THOUGHTS ON NATION'S BICENTENNIAL

Mr. MAHON. I have just a few additional questions that I would like to ask you, Admiral, before we adjourn. I wonder if you have any thoughts on the Nation's Bicentennial?

Admiral RICKOVER. I do, Mr. Chairman. I feel the Bicentennial should be more than just celebrations and visits to historic battlefields. It is an excellent occasion for Americans to reread the history of our Revolutionary period and to rediscover the thinking and philosophy that underscored the colonists' actions. And in view of the turmoil our Government has gone through in recent years, it is also an appropriate time to renew the commitment of responsible citizenship that the early patriots had.

Remember the philosophy current at that time. Philosophers of the Age of Reason thought that if man only became sufficiently rational the perfect state would emerge. Coupled with this belief was a belief in what the Declaration of Independence referred to as "the laws of Nature and of Nature's God." This philosophy was so well known and thought of in America during the second half of the 18th century that the section immediately following the preamble in the Declaration of Independence began with the words "We hold these truths to be selfevident."

The truths that were held to be self-evident turned out to be an enduring inspiration to all mankind. "Nature's law" was, of course, neither law nor a product of nature; but it was a dream to be fought for. A crucial element of this dream was the assertion that as rational creatures, possessing the God-given capacity to learn and to reason, men also possessed the inherent right to select their own form of government and, in general, to determine their own fate. Time has elevated these principles of the Revolution above the event itself; the history of the United States can be seen as a record of what has been done toward affording all citizens the "unalienable rights" of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Another philosophy of the 18th century also figured in a revolution— the French Revolution. This philosophy had common roots with the philosophy prevalent in America. Both had a basis in the equation that bound liberty with reason and virtue. Virtue was simply defined as conformity to a hoped-for pattern of social harmony. The split in philosophies came about because of the inevitable conflict between virtue and liberty.

In the American experience, liberty was preeminent. Force, except as a means toward independence, was not employed to mold people into a preconceived social and political mold. Tolerance of differences, and a give and take in politics was a result. But the French revolutionary experience leaned toward virtue. The totalitarianism represented by the guillotine was an exclusive doctrine formulated by an enlightened vanguard who justified themselves in the use of coercion against those who refused to be free and virtuous.

We see today in many countries descendants of these two philosophies. In the liberal democracy of the West, liberty still retains some of its old meaning. Politics is assumed to be a matter of trial and error; political systems are considered pragmatic contrivances of human ingenuity and spontaneity. Society recognizes a variety of

levels of personal and collective endeavor, which are altogether outside the sphere of politics.

The totalitarian democracy, on the other hand, is based upon the assumption of a sole and exclusive truth in politics. Its premise is a preordained, harmonious, and perfect scheme of things. It recognizes ultimately only one plane of existence the political-and it widens the scope of politics to embrace the whole of human existence. Both systems affirm the supreme value of liberty. One system finds liberty in spontaneity and the absence of coercion; the other believes it to be realized only in the pursuit and attainment of an absolute collective purpose. In the second system, liberty is conceived as a set of values and not merely as the absence of constraint.

There is a third system of government in the world today which may have no basis in philosophy at all-the totalitarian dictatorship. It often has no goal except the maintenance of order, but like the totalitarian democracy, it cannot admit oppositi. It surrounds itself with enemies even if no credible enemies exist. And it relies on terror for protection of orthodoxy. Both totalitarian systems are incompatible with liberty and freedom as we know them.

I outline these philosophies of government because it is important to know not only how the United States developed 200 years ago, but what it can develop into in the future. The welfare state, toward which all Western liberal democracies are tending, has in it the seeds of totalitarianism. If the people give, in addition to political power, total economic power to their government, then their economic welfare becomes inextricably tied to the fortunes of the government. In this situation, the distinction between the absolutist and empirical attitude toward politics becomes even more vital than before. The give and take of liberal democratic politics is threatened when it is tied to an economic system that is threatened. It is possible that the people may acquiesce in a loss of their political freedom if they are made to believe such a course will save their economic security.

INDIVIDUAL IS KEY TO PROGRESS

Mr. MAHON. Of course, some people feel that laws and public servants can cure all of the country's ills, and that they need only give government the requisite tools, or power, to do the job.

Admiral RICKOVER. I have heard that theory also, Mr. Chairman. But the trouble is that the endless proliferation of government can lead to an advance f authoritarianism that would destroy freedom. What Saint-Just had to say on power is appropriate: "Power is so cruel and evil that if you release it from its inertia, without giving it a direction, it will march straight on to oppression."

The lesson for the concerned citizen is clear. It is a harsh truth that human society and human life can never reach a state of repose. That imagined repose is another name for the security offered by a prison, and the longing for it may in a sense be an expression of cowardice and and laziness. Freedom is not one of "Nature's laws." It is something that is earned, a right that comes only to those who have accepted their responsibilities as citizens. People who let others care for them and their security soon become subjects of one man or one omnipotent system.

Today many people take job security and big pay increases every year for granted. Special interest groups of all kinds no longer hesitate to challenge government policies, and they worry little about the damage they do to the economy. Their demands that rising expectations be met by governments of limited capabilities create strains that lead to radical solutions. Citizens who view such solutions with concern need to become involved in the system so as to insure that responsibilities are met before the new so-called rights can be granted.

In ancient Athens, a man who was concerned with himself alonein Greek, ideos-was called idiotes, an ignorant person, whence the modern word idiot is derived.

It was in this spirit that Pericles said: "We alone regard a man who takes no part in public affairs not as a harmless but a useless character." This does not mean that in today's world everyone can be a legislator or a public leader. But everyone can make his individual views known and lend his personal influence to causes in which he believes. This most basic of citizen responsibilities should not be forgotten; indeed, it is neecssary to instill it in our youth. Certainly, it is natural to slumber after victory. But America's greatness is not self-perpetuating. It can be lost faster than it took to win it. We have fared well, and we have prospered for two centuries under our present basic system of government and our bounteous land. It is part of our responsibility to make certain that our young people understand what is at stake if our democratic institutions give way to other processes of government.

Abraham Lincoln, in January 1838, spoke of the results when the citizenry renounces the practice of its sovereign judgment and abandons itself to that slow erosion of responsibility which turns citizens into subjects:

At what point then is the approach of danger to our American institutions to be expected? I answer, if it is ever to reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from above. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be the author and finisher. As a nation of free men, we must live through all time or die by suicide.

Truth withers when freedom dies, however righteous the authority that kill is it. Commitment to that ideal has been the great American consensus. It would be a great achievement, Mr. Chairman, if the Bicentennial could instill in all Americans a goal to preserve that freedom for the generations of citizens to come.

THE IMPORTANCE OF READING

Mr. MAHON. It would indeed be a great achievement, and something worth working toward in the next year.

Some of the points you made about the different philosophies of government demonstrate to me that your reputation as a voracious reader is well deserved. Would you care to comment on why you believe reading is important?

Admiral RICKOVER. Yes, sir. You must remember first that, as a reader, man is unique among living things. The ability to read—and more broadly, the ability to express complex ideas through languagedistinguishes us from all other life forms. Without language, complex thought is inconceivable and the mind is undeveloped. The inability to speak and write imprisons thought. In the same vein, sloppy, im

precise thinking begets sloppy, imprecise language. Language and thought are interconnected, and the written word is the vehicle which best advances both.

Therefore, I count reading, and its associated skill, writing, among the most significant of all human efforts. Good writing after all, is simply the result of enormous reading, detailed research, and careful thought. It seems to me that these kindred skills should be developed and nourished from the very first, if man is to assume his most important responsibility: intellectual development. The younger the reader, the better. When you are young, your mind is sharp and penetrating. The books I read when I was 7 or 8 are not forgotten after 60 or 70 years, while those I read after I was 20 I remember incompletely. Of course, that is one great advantage of growing older-that you forget some of the things you read and therefore can read them again as though you had never read them before.

The wonderful thing about books is that remembered or not, a book, once read, enlarges and enriches the individual in a permanent way, by opening up the sluices of his mind. In a sense, books represent the triumph of the indiviual in a mass technological society. A book is the fruit of an individual's labor. It is often concerned with particular characters, and it is read by individuals.

Technology, on the other hand, finds expression in mass media-in television, journalism, and cinema. Mass media conspires against the highly personal act of reading. Now the question is, can words compete? Can literature, above all literature in the form of books, continue as the primary source of imaginative experience? The majority of the public appears more interested in various forms of ecstatic experience and is less and less interested in the traditional notions of literature. The schools provide little relief from a saturation bombardment of images and sounds which virtaully assures intellectual passivity in all but the strongest. Some teachers go so far as to claim that reading and written expression are outmoded, that logic is pretentious, that visual means alone are an adequate source of knowledge. The fact of the matter is, a more discriminating use of educational technology and the restoration of good books and reading to their essential roles would do a great deal to enrich the lives of students. Moreover, it would be considerably less expensive than the gimmicks and gadgets which are so fashionable in educational circles today.

The ease with which some have supposedly established the superiority of the visual over the mental is not surprising, but it deprives those who seek to share the very best of what our civilization has to offer. We are the heirs of Plato and Homer and the Bible. I do not believe we can or should try to shed this rich, literary tradition.

Mr. MAHON. Can the decline of reading be due to intellectual laziness?

Admiral RICKOVER. In some respects, it is. Television is easier to absorb than the subtleties of a finely written book. And whereas the mass media mold and shape man in the mass image, in reading, the individual asserts himself. In the one activity, man is acted upon, is passive. In the other activity, man is active. This is one reason reading is so important. With television, for instance, your imagination is not required to work. The value of literature is that its way of using

the imagination is unique. In reading, we invent, or reinvent and reimagine the characters and situations we read about.

This makes reading and writing more difficult than the visual activities of the mass media, which may account for the latter's current prominence. It is easy to watch TV. Writing, however, is neither easy nor natural. Nobody dashes off good prose; it comes from the most intense concentration. The genius who composes a masterpiece in a month is a legend. But even bad writers work unbelievably hard. And yet the good writer achieves what television never can: Good writing is that which penetrates the mind with facility and quits the memory with great difficulty. This clarity is the essence of a classic. The secret of a great book is that it is completely limpid, like a glass of water. Books exercise immense power and influence upon both the individual and society. Writing gives people who have no political platform a public voice with which to speak. Of course, there is no necessary correlation between a book's influence and its popularity. Toynbee's "Study of History," for instance, was a best seller without influence. Montesquieu and Marx, on the other hand, were scarcely read, yet their thought changed the world. Reading, therefore, is not only a personal act, it is also an act of historical imagination and cultural assimilation. Books are the glue of the society and our principal connection with the past. As such, they fulfill an essential social function. Despite all the talk today about the irrelevance of literature, it is precisely the man of letters who sets forth the standards by which his contemporaries distinguish between the false and the true. Modern man might well burn in the fires of his own hell were it not for the man of letters who, far from being irrelevant, is the prophet and healer of modern times.

I am an avid reader because, selfishly perhaps, I am thirsty for good ideas cast in the precision of fine writing. My time is limited; my life is not so long that I can afford to spend precious hours in trivial pursuits when there are so many good books yet to be read. A collect from the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer exhorts us to read, mark, learn and inwardly digest. Through this act, I believe, men achieve what Sir Francis Bacon called the suavissima vita, the most agreeable life in which a person feels himself become better day by day.

I am reminded of Seneca's remark that illiterate pleasure is a form of death—a living tomb. I read, Mr. Chairman, because I am renewed by literature.

Mr. MAHON. The fact that you are still coming up here every year to testify before this committee is evidence that something is keeping you renewed.

Admiral RICKOVER. Someone once said that books are the wellspring of life. I find that to be true.

THE AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM

Mr. MAHON. You mentioned that books are not emphasized as much in the schools. I know you have been interested in education for many years. Do you still hold your view that the American educational system is in a state of disrepair?