powerful desire of most executives to be nice guys. To hear personnel men complain about it, there's an acute shortage of real bastards in American business. "Everybody likes to be a nice guy and hand out outstanding-performance ratings," says George Foote, a director of McKinsey & Company. "It's very difficult to get enough supervisors to be hard enough to make the system really work."

Some supervisors have managed to avoid hurting their subordinates' feelings, while still conveying some sense of the sad realities to top management, by using a kind of Aesopian language. Over the years a sort of code has developed that tips off personnel directors and company chairmen to the supervisor's real opinion. For example, a supervisor writing about "a diligent, reliable worker" may well be

sending up a signal that the executive in question is totally devoid of imagination.

An executive credited with "a cheerful attitude toward work," who is said to "get along well with fellow employees," may just be an amiable fellow who hasn't produced a tangible result all year.

Any distortions in executives' evaluation records can be perpetuated by a phenomenon called the "halo effect."

What happens is that an executive, once rated as outstanding, tends to keep on receiving that rating regardless of how badly his performance may have slipped.

It takes some courage for an evaluator to dissent from the judgments of his predecessors (whose past evaluations are always available to him). The phenomenon can, of course, also work to perpetuate a poor rating by executives who have been working hard to do a better job.

It is partly to counter the halo effect that Western Electric Company has begun insisting that supervisors award outstanding ratings to no more than 20 per cent of their subordinates. Norman Lucas, Western Electric's evaluation chief, says that the company's system forces an annual weeding out that makes it difficult for a onceoutstanding performer to coast along on the strength of earlier ratings.

The powerful link between performance evaluation and salary administration-in other words, money-can also work to prevent evaluation systems from functioning the way they're supposed to. It is, admittedly, hard to be objective when money is involved, and both the supervisor and the executive he's evaluating are apt to share the blame for the distorted results.

The subordinate executive knows that the rating he receives is the major determinant of whether he receives a raise, and of how large that raise will be. Not surprisingly, it is often money, rather than any concern about "areas of weakness and potential," that is uppermost in an executive's mind as he heads in for that annual interview.

Once shown his rating, furthermore, an executive is often more interested in finishing the interview, so that he can get busy computing his raise, or celebrating it, than in paying attention to any message his supervisor is trying to deliver. And an executive whose rating denies him a raise will likely be too blinded by disappointment or resentment to listen, just then, to any friendly criticism of his work.

The connection between money and performance evaluation tends to distort the

system in another way. The problem is that many evaluators, aware of the connection, have evolved a game called "playing the system." What they do is work backward -that is, they decide first how large a raise they want to give an executive, then give him whatever rating will draw that raise from the company's salary-administration tables. Thus a supervisor who wants to give a raise (because, for example, the executive's wife has just had twins) may be led to distort the evaluation system so that the results seem to justify his a priori decision.

One obvious way to minimize systemplaying is to separate the evaluation interview from decisions about salary. At International Paper Company IP, for example, it is now very difficult to get a raise simply on the basis of a supervisor's report. Instead, raises are linked to results. Each supervisor sits down with every employee for whom he is responsible and gets an agreement on objectives for the coming quarter and the long term-for example, with respect to the man's sales. The two then sit down again at the end of the quarter and measure the extent to which the objectives they had agreed on were attained. Says William J. Connolly, who directs IP's performance-evaluation programs, "When the annual salary review comes up, the decision doesn't come as a shock to the employee. He knows right along how he's been doing."

One difficulty with performance-evaluation systems stems directly from their success. That is, by creating a format in which it is natural to tell subordinates exactly what the company thinks of them, companies have given their supervisors an excuse for not delivering the message at other times. Supervising executives sometimes have a tendency to conceal their opinions for 364 days, and then to announce them in one huge dose. McKinsey's George Foote emphasizes that the annual interview is meant to complement, not replace, daily criticism and praise.

"Performance evaluation is actually less time-consuming when it's done daily," Foote says. "If you put the whole job off to the end, it takes more time to explain what's on your mind. The comment should be made when the event occurs. To save it until the end of the year is not only meaningless, it's divisive."

The need for formal performance-evaluation systems seems to be just about universally accepted in American business today. There is, however, some continuing

controversy about the emphasis on forms and ratings. Some executives contend that the procedures have become bureaucratized to a point at which they actually represent an obstacle to useful communication between executives and their bosses.

Many students of the subject, and many executives, seem to agree with William R. Hinchman, Jr., a senior vice president of the Chase Manhattan Bank and the man in charge of its evaluation program.

"Frankly," says Hinchman, "I'm not nearly so impressed with our actual reporting procedures as I am by the environment our performance-evaluation system has given us. There's a more open and candid interaction among people here than we've had before, and this is where it counts. Not the forms."

That a system exists at all at Chase is a reflection of the bank's swift growth during the past decade, a period during which the number of executives soared, from around 1,000 in 1963 to 2,700 now. Hinchman concedes that it's too early to tell how successful the bank's present performanceevaluation system will be. But whatever happens, it probably can't be worse than the nonsystem the bank used to have.

This nonsystem, which disappeared some four decades ago, consisted pretty much of one Chase official with a little book in his bottom drawer. Once a year he'd pull it out and decide on all the raises in the company. Only when he received his raise and promotion could a Chase executive count on knowing what his bosses thought of him.

And, for all the tensions associated with performance evaluations nowadays, they're a breeze compared to the rather stunning method by which Chase used to tell some executives that they were being promoted.

The executives got the news of their promotions on a day at the end of which they were invited to the bank's annual officers' dinner, a black-tie event. Anyone who thought he might get a promotion brought a dinner jacket to work, then hid it in a closet or desk drawer and hoped for the best. Those who were promoted donned their dinner suits and proceeded triumphantly to the gala. Those who weren't promoted stuffed their tuxedos into bags or attache cases and smuggled them, and themselves, out the door as unobtrusively as possible.

0 About the Author: Herbert E. Meyer is an associate editor of the business magazine Fortune.

WHAT'S HAPPENING TO THE WORLD'S MONEYP Is the world's monetary mess a political hegemony-or the continuing vast inflow of dollars that they blamed for their own or a technical problem? Professor Richard N. The major nations of inflation and saw as the means by which Cooper of Yale University, one of the leadAmerican business interests were taking over ing authorities on international monetary the world must negotiate their own industries. The final agony of the problems, emphasizes the technical factors more flexible exchange postwar world monetary system came at the in the money muddle and believes that a rates or, warns the technical solution is possible. But for a techstart of the 1970s with a veritable hemornical solution to work, it must fit political rhage of dollars out of the United States. author, face the possibility realities. The world monetary system that Having run deficits that averaged less than of a world split into emerged after World War II was essentially $2 billion a year in the 1950s and 1960s, the hostile economic blocs.

United States suffered balance-of-payments based on fixed exchange rates and the condeficits of $9.8 billion in 1970, $29.8 billion vertibility of the U.S. dollar into gold. That in 1971, and $11.6 billion in 1972. system, whether called by the name of BretThe final blow to the old monetary order did not come until ton Woods or not, was founded on the dominant economic strength of the United States, with its "hard" dollar and its huge 1973. In January 1973 what had begun as a barely noticed flow supply of international monetary reserves-which, immediately offunds from Italian lire into Swiss francs suddenly became a ragafter the war, constituted over 70 per cent of the reserves of all the ing dollar crisis when the Swiss, worrying about inflation resulting developed regions, including Britain, Western Europe, Canada, from the influx of funds, floated their franc. Billions of dollars in the hands of speculators, multinational corporations. and some Japan, Australia, and South Africa.

But that world monetary system began to crumble as the dollar, foreign central banks then went pouring into West Germany. The rigidly bound by fixed exchange rates to all other currencies (in- German Bundesbank threw billions of marks at speculators in a cluding those that elected to devalue against it), gradually lost vain effort to prevent the mark's exchange rate from rising-until its strength. The source of the trouble was the continuous deficits fears of inflation and the idiocy of endlessly throwing good money in the balance of payments of the United States. Those deficits after bad at last caused German officials to yield. The mark floated began after World War II ended, and they were incurred by up. And the dollar floated down. deliberate design, as American aid to world reconstruction. As a Was this the crisis that wiped out what was left of the old result of those chronic deficits lasting for a quarter-century, the monetary order-and its most crucial feature, fixed exchange United States' gold stock was drawn down from a peak of $24.5 rates-the result of political or technical factors? The question billion in 1949 to $10.9 billion in 1968. In addition, other nations is indeed vital in determining whether the key to the solution is piled up dollar holdings in excess of $50 billion to cover the technical or political-or both.

Many economists believe they have the technical answerAmerican deficits. For better or worse, those continuous dollar deficits did help to get the world economy going after the war, floating or, at least, highly flexible exchange rates that will permit did overcome the problem of dollar shortage, did keep world the world monetary system to adapt to different rates of inflation. in different countries or regions and thereby allow world trade trade expanding.

In large degree, the huge, cumulative deficits in the U.S. balance to go on growing and full employment to be preserved in each of payments resulted from America's assumption of a very heavy country. Though most economists now believe that a much wider share of the non-Communist world's military and foreign-aid degree of exchange-rate flexibility is needed, it took a severe burdens. Professor Fritz Machlup of Princeton has observed that crisis, bordering on catastrophe, for finance ministers, central other nations that have assumed similar burdens, as Britain did bankers, presidents, and prime ministers to countenance that after the Napoleonic wars, have invariably been forced in the end solution. Indeed, their resistance has revived, even though the to suspend gold convertibility or devalue their currency. Machlup floating solution has thus far worked tolerably well. calculates that U.S. foreign military and aid payments from 1949 Many governments regard the exchange rate of their currency to 1964 totaled from 48 to 63 per cent of the export earnings as too important-to their economies in general and to their needed to service them-a burden four times as great as that of export industries in particular-to be left to the market. Will the Britain after the Napoleonic wars. The United States reached the present "dirty" floating-involving heavy governmental intervenend of that line-which had begun with the Marshall Plan and tion in the foreign-exchange markets-fail because it is dirty and the building of the military defenses of the North Atlantic Treaty governments will not let exchange rates move to equilibrium Organization-when the Vietnam war accelerated both American levels? Will it take more crises before the grip of fixed ideas and inflation and dollar outflow. the unenlightened pursuit of national self-interest is broken?

At the same time, the European nations, striving for indeThat was what the battle in Nairobi, Kenya, the scene of the pendence, were no longer willing to accept American economic latest annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund, was

all about. The United States has pushed hard for an orderly system of exchange-rate flexibility, with "symmetrical" obligations on the part of both debtor and creditor countries to make the necessary adjustments to keep their balances of payments in more or less continuous equilibrium. Many developing countries, while giving lip service to the need for "stable but adju,stable" exchange rates, have opposed international disciplines that require them to make such adjustments. The result has been a stalemate.

But if a flexible exchange-rate solution cannot be negotiatedand last year's failure to meet its deadline seems in the process of being followed by similar failure in 1974-nations will be forced to take other courses to solve their international-payments problems. For example, the costs of America's staying in Europe are not low and Secretary of Defense James R. Schlesinger insists the Europeans should cover all of the U.S. $2.5 billion deficit related to NATO defense.

The future shape of America's European and Pacific alliances will obviously be determined by more than balance-of-payments considerations, but such economic considerations should not be

underestimated. Political and economic factors are tightly bound together. Just as the international monetary system that emerged from World War II was founded on American economic strength -and the ability and willingness of the United States to run continuous deficits in its balance of payments-the new world monetary system must be one appropriate to a more equal and balanced relationship between the United States and its political and economic partners. Such a system will have to be one in which all nations, including the United States, stay close to balance-ofpayments equilibrium nearly all of the time. That is going to require greater exchange-rate flexibility than in the past. If the major nations cannot negotiate such a flexible system, they may have to go on floating indefinitely-or split into autarkic, probably hostile, economic blocs. The political consequences could be grave.

0 About the Author: Leonard Silk is a well-known economist and a member of the editorial board of the New York Times. He has written many books including Forecasting Business Trends and The World of Economics.

wo years ago, New York magazine ran¡ a cover story on an unknown artist named Ralph Fasanella. This was followed by a full-scale, one-man exhibit, which later went on a coast-to-coast U.S. tour. Today, Fasanella (shown at left in his studio) is America's most highly ac. claimed "primitive" painter, and the subject of a handsome new book, Fasanella's City, by Patrick Weston.

Fasanella's city is New York, but his New York is not everyone's. It is the Manhattan, Bronx and Brooklyn of a working man. He was born in its tenements and grew up there. His Italian mother made buttonholes in a dress factory; his Italian father sold ice from a horse-drawn wagon. He himself was a labor union organizer.

In his mid-thirties, against all advice, Fasanella gave up his job and taught himself to paint. For the next 13 years he worked at his brother's gas station by day, at his easel by night. Now 60, the artist still pumps gas three days a week because, he says, "I need my regular dose of aggravation."

From the very beginning, Fasanella's work had mood and an extraordinary

T

FASANEllA'S NEW YORK

J

4 - ')..I%-e.-

aliveness. What he wanted to get down on canvas was the personal, intimate concern for people that is part of growing up in close-knit immigrant families. In this he succeeds; his pictures carry the flavor of daily urban life in New York-the smell of sweat and good Italian cooking, the sound of traffic whistles and church bells, of fighting and loving, cursing and singing, the closeness of human beings.

Another inescapable feature of Fasanella's New York is his love for the teeming metropolis-for its brittle beauty, its fecund complexity, for its vitality, its frailty. His elaborately colorful visions are like joyous hymns of praise to the city. There are no literal transcriptions of streetscapes, but fantastic embellishments of them. Often, fronts of buildings are sliced off, like doll houses, to reveal their contents. Though the early paintings are bare of human figures, the later ones are overrun with them. His pictures gradually become more detailed until, as in a recent work, we have a gigantic panorama of dozens of buildings, improbable towers ~nd churches, advertising signs, trucks, buses, subway stations, newsstands, but always-people.

In Fareway, a 1948 oil painting (left), Fasanella presents all the familiar details of a service station: tow trucks, dump trucks, passenger cars being filled with gas, cars jacked up on the rack.

At this stage of his work, the artist has just begun to introduce people onto canvases that soon would be swarming with humanity.

Of Sunday Afternoon (above), painted from memory in 1953, the artist says: "I show you the mood in the streets, clean, healthy, fresh. People have their nice clothes on. They're all in harmony with each other here. There's no disturbance, no bosses. Everybody's cooking at home. You can go into the hallways and smell all kinds of food."

New York City (left) is Fasanc/la's song of love to his home town.

Hanging in New York's City Hal/, this section is part of a triptych three meters long. "Five years I thought of that painting," says the artist, "every night for an hour or two in bed." Once started, in 1957. he worked on it night and day for six months: Most tourist landmarks are missing; instead he shows the "little" man's streets and sidewalks and shops, his apartments and factories. Below: Fasane/la at 1V0rk at his brother's gasoline station.

Sheridan Square (above), a poster-

color impression of a subway entrance, was painted in 1945. One critic remarked that "it appears suffused with loneliness-the loneliness of a man who has given up his job to stay at home and make pictures."

Below: Lineup at the Protectory (1961) recalls Fusanel/a's boyhood.

A frequent truant, he was twice caught and sent to a reform school called the Protectory. Here, he works out all his old misery and hurt in a moody design, tight and regimented.

-21D

e-

Opposite page: The nourishing ground of the tenl'ments and the warmth of Fasanella' s family /if I' inspired a painting that was climactic-one that virtually brought him to the end of the long search for his emotional roots.

Realistic details mingle with surreal images in Family Supper ( /972).

The mother( background) is tied to her laundry lines, with children clinging to her. At right, the artist's bitter father is shown as a crucified Christ, with his horse and ice wagon above.

Leather garments :nade in India are knowl1 for their slIprrb craftsmanship af/(I IIniqllr design. The yOllng [;ir/' in the top photo lvears a leather stole with Kashmir embroidery.

The model at top right sports an IIl1usllal leather maxi skirt. Rigltt: Leatlter skirt and jacket are worn with a leather scmf Abo!'e: All assortment of {eat Iter shoes.

INDIA:S GLAMOR EXPORT

eat erware ort ewor Garments, footwear, handbags, purses, belts-the amazing versatility of Indian leather makes it a prize item in world markets. This article looks at the men and the institutions behind the industry.

What does a craftsman in Agra or Coimbatore have to do with American cowboys? Not much.

But he does have a lot to do with cowboy boots.

For the past seven years, he's been making leather uppers for cowboy boots-which are used not merely by "cowboys" but by thousands of urban Americans as casual wear. They are delighted by the look and feel of cowboy uppers from India. Though these seem like simple pieces of leatherwork, 16 different Tndian components and considerable skill go into the making of a pair of cowboy uppers which, upon reaching the United States, go to the stitching lines of boot factories to receive their soles.

The Indo-U.S. partnership in cowboy boots began in 1967 with a contract between the Acme Boot Company and India's State Trading Corporation (STC). The STC farmed out the order to four small manufacturers-Nav Bharat Enterprises, Guindy; Skins and Leathers, Coimbatore;

Vasans, Agra; and the Indian Trades and Industries Corporation, Kanpur. In 1972-73, India earned a crore of rupees in foreign exchange through export of shoe uppers to the U.S. Shoe uppers are just one of the leather items that America buys from India. In 1972-73 India's total leather exports to America were worth Rs. 9.6 crores, of which finished products accounted for Rs. 5.8 crores.

India's leather craftsmen have turned out a variety of products distinguished by beauty and durability-Kolhapuri slippers, wall panels, puppets, key purses, fancy belts, sports goods, garments, surgical sutures, racket guts, hair Above right: An official of Nav Bharat Enterprises, Madras, displays plain and fancy leather uppers made for American cowboy boots.

Right: This multiheaded Ravana is a fine example of the craftsmanship that goes into the making of transparent leather shadow puppets, now being exported from India.

brushes and bristles, ties, briefcases and handbags.

India accounts for 16 per cent of the world's leather trade and has invaded markets in Europe and Japan in addition to America.

In 1972-73, leather ranked as India's second biggest source of foreign exchange, earning Rs. 190 crores. In the near future, leather may soar to the top position among India's exports.

What accounts for the strength of India's leather industry?

Three factors, mainly. The abundance of raw material (India has the world's largest cattle population); the even texture of Indian leather skin; and the superb quality of Indian tanned leather (the East India tanning process, which uses vegetable dyes, is world famous).

But the big news today in the Indian leather export business is that the country is switching over from tanned leather to the manufacture of finished leather and leather goods. In 1972-73, for instance, India exported Rs. 32 crores of finished leather, which works out to more than 15 per cent of her total leather exports.

The most popular finished leather items from India are perhaps shoes from Agra, fancy Kolhapuri chappals from Bombay, sheepskin footwear from Calcutta, leather sports goods from Kanpur. Industrial gloves may soon be on that list. The STC is preparing the ground for production. "The American market alone," says a manufacturer, "could absorb our entire production of gloves as fast as we cim turn them out."

Finished leather is "a gold mine in the making," according to Nagappa Chettiar, managing director of India Leather Corporation, Madras, which -exports finished leather to Europe and the U.S. He says the switch-over from semitanned to finished leather will create more jobs, infuse new technology and spawn a host of allied industries.

What are the requirements of American buyers of finished leather? Says Abdul Wahid of Madras: "They are very parti-

cular about quality and quick delivery schedules. They are prepared to pay a little more provided the finish is good."

Representatives of American shoe companies and European garment manufacturers, who visit India frequently, testify to the quality of finished leather from India. Horace Auberry of Wellco Enterprises says Americans find Indian shoe leather quite good, and reasonably priced, too. A de luxe pair of shoes can cost as much as $64, but you can get quite good shoes for about $25.

If India produces a pair of shoes for $2, the American customer can buy it from his retail store at $8-after freight, duty, warehousing and wholesale overheads have been covered.

In 1972-73, leather was the second largest source of foreign exchange for India.

Soon it may become the biggest export item.

leather and leather goods.

Dr. M. Santappa, director of CLRI, says research in his institution aims at devising better, cheaper, quicker ways of doing things. Two CLRI projects are financed by PL-480 funds-a three-year plan to analyze quality footwear and shoe-upper leather; and a project to convert slaughterhouse by-products into exportworthy commodities. A leather goods development center opened at CLRI last July has been rendering useful service to the leather industry.

The future for India's leather exports? Excellent, if some problems are solved. One is the limited quantity of hides available in India (though sheepskin is abundant). Religious sentiment on cow slaughter inhibits recovery. of cattle hide. The quality too is often unsatisfactory because of poor nutrition. Some chemicals required for processing industries are not made in India and have to be imported at great expense.

But many favorable signals point to a boom in leather exports. There has been a fall in the use of synthetics abroad-for shoes, travel cases, handbagspartly because of rising petroleum costs. More and more, leather is being used as a substitute for synthetics. This leather has to come from India and other developing countries because the leather industry in America and Europe is now facing a difficult time (high labor costs, strict antipollution laws). Leather experts in both India and the U.S. feel that a time may soon come when India will import hides and skins from the U.S. and send back finished leather.

A boom in leather exports would be timely indeed. India's oil import bills have soared, and exports are more vital now than ever before to gain foreign exchange. Indian leather-treasured abroad for its attractive colors and designs, for its feel and comfort-ought to show the way. 0

A number of institutions play a major role in India's leather industry.

The STC helps Indian entrepreneurs find foreign buyers, and helps foreign customers locate Indian manufacturers. The Leather Export Promotion Council (LEPC) tells the world about Indian leather, and deserves much of the credit for opening up the American market. At every important leather fair or exhibition, the LEPC displays Indian leatherwork. Back home, the council tells the leather industry about the latest technology, and publishes journals, pamphlets and trade news.

When it comes to research, the Central Leather Research In-" stitute (CLRI) in Madras provides know-how, suggests new ideas. It has developed new chemical processes, new tanning materials and spray dyes. It is About the Author: Malini Seshadri now studying how to get better is a free-lance writer whose work and more attractive finishes on has appeared in Indian magazines.

Fond of personally supervising his Inns, KemmolZs Wilson tests the springiness of a mattress (above). consults with a construction worker (below), and checks the top of a picture for dust (bottom).

I~gln

INNKEEPER. TO THE WORLD

The story of Kemmons Wilson (above) is in the classic American rags-to-riches tradition. Starting out with a $50 popcorn machine, Wilson now directs 1,660 Holiday Inns throughout the world and is regarded by the 'London Times' as one of the 1,000 most important men today. See article overleaf.

I

n the "grand old times" of American business back around the turn of the century, an abiding faith in individual initiative lived in the minds of the country's young men.

It was the rags-to-riches success story best portrayed in the novels of Horatio Alger, whose heroes invariably started out as young boys, selling newspapers on windy corners and gradually rose, by persistence, faith in themselves and faith in the American Dream, to become pillars of American bu:;iness.

Since World War II this idea has faded, replaced by the popular belief in the Organization Man who moves up the ladder of success by fitting into the pattern of a large corporation.

At least one modern American businessman, however, fits the old Horatio Alger image. He is Kemmons Wilson, founder and head of the worldwide Holiday Inn chain of hotels, motels and resorts. Wilson is a staunch believer in the idea that in America anyone, however poor, can rise to the top if he is smart enough and works hard enough.

Today, Wilson is head of a vast corporation, controlling not only Holiday Inns but a whole cluster of subsidiaries in the food, service and travel fields. There are now more than 1,660 of his Inns throughout the world, with new ones being completed every few days. [India's first Holiday Inn opened in Agra in November 1974; others are scheduled to open shortly in Bombay and Madras. See sidebar on opposite page.]

Known, quite justly, as "Innkeeper to the World," and named by the London Times as one of the 1,000 most important men in modern times, Wilson got where he is in the classic rags-to-riches way.

He was born in the small town of Osceola, Arkansas, in 1913. His father died when he was nine months old, leaving his mother to support herself and her son on the low salaries of those days.

Like the Alger heroes who began working at a very early age just to provide the bare family necessities, Wilson went to work at the age of 14 as a drugstore delivery boy.

- Wilson got his first taste of real business when, as a teen-ager, he bought a popcorn machine and set it up outside a movie theater.

His business was so good that he was soon making more than the theater owner. The owner, annoyed at being bested by so young a man, bought him out for $50.

With the $50, Wilson branched out-as he has done ever since at each critical point of his career-and applied a basic principle of entrepreneurship: "Let money make money." He bought five second-hand pinball machines and installed them in drugstores and cafes. With the money they brought in he bought more machines until he had a lucrative, self-sustaining business. With his

stay free, even providing baby sitters.

The four Memphis Inns were an immediate success. So,. as always before in his career, Wilson decided to expand. Why not build a chain of Holiday Inns stretching across America.

At this point, Wilson began looking for an associate-a man, he says, who could "think big like me." His choice was Wallace E. Johnson, an important builder who had been called "the Henry Ford of the home-building industry." One night in 1953, Wilson went to see Johnson and that night, they shook hands and formed a partnership which was to become Holiday Inns of America, Inc. Growth was immediate and rapid. Sticking to the original model, the new company plunged into nationwide motel construction.

The 'Innkeeper to the World' is By 1958there were 50 Holiday Inns and by the host to millions of vacationers. next year there were 100. Also in 1959, the company set up its Innkeeping School, predeBut for him, work is his principal cessor to the recently established Holiday Inn and almost exclusive pleasure.

University which trains 5,000 students a year in all aspects of the motel business.

During the war Wilson served as a flight Some of the Inns are operated directly by officer and, when he came back home, he the parent company, but most are franchised was already a fairly rich man. But piling up to individuals, companies or even governdollars just to spend has never interested ments. The franchise holders must maintain Wilson. What he likes is making it. It Wilson's established standards of quality or is a game. You strive to win, not because you face the prospect of losing their right to use need the money, but because, as in any the Holiday Inn name and the firm's worldgame, you want to win. So he went back to famous sign. The franchise system has been especially useful in the corporation's ambibuilding houses.

Wilson's real career began when, in 1951, tious overseas expansion program.

Wilson is in firm control of this gigantic he and his wife, Dorothy, took their five children on an auto trip from Memphis, enterprise but he is not a remote figure. From Tennessee, to Washington, D.C. In those days, the early days, he has been involved in all hotels in small towns were usually run-down phases of his operation. It could hardly be or nonexistent. Big cities had decent hotels otherwise, for even if the enterprise could but they were expensive and inconvenient flourish without his involvement, Wilson himto the cross-country motorist. There were self could not. The "Innkeeper to the World" motels, but they were mostly uninviting and is host to millions of vacationers every year.

But he himself almost never takes a vacation. uncomfortable.

The Wilson family vacation, spoiled by Work is his principal, and almost exclusive, nights spent in poor lodgings, gave Wilson pleasure. Nothing delights him more.

Throughout his sensational career, Wilson his inspi~ation: He would build a ,motel where rooms were clean and comfortable, has changed hardly at all. This is particularly food was good and sanitary-and all of it clear in his tastes and his standard of living. inexpensive enough for the average middle- He drives to work in a small, inexpensive car. class businessman or vacationer. There was He lives with his wife and family in a relatively more to it than inspiration, of course. Wilson modest home in Memphis.

And he remains devoted to the kind of . sensed a need. More and more Americans were traveling by car, and frequently they upbeat, hearty sloganeering once popular in took highways that skirted cities, miles from American business, but now considered somewhat old-hat and embarrassing. In an address the downtown hotels. to the graduating class at the University of Wilson built his first Holiday Inn-120 rooms-on the outskirts of Memphis and, Alabama in 1968, he had the following bits during the next year, built three more. The of wisdom to offer: "You don't learn to sell if new motels were not merely a big improve- you already have a popular product"; "A ment on the old variety; they were something man can't be a success until he teaches his wife completely new. Each had a swimming pool, not to expect him home for dinner"; and, air conditioning and a modern restaurant. most reminiscent of the good old Horatio And while the old motels charged rates for Alger days, "As long as we're willing to work, 0 children, Wilson's Inns allowed them to the American Dream is not dead." profits, he decided to build a house-not to live in, but to sell. He knew nothing about home building, but he learned as he did it.

Wilson paid $1,700 cash for the house and, having rebuilt it, used it to secure a $3,000 loan which he plowed back into his pinball operation. About a year after finishing the house, he sold it for $6,500. "I said to myself," he later recounted, "I've been in the wrong business. I'm going into the building business."

He built a second house next to the first one, and kept building until, at the outbreak of World War II, he had assets worth a quarter of a million dollars. Before entering the U.S. armed services, Wilson sold everything and invested in U.S. Government bonds.

HOLIDAY I,NN COMES TO INDIA Last November, India's first Holiday Inn opened in Agra, the city of the Taj. Two more Holiday Inns, one on Bombay's Juhu Beach and the other in Madras, are scheduled to commence operation in the summer of 1975. A fourth Inn is being planned for Hyderabad.

The arrival of four Holiday Inns will give a big boost to Indian tourism. Months before the Agra Inn was ope,ned, the 105=room hotel was practically booked solid for all of 1975. The Bombay and Madras Inns are expected to do equally well. Behind them is a vast network which has 50,000 people selling Holiday Inns throughout the world.

"They are all working for each and every Holiday Inn," says Sunder G. Advani, representative of Holiday Inns in India and the man responsible for bringing this chain to the country. "In the hotel industry, one of the biggest selling points is referrals," says Advani, "and if you can get 1,660 hotels to refer business to you, you are that much ahead."

The Holiday Inn System comes to India because the company offers every franchise holder very attractive terms-so attractive that a new Holiday Inn is being added every two and a half days. The company plans to have 3,000 Inns worldwide by 1980. Already it is the biggest hotel chain in the world, three times larger than the next largest chain which is the Sheraton Corporation.

"The main reason for this phenomenal success," says Advani, "is that Holiday Inns provide a success formula for operating and building hotels which franchise holders have found very reasonable. And we are much more reasonable in cost for the Indian franchise holder than any other chain operating in India. While others build luxury hotels, we try to concentrate on the mass market which J believe is more relevant to this part of the world."

American participation in the Indian Inns is in the form of technical collaboration with Holiday Inns, Incorporated, the parent company, which provides the local investors with the latest know-how to run a modern and efficient hotel. "The biggest feature of this collaborative venture is that we can sell these rooms directly from abroad and also provide the Indian Inns with valuable training which is very important in this highly competitive industry," Advani points out.

Speaking of training, Advani notes that every Inn, whether it is in India or in Europe or in the United States, must send two or

India's first hotel belonging to the Holiday Inn chain opened in Agra (above) in November. Two more Inns will open in 1975.

three of its top staff including its Innkeeper (general manager) to the Holiday Inn University near Memphis, Tennessee. "They have to obtain a diploma from that university before they can operate a Holiday Inn." In addition, the university makes many films for the training of those junior members of the staff who cannot attend regular classes at the university. "This is especially useful for India," Advani observes, "as trained staff is not always available."

Another important aspect of the franchise is that it is owned and managed by Indian hoteliers. "It is all local money that goes into the franchise," says Advani, "all promoters are local investors." Holiday Inns does insist, however, that all the Inns must be built to its specifications. For instance, each double room must be at least 18 feet by 12 feet, and it must have two beds each 80 inches by 54 inches. "It is probably the largest bed in the industry," Advani notes.

"We feel that a person spends most of his hotel-room time either in bed or in the bathroom. And these are the two areas where we have very special specifications. But we have standards for everything-from the speed of the elevators to the width of the corridors.

And once the hotel is built, unannounced

inspections take place all the time. "These inspections," Advani explains, "are meant to keep the management on their toes, to help them know what their deficiencies are; and how they can be improved upon."

"The thing that sets Holiday Inns apart from other first-class hotels is that they provide quality accommodation which is known to the international traveler," Advani points out. "In other words, India would get the tourists who are aware of Holiday Inn standards of clean, decent accommodation at reasonable cost." Holiday Inns are able to provide rooms at reasonable cost because they furnish the amenities but skip the frills, the luxuries. "We don't go in for large banquet halls and huge chandeliers. We're interested in providing comfortable rooms for families and businessmen. And in all the Inns, children under 12 are always free," Advani says.

"The Holiday Inn System is a middleincome hotel chain," says Advani. "We cater to the mass market and hope to induce the mass of middle-income tourists to visit India."

Why did it take so long for Holiday Inns to come to India? Advani feels that it is not as long as it seems. The company itself is only 22 years old, and it started selling international franchises only in 1968. And if Holiday Inns did not come to India any earlier, it was not because of any lack of interest in this country. Holiday Inn founder Kemmons Wilson has a soft spot in his heart for India because he spent several months in this country during World War II as a pilot flying the India-Burma "hump."

Sunder Advani was able to get Holiday Inns to approve the Juhu Beach site as early as May 1969. (The vice president ofthe Real Estate Division, Jerry Sims, describes it as "a million-dollar location.") Since then the Agra hotel has opened up for business; the 21O-room Bombay Inn and the loO-room Madras Inn are nearing completion. "Five years is not really a very long time," says Advani, "when you consider that one has to co-ordinate with the government so that the projects could be approved from the collaborative aspect." Moreover, he says, the people at Holiday Inns, Inc. are very choosy about franchise applications. "They like to make sure that people involved don't get into losing propositions. They haven't had a failure yet. They've had more than 1,660 successes-and they'd like to keep it that way."

0

GOLD AND GOLD BUGS American investment counselor Harry Browne has written a book called You Can Profit From a Monetary Crisis. Well, Browne certainly has. His book jumped above books on sex and self-help to land near the top of the U.S. bestseller list, where it has stayed for several weeks. And Browne has started work on his next book.

Some regard Browne as a crank, some as a genius, some as a clever opportunist who cashed in on a crisis with a "quickie." (His book was written in two months.) There are no two opinions, however, on the fact that Browne is the foremost of America's "gold bugs,j~proponents of the doctrine that gold is the most dependable haven from the storms of inflation.

Browne's wide following is extraordinary for a person with no academic credentials. The blurb at the back of his book says: "After graduating from high school he tried twice to go through college, but quit after a few days because he couldn't

/;/

stay awake in class." Yet many regard Browne as a prophet because events once proved him right when many of the recognized economists went wrong. His first book, How You _ Can Profit From the Coming Devaluation, published in April 1970, predicted that the dollar would be devalued before the end of 1971. It was-in December 1971. Those who acted on his advice-to buy gold-made a tidy profit.

Browne's thesis in his latest book is that the world is close to a severe depression, which will be transformed by government spending and creation of paper money into a runaway inflation. Milliondollar bills will be printed, prices will change by the hour.

A pound of meat may cost $80 million or two silver coins -and two weeks later, $80 billion or two silver coins.

"People will realize it's not worth using paper currency and they'll switch to other mediums of exchange."

Browne urges the prudent investor to convert his money into gold-and also to prepare for a total economic collapse.

You should have "a safe place to go and a way to get there," together with "the ability to survive there for an extended period of time." (Browne has a secret retreat of his own, stocked with dehydrated food and cigarettes. But he will not tell where it is.) Browne's expertise was originally available to individual investors for a fee of $1,750 for a four-hour session.

Today Browne's charges have risen to $2,500 "because of heavy demand." Apparently, Browne has his own special hedge against inflation.

Many Americans-and they include bankers and executivesare taking Browne and other gold bugs seriously, and are buying as much gold and silver as they can in the form of coins.

Coin shops all over the U.S. are thriving. Further, private ownership of gold in America may soon be legalized-the U.S. Congress has already passed a bill permitting Americans to buy and sell gold for the first time since 1933. The gold bugs predict that when the bill becomes law, there will be a gold rush and a spectacular spurt in the price of gold.

What do conventional economists think of Harry Browne and his ilk? Some like to quote Joan Robinson, the distinguished British economist, who once said: "It is characteristic of a crisis ... that cranks get a hearing from the public which orthodoxy is failing to satisfy." But Henry Kaufman, also a respected economist, is not so derisive.

"I'm certainly not advertising the end of the world," says Kaufman, "but I do think it's amazing that for the first time, I'm considering possibilities that previously I never dreamed I would have to consider."

A FILM FOR MOVIEGOERS WHO LIKE BEING CONNED "Pure gold" is what Judith Crist of New York magazine calls this film, and she says it's the kind of movie that "dreams of sophisticated entertainment are made on." The film is Universal's The Sting, one of the fastest-moving, best-edited movies since Citizen Kane, and a film that has won seven Academy Awards ("Oscars") including those for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Original Screenplay.

Set in the Depression years of the '30s, The Sting has a nostalgic.Chicago ambience.

It reunites the triumphant director-and-stars triumvirate of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid-George Roy Hill, Paul Newman and Robert Redford. The team is joined by Robert Shaw. Some critics say The Sting has the feel of a "repeat" film-that Newman, Redford, Hill and company are simply out to cash in on Butch Cassidy and con the audience.

Well, yes, that's what The Sting is about: a con job.

Newman and Redford playa pair of tricksters out to get Robert Shaw, an "unbeatably crooked" poker player, for the murder of one of their colleagues. They don't wish to kill Shaw but simply to humiliate him by conning this ace conner.

They beat Shaw in a poker game that you'd swear was the most dramatic scene in the film if you didn't know what was coming next. Shaw loses all his money-and then some.

Redford offers to help him recoup his losses, and the real machinations begin. There's suspense and laughter in every

MERICANS ~RETALKING ~BOUli twist and turn of the tangled plot. The actors enjoy themselves as much as the audience.

Staccato action and Byzantine complexity make The Sting's plot difficult to follow; many Sting fans see it a second time to spot the false clue that fooled them the first time. "We stay with the movie," says Newsweek, "mainly because we want to know what the hell's going on. At the end we are conned right out of our seats."

That's right, the audience is also conned-along with Robert Shaw-in the astounding climax. The fun is that Shaw doesn't see the con job, but the audience does-and that makes the audience love the film even more!

Robert Redford is at his best as the young crook, and serves as an apt foil to the wily Newman. Shaw is a worthy opponent of the two, "a seethIng figure whose very presence radiates malevolence, his silence as menacing as his speech, his passivity as threatening as his outbursts." Director George Roy Hill works speed, surprise and suspense into the plot.

Thoroughly enjoyable is Scott Joplin's piano score, now a bestselling record.

All in all, The Sting is as sophisticated a film as the COil job that is its plot. It is a movie for people who like being conned. And sinee it's begun to make millions, Americans must like being conned!

THE TRADE OF THE TRICKS Not so long ago, magicians and conjurers were bemoaning the state of their business, blaming films and television "for taking the magic out of

our lives." But today magic is casting a spell over Americans young and old-and making money as never before. For the last few months, The Magic Show, a Broadway stage play, has grossed $60,000 (Rs. 4.8 lakhs) per week.

At trade shows, parties and conventions, magicians are being paid fees as high as $2,500 (Rs. 20,000) a day. Professionals bring magic into the homes of millions through televisionand enrich themselves enormously in the process.

"Magic shops"-retailers who sell magicians' how-to books and the props and equipment needed for the tricks of the trade-are booming in all American cities. Books that promise all the knowledge of the ancients, as well as serious technical magazines such as Pallbearers Review which explain the mechanics of magic

in intricate detail, are being read avidly. The world's largest magic shop, Lou Tannen's in New York, is so crowded with customers that it's hard to find the salesmen who have proved adept, as Time magazine puts it, "at the special effect of separating onlookers from their money." Enrollment in magicians' societies is at an all-time high. Even adolescents are using up their pocket money to buy the tools and know-how to learn a trick or two.

Symbolic of the current upsurge of interest in the trade of the tricks is Broadway's The Magic Show. Star of the show is one of the most sensational magicians in America: 27-yearold Doug Henning (see photo), a man with a wispy frame, long hair and a wide grin, who performs the most unbelievable feats of illusion. He saws a woman in half, and the two 2..-

halves are wheeled about separately. Another woman disappears in sections; she is placed in a coffin and incinerated; when the flames are extinguished, only a skull and a few charred bones remain. A woman is put in a cage, covered with a cloth; the cloth is whipped off, revealing a growling mountain lion.

A double page of the New York Times is torn into fragments and brought together again, clean.and brand-new.

The Magic Show is not just a bag of tricks. It has been fitted into a comedy format with songs and a story line, provoking the New Yorker to observe that "a first-rate magician has everything to lose and nothing to gain from allowing himself to be encapsulated in a fifth-rate musicaL" What accounts for the magic boom? Films of mystery and ,SN. occultism such as The Exorcist, Rosemary's Baby and The Magician undoubtedly helped the boom, but do not explain it completely. Magicianhistorian Robert Lund calls it a "rebellion against science." Phil Thomas, founder of the Magic Dealers Association, says: "People are looking for a way to escape from their worries, and they find that magic takes them quickly into a fantasy world." Some see in the magic boom a sign that society is healthy-the sense of How do you cut a woman into three? American magician Doug Henning (left) shows how. wonder is alive.

0

by PETER BLAKE

PROGRESSW'AIrâ&#x20AC;˘ REPORT HI.

In Florida's famed Disney World, perhaps 'Tomorrowland' is not in the Magic Kingdom .amusement park but in the vast futuristic infrastructure that few tourists ever see: a sophisticated underground network of serviceand-utility systems; mass-transit facilities, propelled by nonpolluting fuels; and an electronic communications system that makes all of Disney World operate like some giant computer.

DIS' N'EY'S

In a great many respects, the most interesting new town in the United States is Walt Disney World, a 20-minute drive from Orlando, Florida .

It is interesting not only because it is huge-some 11,000 hectares-or because it is so unabashedly corny (that is, such really enormous fun). It is interesting also, or even primarily, for what it can teach every architect planner and urban designer about any number of things that may have escaped his or her attention in the past-to wit: â&#x20AC;˘ Walt Disney World is the first new town in the United States fully equipped from the very start with a fast, quiet, beautiful and efficient mass-transit system (the Alweg Monorail), plus addi-

WORLD' OF TOMORROW tional transportation systems including 200 ships (the ninth largest navy in the world), a railroad, electric carts and trains, and aerial tramways, none of them using polluting fuels. â&#x20AC;˘ Walt Disney World is the first new town in the United States to be constructed, in considerable part, on top of a service-andutility basement in which power and telephone lines, air ducts, garbage-disposal'vacuum tubes, water lines, and sewers are readily accessible from underground service tunnels that also accommodate electric trains (to distribute supplies to various specialpurpose areas below and above ground), and are further lined with such services as laundries, dry-cleaning establishments, storerooms, and employee cafeterias.

(Text continued on page 40.)

Above: An artist's conception of Disney World, spread over 11,000 hectares. Below right: A family enjoys a picnic at a lake near the amusement parle Below: A lightweight, all-steel "room" module is hoisted into place during the building of the 14-story Resort Hotel .

These modules were completely outfitted-walls covered, bath fixtures installed and lights ready to be "plugged in"-before they even reached the hotel. Opposite page: Entertainers don costumes {le/t} in Disney World's vast underground maze which houses myriads of automated systems like the pneumatic garbage disposal plant at right.

This article has b~en reprinted wuh permission from the ArchitecturaL Forum. Courtesy of Architecture Plus. Copyright Š Informat Publishing Corporation.

Disney World is becoming one of America's top tourist attractions-drawing a million visitors from around the world each month.

The heart of Disney World is the Magic Kingdom. A wonderful piece of unmitigated nonsense, the 40-hectare amusement park is divided into. six smaller slices of nonsense-Adventure/and, Main Street, Liberty Square, Frontier/and, Fantasy/and, and Tomorrow/and-each brimming over with surprises and fun. You can shop in a setting circa 1900, relive the adventures of Alice in Wonderland, step into Cinderella's Castle, watch laser-beamed holographic ghosts, take excitement-filled boat rides through the ruins of fake ancient temples (bottom right) or witness pirates setting a town ablaze (right). Of course there is the ubiquitous Mickey Mouse (opposite page), the Seven Dwarfs (below), and other famed Disney cartoon characters (bottom left), strolling all over the Magic Kingdom, greeting and delighting the visitors.

â&#x20AC;˘ Walt Disney World is also the first new town in the U.S. to set aside almost one-third of its total acreage to a spectacular conservation project-3,000 hectares of swamp-type jungle, inhabited by alligators, birds, snakes, bears, fish and exotic trees. â&#x20AC;˘ And, finally, Walt Disney World is the first new town in the United States with its own prefabrication plant that mass-produces steel-framed hotel-room modules, its own satellite communities (including an extraordinarily adventurous experimental town), its own, man-made, 80-hectare lake (complete with a surfmaking machine), and its own fleet of submarines-the fifth largest in the world, right after the United States, the U.S.S.R., Britain, and France!

Curiously enough, most of the 12,000 people who run Disney World so profitably and so well don't seem to realize how much they have accomplished in terms of urban technology, as well as urban psychology. They think they have built and are building the nicest Fun City to date, and they are absolutely right. But they have done a great deal more than produce a Super Amusement Park, and this story is an attempt to look behind the masks and the fun of Mickey Mouse Land, and to find out what all of us can learn from this century's greatest showman and pop artist, the late Walt Disney.

First comes the frosting on the cake-the 40-hectare amusement area that is the raison d'etre for all the rest: The Magic Kingdom [see pages 38-39]. The Magic Kingdom is divided into Adventureland, Frontierland, Fantasyland, Main Street, Liberty Square, and Tomorrowland!

The planned 'Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow' at Disney World will be a huge testing ground for new technologies and concepts representing the ultimate in urban planning and design.

What the designers of the Magic Kingdom did not, apparently, realize, is that the Tomorrowland they have created is, in fact, everywhere-though it does not always meet the eye. In the Magic Kingdom, for example, the real Tomorrowland is a vast service basement that no regular visitor ever sees-a huge "infrastructure" of the sort that all urban designers dream about, but few have ever been able to build. The real Tomorrowland is a network of mass transit facilities-trains, electric vehicles, skybuckets, etc., all propelled by nonpolluting fuels. And the real Tomorrowland is an electronic communications system that makes all of Walt Disney World operate like clockwork, a highly innovative power plant that supplies much of the' needed energy, and a great deal more.

Meanwhile, the part of the Magic Kingdom that does meet, and dazzle, the eye is also full of unexpected and intriguing insights into urban design. The scale of all the cute little fakefac;:adesis deliberately small-usually seven-eighths that of the real world at pedestrian level, and smaller as you go up, to create an illusion of greater height; the spaces formed by these fal;ades -the streets and squares-are also smaller than those of the automotive world, but very appropriate to the world of the pedestrian.

In addition to resilient asphalt walks, there are places to sit

and contemplate (even while lining up to watch those far-out, laser-beamed holographic ghosts in the Haunted Mansion, or to converse with the computerized, vinyl-clad 37 U.S. Presidents in an exhibit called "One Nation Under God"); and there are all the facilities and services to encourage and insure cleanliness-a sanitation man's dream.

The creators of the Magic Kingdom had to make some very logical decisions: The 11,000-hectare swamp they had bought had to be restructured to support anything more attractive than alligators. So the Magic Kingdom had to be built on top of some kind of elevated platform, if only to keep those alligators out of the streets. Building a vast service basement under the Magic Kingdom reduced the amount offill needed to prop up the amusement area, and produced as well an efficient support to service the activities above. This was badly needed, not only to house all the utilities and electronic nerves that serve the Magic Kingdom, but also to distribute people and equipment to the proper aboveground amusement areas.

Those Walt Disney World staffers who will reluctantly show a persistent inquirer around the Magic Kingdom's basement are apologetic, however. "These are just the works," they tell you.

"They really aren't very important."

Disney World is reached by car on broad expressways or by aircraft from Orlando, Florida. Leaving your car in one of several huge parking lots on the perimeter of the property, you buy a ticket and proceed by a number of transportation systems to your destination.

The most spectacular of these systems is the familiar Alweg Monorail~sleek, quiet and swift-which operates on a wide loop that links hotels and parking to the Magic Kingdom. In addition, Disney World is served by a steam-powered railroad, by electric carts, by boats, buses and submarines. Service roads are secreted among the artificial hills.

So far, only three hotels have been built in Walt Disney World.

The first of these is the 14-story Contemporary Resort Hotel; the second is the Polynesian Village; and the third is the ISO-room Golf Resort Hotel. Before long, there will be another three or four-among them one described as "strongly Thai in its motif," another as "Venetian," and a third as "Persian-style."

What makes the existing hotels really important, however, is that they were very largely prefabricated. U.S. Steel decided to build a plant in one of Disney World's industrial areas; and this plant has been turning out completely prefabbed, steel-framed, and thoroughly wired, plumbed, sprinkled, illuminated, furnished, carpeted, and otherwise acoustically treated modules.

These modules are the most visible examples of technological advance at Disney World. There are other examples, less visible, though perhaps more significant. For example, a combination of systems has been created to avoid or minimize air, water or thermal pollution.

They include an underground pneumatic tube system for trash; a modern incinerator that cleans its own stack emissions; a tertiary sewage treatment plant that removes 97 per cent of suspended solids; a "Living Farm" of trees and plants to filter waste water "naturally" after it leaves the sewage plant; and a gas-fired jet engine energy plant that recycles waste heat and uses it to cool many of the structures at Disney World.

The pneumatic garbage system (called AVAC) has 15 stations throughout the resort area and the Magic Kingdom. Disney World attendants take plastic trash bags from the conventional trash containers scattered throughout the area to the nearest

AVAC station, drop the bags into a seemingly bottomless pit, whence the bags are whisked away underground, at 96 kph, to a compaction plant at the edge of the Magic Kingdom.

After compaction, the garbage and other wastes are incinerated in a plant equipped with the most effective filters and wet scrubbers available. The scrubbers use waste water from a nearby tertiary sewage treatment plant, and this water is then recycled back to the plant. Some of the waste water is eventually channeled into the irrigation ditches of the so-called Living Farm.

At present, this Living Farm consists of about 40 hectares, which are fed by the waste treatment plant. It currently processes about 3,785,000 liters of waste water a day, but this is expected to increase to 37,850,000 liters daily as Disney World is further developed: Eventually, roads will be built through the Living Farm so that visitors may tour it.

The nearest thing in Disney World to a real town is the residential community of Lake Buena Vista, a development of highand low-rise structures that will cover 1,600 hectares and house 16,500 full- or part-time residents, and employ 4,000 others.

So far, Buena Vista has four high-rise hotel/motel buildings.

It also has a 20-bed hospital, linked to a major hospital in Orlando by closed-circuit TV, which enables Orlando's doctors to diagnose by remote control; and it has a 930-square-meter steel-and-glass administration building. An initial development, called the Golf Course Community, has started construction with 27 clustered, neatly planned and neatly designed row-houses (some of which may be operated, experimentally, on dry cell batteries that are a by-product of the Space Program at Cape Canaveral, 160 kilometers to the east). Eventually, there will be 2,500 housing units.

The pattern of other development may include homes in jungle cul-de-sacs, houses along the fairways, detached homes and waterfront clusters.

Buena Vista is significant and quite innovative in much of its planning. The governing idea, as elsewhere in Disney World, is that the visitor (or resident) arrives from the real world by car, and leaves it at a parking lot. From there, he. can proceed by electric cart or a similar, nonpolluting vehicle, or bike, or horse, to destinations within Lake Buena Vista.

Waterways at Disney World are useful drainage devices, of course; but at Buena Vista, as elsewhere, they double as charming transportation arteries, sometimes winding through untouched woods, in other places lined with row-house clusters, restaurants,

shops, beaches, golf courses and other recreational facilities.

Various kinds of water-borne craft are being investigated, including a floating shopping center, on barges.

The purpose of Disney World is to make money, and it's succeeding far beyond expectations. But the late Walt Disney had other things in mind besides making money: He wanted to use the tried and tested amusement park formula to finance some really significant experiments in areas of urban and suburban planning, and of conservation.

For if all that Disney had really wanted was to build another Disneyland in Florida, he could have done it on 100 hectares.

Instead, he bought more than a hundred times that much, for $5.5 million, and proceeded to use it to change a substantial portion of the surface of the globe-conceptually, ifnot quantitatively.

Central Florida's primary ecological concern is water. I~ the summer, 75 per cent of Disney World would be under water; in the dry season, 25 per cent. The goal was to make most of the dry-season areas dry all year around. To achieve this, a sophisticated drainage system was designed and built to keep threefourths of Disney World dry year round, without unduly lowering the water table and thus adversely affecting the total ecology of the area.

The water reclamation plan implemented in 1967involves 64 kilometers of canals, and an expenditure of $7 million. The canals curve so as to follow natural stream threads; when they. are properly grassed and mulched, they will look and function like natural rivers.

One of the most truly wonderful portions of Disney World that was thus protected is the 3,000-hectare wilderness area, about onethird of all of Disney World. It is a swamp-style jungle which contains 136 species of birds, 35 species of trees, and 13 species of ferns-and this is only the beginning. Many of Florida's wildlife species are seriously endangered; Wilit Disney wanted to create a refuge for them. Fred Harden, one of America's most enthusiastic and competent conservationists, is in charge of those 3,000 hectares. He's looking after a spectacular collection of red-cockaded woodpeckers, Florida black bears, deer, a Florida panther, dozens of alligators (some measuring six meters in length). Eventually, some of the wilderness area may become accessible to some visitors; but Disney's idea was to set aside this vast area for serious, ecological studies.

Conservation to Walt Disney, however, was only one side of the coin. The other side was the creation of a man-made environment that would engage and excite people just as much as the sight of a baby egret lining up in a rookery to learn how to fly. And so Disney proposed the creation of an "Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow." EPCOT will not be built for half a dozen years or so, and it will never be finished.

The truly extraordinary idea of EPCOT is that it will be a community in a constant state of change, always at least 25 years ahead of its time, in which new technologies and new life-styles can be tested in practice a generation before they are likely to come into common usage. EPCOT, in other words, will be a huge laboratory for the testing of urban systems and urban concepts. It will be a functioning community inhabited by 20,000 people and operating in the future-which, of course, in Disney World means today. D About the Author: Peter Blake is a former editor of the Architectural Forum magazine and curator of the department of architecture and design at the Museum of Modern Art, New York. He has published a number of books, including Master Builders and God's Own Junkyard.

FOOD PROCESSING:

THE INDUSTRY THAT FEEDS MULTITUDES

In this portable fish cannery, processing is completely automated-from heading, gutting and washing, to filleting, deboning and the final bagging.

I

n developing nations and economically advanced countries alike, food processing is one of the biggest and fastest growing industries today. It has to be. Because by the end of this century, it is estimated that there will be 6,000 million people crowding this earth.

Mounting demand on the world's food resources and the urgent need to conserve what is available has led to a search for improved food-processing machinery, for better equipment, supplies and services.

In the United States, one enterprising manufacturer has come up with a cheap and unique way to eliminate a universal problem -crop spoilage from field to factory. His idea: to bring the factory to the field. The product is a comparatively low-cost, selfcontained, packaged portable cannery, a 15.8 by 3.2-meter aluminum unit that can be moved by tractor trailer from site to site. It can be hooked up to water, electrical, and sewage systems within a few hours. The unit can process fruit, meat or vegetables in cans or jars at the rate of 1,000 to 2,000 containers a day.

Better food preservation is particularly important in the developing nations. According to an official of the U.S. Agency for International Development (AI D), modern processing techniques would allow farmers to save up to 60 per cent of perishable crops now wasted. In tropical climates, for instance,

Aseptic canning systems like the one above greatly prolong the shelf life of" heat.sensitive products. At right, girls in a Kerala shrimp-canning factory.

vegetables may spoil just one day after harvest. Speedy processing would ensure their edibility long into nongrowing seasons, cut transport losses; and provide food for urban "areas in sanitary, usable form.

AID estimates that a $1 increase in foreign trade has a greater economic impact on a developing nation than a $7 increase in foreign aid. Consequently more and more governments are encouraging export-oriented processing industries which use native produce to earn foreign exchange. Among the most promising of these industries is fish processing.

At a recent exhibition in Atlantic City, New Jersey, one show-stopper was a compact shrimp-peeling machine. Fully automated, it has a processirrg capacity of 300 kilograms of raw or cooked shri';lp an hour.

The preparation of virtually every edible species of fish has now been completely modernized. First comes the header, gutter, washer process; next, filleting (separation of flesh from bone); then, deboning (extracting up to 50 per cent of the meat formerly wasted); and finally, bagging. Today's fish plants can process about 11,000 kilograms per day, recovering up to 80 per cent for consumption.

Transport used to be a problem for all frozen food manufacturers.

If these foods were accidentally allowed to exceed certain temperatures for a prolonged period of time, the product was spoilt and often had to be re-

turned to the manufacturer.

Now, thanks to a tiny two-cent (16 paise) temperature-warning indicator, returns in the U.S. have dropped to nearly zero, saving thousands of dollars for happy manufacturers.

Another new and welcome product which cuts shipment damage costs is an invention called a pallet shrink wrap machine. This involves the shrinking of a plastic bag tightly over a wooden or flat cardboard pallet loaded with merchandise as varied as ice-cream, candy, beer, or spices. The plastic bag not only seals out dirt and moisture but prevents cargo shifting and breakage in long-distance shipping.

Yet another technique which came of age just this year is aseptic canning (photo above), though the principle was first discovered some 30 years ago. Experts call it the wa"ve of the future. It involves separate high-temperature, short-time sterilization of the product and its container. The greatest advantage of this process is that it allows canning of heat-sensitive foods. including most dairy products, and prolongs shelf life at room temperature.

Thus, aseptic canning is the only known process by which sour cream can gain a shelf life of from four to six months.

Spokesmen of the food-processing industry predict that if it maintains its current growth rate, the world will have no trouble in feeding the 6,000 million people expected on earth by the year 2000.

D

ON THE LIGHTER SIDE

"It's not what you know, it's who you know.

And who do I know? You! "

NEW HORIZONS IN INDO-U.S. TRADE

by STEPHEN DUNCAN-PETERS Counselor for Commercial Affairs, U.S. Embassy, New Delhi

An exciting development in Indo-U.S. trade is the use of link or barter deals between Indian and American businessmen. Why are they trying' this mechanism and what does it portend for the future? In a recent speech (excerpted below), delivered at the Institute of Marketing and Management, New Delhi, the author provides some answers. He expresses the view that link or barter deals will not change trade patterns, 'but they may open some doors that were closed.'

I would like to discuss some new endeavors being jointly undertaken by Indians and Americans to expand our mutual trade. I wil1do my best to explore what have been aptly described as the "New Horizons in Indo-U.S. Trade."

Let me warn you, however, that we will be exploring some new ground. We know what we want to achieve-the goals are visible enough-but we are not at all sure of just how we are going to reach our objectives. Anyway, before we talk of the future let us first examine the past and the present situations.

If plans for a promising future are to be realistic, they must be based upon our experiences of the past-so that we can avoid yesterday's errors and exploit today's prospects.

The United States is India's largest trading partner. Our 1969-73exports to you totaled $2.6 billion or Rs. 1,950 croresa very substantial amount indeed. But of this impressive total, we find that the U.S. Agency for International Development financed an estimated $1.2 bil1ion,PL 480 Title I and II shipments came to $685 million, while private donations (included in our export figures) added up to another $76 million. This means that 75 per cent of the total U.S. exports were ,\ctually subsidized

by U.S. agencies or individuals.

Political and economic developments in late 1971 and 1972 resulted in the ending of U.S. AID assistance and the use of PL 480 Title I subsidies. Those changes created a new picture and. led to a new relationship. Our commercial relationship changed from its earlier unnatural and undesirable dependence upon "artificial respiration" or "drugs"-in the form of grants and credit's-to a healthier and more natural condition of reliance upon bona-fide trade. Our commercial exports, that is, unsubsidized sales, rose from 22.0 per cent of our total exports to India in 1968 to 75.7 per cent in 1972.

In the meantime. India has not been idle. Your exports to America totaled $298 million, or Rs. 224 crores, in 1970. They have been rising steadily since then. In 1972 India had a record year of $427 million or Rs. 3I9 crores. You broke that record in 1973 when your sales in America rose by another $38 million to $465 million or Rs. 349 crores.

By this time you have had more than enough statistics but

let me add one more item to the menu-a small dessert you wil1notfin~ unpalatable. The 1974 data reads as follows: During the January-March period your exports to the U.S. attained the highest quarterly level on record, $132.7 million. This amount exceeded American exports to India, a modest $70.9 million, by a very commendable margin of $61.8 million. Your sales were 87 per cent higher than ours.

India's entry into the American market is no longer a question.

It is a happy reality. You are doing well but, despite your success, you stil1 account for only a fraction of one per cent of U.S. purchases from foreign markets. You can and should do better.

The future of Indian exports to the U.S. depends upon India.

The market is there and you are more than welcome. Meet its requirements-a demand for quality, reasonable prices, reliability of delivery-and India can double or redouble its exports to America.

Our situation, however, is more complicated. We have been utilizing all the accepted and tested promotion techniques applicable to India-trade missions, catalogue shows, technical seminars, panel discussions and industrial film presentations.

We initiated market research studies so that our staff could identify what American products were most needed. We quickly discovered that India needed-and wanted-a wide range of American-made capital goods: railroad equipment; powergenerating equipment; textile mill machinery. The list is much longer but these will serve because of the results they produced and the lessons they taught you and us.

Our market research was good. We discovered which U.S. products offered the best sales prospects and identified the principal end-users and dealers. The result was a very'successful U.S. Railroad Equipment Trade Mission in 1973. This year we had two U.S. trade missions, one specializing in textile mill machinery, the other in power-generating equipment. Both of these trade missions had new-to-market participants, al1 of whom achieved their primary objective-entry in the Indian market. But let me be frank-the sales results will be something less than spectacular.

These two trade mission visits uncovered a situation that

was new to India and new to the U.S. We both recognized that India had a great and urgent need for textile machinery and for power-generating equipment. We also agreed that American manufacturers could meet your needs in both instances. Your industrialists and technicians want and prefer American equipment because it is technically advanced, reliable, available andequally important-competitively priced. The question confronting the Indian importers and the American suppliers was not one of desire to trade-but of means. They both want to trade.

But how can they overcome the primary inhibiting factorIndia's limited foreign exchange resources?

We knew there were limitations but had not and could not have anticipated that an oil crisis would arise between the time we had completed our market research and the mounting of trade missions to India. The foreign exchange which the Indian Government would have spent on power-generating equipment or on the modernization of your textile mills was no longer available. It would have to be diverted to an even more essential import-oil.

Indian and American businessmen turned to the American Embassy in New Delhi to help them solve this problem-if we could.

We in the American Embassy were suddenly confronted with something difficult, confusing and novel. We had two choices. Do nothing and risk letting the Indian market go by default to those of our competitors who use rupee trade or barter arrangements; or accept the challenge and find some altern'ative solutions.

We selected the active, positive alternative, fully aware of the risks involved. We have decided to test the link trade market. We have set aside all preconceived economic notions and have begun to consider options which-only six months ago-we would have regarded as unthinkable. As one Indian industrialist advised us, we decided to forget that money was ever invented and to proceed from there.

Let me pause here for a moment to stress a very important point. The U.S. is not going to scrap free trade nor are we going

to revolutionize our trade promotion techniques or discard the existing, productive and tested methodologies. We are simply trying to find a solution for some specific problems.

The task we have set ourselves is formidable. We have already encountered doubt and disbelief. Some American businessmen and others have questioned our judgment, if not our sanity.

We have assured them that what they instinctively envisioned as untried and/or radical is neither novel nor revolutionary.

The first historian, Herodotus, wrote about the barter trade of the Phoenicians some 2,500 years ago. Its basic techniques have remained valid over all those centuries. We also observed that about one-fifth of the world's foreign commerce today is conducted under barter or analogous trade agreements of one kind or another. Finally, we pointed out that we have undertaken this task of necessity and not by choice. We would welcome easier solutions-but !;lone were offered.

We recognize that new problems will have to be met and overcome. The Indian exporters must be prepared to institute quality control techniques in their production if they are to' meet the demanding U.S. standards. The American exporters must, in turn, meet the Indian specifications. Prices in both cases must be competitive enough to be attractive. Inspection and, if need be, impartial arbitration arrangements must be agreed upon in advance in both countries. Delivery schedules must be synchronized to the extent feasible. The banks involved, whether American or Indian, must also find these transactions reasonably remunerative; otherwise their indispensable credits and services will not be made available.

This is not a substitute for free trade, but it is a feasible and acceptable alternate foreign trade arrangement. It is not going to revolutionize trade or change its patterns, but it may open some doors that were closed. It may give a few firms, now unable to move, a flexibility and hope where little or none existed before.

We have no guarantee it will work, but it is worth a major effort on our part. If we don't succeed now, we will persevere and try again learning as we go and improving our techniques.

We are also investigating trilateral link deals and deferred payment arrangements whereby an Indian manufacturer imports machinery and pays for it over a five- to seven-year period through export earnings made by the production of the machinery imported. This is being discussed with Indian officials who have shown active interest in its utilization.

All of these efforts are designed to do one thing. To enable Indian and American industry to exchange their respective products and to help each meet their individual needs. We will simply serve as marriage brokers and hope that our efforts will result in happy and fruitful commercial marriages. We will merely introduce and stop there. The rest-prices, terms and other arrangements-will be left to the companies concerned to implement as they deem best.

In summation, we are blazing a "new trail" in Indo-U.S. trade, but it is a trail that will exist in addition to-and not in lieu of-the existing and proven trade promotion routes. As in the past, we will continue to encourage the entry of new companies, Indian as well as American, into our trade pattern.

We will also encourage American companies to invest in India when their products or technology or services are acceptable to the Government of India. We recognize that we do not have all the answers, so we will continue to welcome advice and suggestions from the Indian business community, from academic, and from any other knowledgeable sources willing to help us find ways and means of expanding trade between our two cou~ri~.

0

~IHAVE SEEN THE PASTAND IT WORKS!' To celebrate the 200th anniversary of the first Continental Congress of the American colonies, the U.S. House of Representatives invited the distinguished BBC commentator Alistair Cooke to address them. In his speech-excerpts from which appear below-Cooke warns Americans that they should not turn the nation's Bicentennial celebrations into 'an orgy of self-righteousness' or sentimentalize their history but should simply 'celebrate what is best in the American past.'

We are met in what I take to be the first official celebration of the Bicentennial by the U.S. Congress to applaud the men who met in Philadelphia in September 1774 in response to many indignities, mainly, I think, to the military occupation of Boston and the monstrous (and, as it turned out, fateful) blunder of the British Parliament in closing the Port of Boston. This is an action which Englishmen, to this day, think of as being not particula.rly unreasonable, until you ask them to wonder how they would feel if the Congress of the United States were to close the Port of London.

They were, as we have been told, a very mixed bunch of aggrieved men. We tend to see them as a body of blue-eyed, selfless patriots all .at one in their detestation of tyranny. But I doubt that the present Congress spans so wide a political gamut.

They ranged from hide-bound radicals to bloodshot conservatives. There were, of course, many disinterested men fighting for a principle. But there were also shrewd businessmen who saw, in a possible break with England, a gorgeous opportunity to ally with Spain and control all trade east as well as west of the Appalachians.

But-and it will be worth saying over and over in the next two years-the lovers of liberty carry no national passport.

This seems to me a good time to recall some unsung heroes of the American Revolution who sat not in Philadelphia but in the House of Commons, some of them who jeopardized their careers by taking the colonists' side: Henry Seymour Conway, who carried through the repeal of the Stamp Act; General John Burgoyne, himself to be -the invasion commander, who raised a storm by urging Parliament to convince the colonies "by persuasion and not by the sword"; the sailor Johnstone, once the Governor of Florida, who warned the House of Commons that what it was doing would provoke a confederacy and a general revolt (a flash of foresight that made the Government benches rise and tell him he had "brought his knowledge of America to the wrong market"); and most of all, Edmund Burke, who got a respectful hearing oil anything and everything until he rose to refute the argument that if the citizens of Boston

were taxed without representation, they were no worse off than the citizens of Manchester. Burke replied: "So, then, because some towns in England are not represented, America is to have no representative at all? They are our children, and when they wish to reflect the best face of the parent, the countenance of British liberty, are we to turn to them the shameful part of our Constitution?"

He was booed to the rafters.

Now, by recalling these trans-Atlantic heroes of the Revolution, I wish only to suggest the dangers that lie ahead, and that have lain in the past, in our tendency, especially in the movies and in television and in too many school books, to sentimentalize our history or to teach it as a continual clash between the good guys and bad guys, between America and Britain, the White man and the American Indian, industry and labor, between us and them.

Now, practical men usually distrust history-Henry Ford said it was "the bunk"-as a false guide, and they are right if we think that anything ever repeats itself in the same way. It is, rather, the tendency of history to repeat itself in every way but one, and the new element is unfortunately and usually the only one that matters.

So, it is a normal impulse in men of action to distrust history because it is done with. Americans are all activists in the sense that they have always believed that tomorrow is going to be at least as good as today, and certainly better than yesterday.

Nothing could be more American than the famous remark of Lincoln Steffens after he visited the Soviet Union: "I have seen the future and it works."

Bertrand Russell saw the same future at the same time, and what he saw was the past in a new guise, and it chilled his blood.

But then Russell had a passion for human liberty and he could smell tyranny even when he couldn't see it. Steffens, on the other hand, was a reporter of a type not yet extinct-a reporter who believed everything he was told.

We are about to launch ourselves on a two-year festival of commemoration of the American past. And from the early

promises of some chambers of commerce, television producers, motel proprietors, and the maI)ufacturers of buttons and medals, it could turn into an orgy of self-righteousness.

By sentimentalizing our history we do, most of all, an enormous disservice to the young. We imply or proclaim that the United States was invented by saints with a grievance. Now any perceptive 12-year-old knows from his own experience of life that this is nonsense, and any perceptive five-year-old from her experience in life. So, they transfer their healthy suspicions from the teacher to what is being taught and conclude that American history is a great bore.

We are also undoubtedly going to be plunged, through the TV tube, into a public bath of immigrants, all of whom will be warm-hearted, simple, courageous and abused. But it would do no harm to young Americans-it ought, rather, to fortify their ideals-to learn that many a shipload of immigrants from 1848 into our own time contained also men jumping military service, and delinquents, both adult and juvenile: a lot of people with a lot to hide. This does not demean; indeed, to me it glorifies the legions who struggled for a decent and tidy life. To know this will only confirm the daily experience of many young people growing up today in a community of mixed natiohal and racial origins. It seems to me that by such teaching of the truth -of the way it was-in all its maddening complexity, they might learn early on the simple lesson that courage and cowardice know no national frontiers or racial frontiers, and that when we say a man or woman is a credit or discredit to their race, we should mean no more or less than the human race.

Now, I think it is good and proper that in 1976 we should celebrate what is best in the American past. But we should remember that our history, like that of aILnations, is sometimes fine and sometimes foul. The important thing is to know which is which.

For if we accept at any given time the inevitable complexity of human motives and desires that make up the past, and the present, there is no need to fear. But some people say: "Won't a strong dose of reality disillusion the idealism of the young?"

It is the same question that a member of the Constitutional Convention put to James Madison when he said that good government could only be based on "ambition counteracting ambition." Was he saying, asked a mocking delegate, that "the frailties of human nature are the proper elements of good government?' , Madison replied, "I know no other." That simple sentence reflects Madison's unsleeping sense of reality and his ability to get the Convention to set up a system that hopes for the best in human nature, but is always on guard against the worst.

That is what I believe has guaranteed the survival of the U.S. Constitution as a hardy and practical instrument of government.

So I suggest that we would be making a foolish spectacle of ourselves if we spent the Bicentennial year proclaiming to a bored world that we are unique and holier than anybody, for today national sovereignty is a frail commodity. Today we and Western Europe are faced in common with a triple threat to representative government. For the first time since the 15th century our cities are threatened by the success of violence. For the first time since the 1920s our countries are threatened by an unstoppable inflation. And. for the first time in human history our planet is threatened by an unstopped nuclear arms race.

We are very much in the parlous situation of the Thirteen Colonies. We don't have much time, if any, to think of ourselves

as separate nations whose fate is in our hands. Franklin's warning is apt: "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

More and more we and many more nations are, as the Bible warned us, "members one of another."

I think that honest persons who are concerned for the reputation .of this country abroad had much cause for misgiving in the past year or two, when our image was rendered alarming to free men by the gradual growth in the executive branch of government-and it began at least a dozen or 14 years ago-of a kind of domestic Politburo, which in the end, in its malignant form, was indifferent to the Congress and contemptuous of the people and the law.

But then, through the gloom that lay on this city, there came a strong beam of light, and it came from this House.

Nothing that I can remember has redeemed, in Europe anyway, the best picture of America, which is always the one that ordinary men and women want to believe in, more than the recent public sessions-and how fortunate it was that they were public -of your Judiciary Committee.

Here after a welter of truth and possible truth and rumor and hearsay, we saw and heard 38 men and women debating, with sense and dignity and seriousness, the most dire threat to the constitutional system since 1860. And so long as the standing committees of Congress remember that they are standing in for nobody but the people, the state of the Constitution, I think, will be sound. And just so long will the Executive be ~'the servant and not the proprietor of the people."

So it seems to me a happy thing, and enough of a celebration for today, at any rate, that 200 years after the First Congress met as a team of watchdogs eager to corner a tyrannical executive, this House should have made it possible for us today to say, without complacency, and with some legitimate pride: "I have seen the past-and it works!"

0 About the Author: For nearly four decades, Alistair Cooke has been interpreting America for British newspapers and radio audiences. The United States was his base as a journalist, and his weekly BEC broadcast, "Letter from America," has been running longer than any radio program in history. His crowning achievement, however, was a 13~part television series- "America: A Personal History"-which was first shown in 1972. Cooke roamed 160,000 kilometers from the rockbound coast of Maine to the sunlit beaches of California to put together this history of his adopted land. (He was born in England, but became a U.S. citizen in 1941.) Co-produced by BBC and Time-Life Films, the series dramatizes the sweep of American history from Columbus to Cape Canaveral. Lavishly praised as one of the wittiest, most passionate and 'beautifully photographed in-depth portraits of America, it has won 18 international awards and has been called

by Newsweek "the first and perhaps the finest gift to the nation for its 200th birthday." Earlier this year, the U.S. Information Service sponsored screenings of this film series in India and plans to show the films again sometime iil 1975.

On th~ occasion of Alistair Cooke's address to the U.S. Congress on September 25, 1974, Representative Joseph McDade of Pennsylvania said: "He is perhaps a more sensitive interpreter of the American experience because unlike many of us and like so many of our forefathers, he was not born an American but chose to become one."

TOURING AMERICA

BOSTON

Tire Boston market (top) does business much the same way as it did 250 years ago.

Above: The statue of American patriot Paul Revere at the city's Old North Church.

Writing his American Notes in 1842, Charles Dickens said of Boston: "The city is a beautiful one, and cannot fail ... to impress all strangers very favorably." The impressions are many and varied-the bustle of Boston's markets (above), Harvard students sailing on the Charles River, the monuments and public buildings that reveal Boston's history.

Tourists are descending on Boston now more than ever before as America prepares to celebrate her Bicentennial, for Boston was one of the cradles of American independence. It is also a cradle of American culture-a city richly endowed with churches, universities, museums, theaters, and literary landmarks. In spite of its venerable history, Boston seems to get "younger and spunkier every decade," observed one visitor, "seems to get more like it must have been when its citizens hosted a famous 'tea party' in 1773." (See painting overleaf.)

On week-ends, students of Harvard and other universities of Greater Boston sail on the Charles River (above), which flows into historic Boston harbor.

THE BOSTON (TEA PARTY" On December 16, 1773, a band of Massachusetts patriots disguised as Red Indians boarded British merchant ships in Boston harbor and dumped their cargo of tea overboard as a protest against British mercantilism. This dramatic "happening" came to be known as the Boston "tea party," which resulted in Great Britain's closingthe port of Boston to commerce, one of a series of events leading to the American Revolution. The painting above is by Harold Yon Schmidt.