CONTENTS Henry Steele Commager, professor of history, Amherst College ... - Biographic sketch of Mr. Commager_ "Bomb Pause Argument Challenged," letter to the editor of the New "What Is Our Commitment in Vietnam," chapter from Freedom and Order (New York: George Braziller, 1966), by Henry Steele III CHANGING AMERICAN ATTITUDES TOWARD FOREIGN POLICY MONDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1967 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 318, Old Senate Office Building, Senator J. W. Fulbright (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Fulbright, Morse, Gore, Clark, Pell, McCarthy, Carlson, and Case. Also present: Senator McGee. Senator FULBRIGHT. The committee will come to order. The Committee on Foreign Relations this morning is holding the third in its series of public hearings on the broad theme of the responsibilities of the United States as a great power. Our guest today is Prof. Henry Steele Commager, of Amherst, whom we have invited to speak on the subject of "Changing American Attitudes Toward Foreign Policy," examining in particular the historical background which has shaped U.S. foreign policy and the ways in which Americans are responding to our new role in the world. In order to place our overall theme in historical focus during today's session, we have asked for the assistance of one of our Nation's most celebrated scholars in the field of American history. Professor Commager's qualifications and experience are beyond question; it would take a long time to list the titles of all his publications and all the academic degrees and honors he has earned. Let me say only that he trained primarily at the University of Chicago and has been a distinguished occupant of chairs in history at N.Y.U., Columbia University, Amherst College and Oxford and Cambridge Universities, and Uppsala University. Beyond that, he has been either a visiting professor or lecturer at various universities in at least ten foreign lands, ranging from Denmark to Chile, Sweden, and Israel. Realizing that the above recital will not necessarily establish Professor Commager's respectability in a few quarters, I should add that he was a notable contributor to Winston Churchill's "History of the English Speaking Peoples." The reason for linking him with that great man of action may be found in Mr. Commager's own words about late 19th century Americans, where he states: "No people was more avid of college degrees, yet nowhere else were intellectuals, held in such contempt or relegated to so inferior a position; and in America alone the professors invariably long haired and absent mindedwas an object of humor." We have undoubtedly changed in 80 years, but perhaps not enough. 1 BROAD AND INTANGIBLE SUBJECT We have asked Professor Commager to tackle a broad and rather intangible subject. It is never easy to determine public attitudes in a country as large and diverse as ours, and it is particularly difficult in the area of foreign policy. But I know of no one better fitted for the task than the author of "The American Mind: An Interpretation of American Thought and Character Since the 1880s," a work which has been justly acclaimed as continuing and standing beside Vernon Parrington's great study on that theme. At the same time, I would stress the point that these hearings are designed not to bring quick and pat answers to simple questions, but to identify and illuminate some of the major problems which confront us as a people. It is because we are trying to stimulate public thought and discussion rather than establish a consensus that we have termed these hearings educational in the broadest sense. Professor Commager, we are very honored and pleased indeed that you have been able to come today and share your wisdom with this committee. (The biographic sketch of Mr. Commager follows:) BIOGRAPHY: PROFESSOR HENRY STEELE COMMAGER Dr. Commager is professor of history and American studies at Amherst College, and the author and editor of a great range of books and documents on American history. He is considered by many to be the dean of American historians. He was born at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in 1902. He received the degrees of Ph. B., A.M. and Ph. D. from the University of Chicago and did graduate work at the University of Copenhagen. Professor Commager, who is the recipient of numerous honorary degrees, also has M.A. degrees from Oxford and Cambridge Universities and has held visiting professorial chairs at both institutions. His main teaching posts have been at New York University (1926-38), Columbia University (1939-56) and Amherst College (1956 to present). Often under State Department auspices, he has also taught in Germany, Israel, Italy, Trinidad, France, Chile, Mexico, Sweden and Denmark, as well as in England. Professor Commager went to Britain for the War Department and the Office of War Information in 1943. He also fulfilled other advisory assignments for the War Department, notably as a member of the Department's Commission on the History of the War. His numerous writings include: The Growth of the American Republic (with Samuel Morison). Our Nation (with E. C. Barker). The Heritage of America and America, the Story of a Free People (with A. Nevins). Majority Rule and Minority Rights. The Blue and the Gray (2 vols.). The American Mind. Living Ideas in America. Europe and America since 1492 (with G. Bruun). The Great Declaration (with R. B. Morris). The Spirit of Seventy-Six (2 vols.), etc. STATEMENT OF HENRY STEELE COMMAGER, PROFESSOR OF HISTORY, AMHERST COLLEGE Mr. COMMAGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and members of the Foreign Relations Committee, I trust it is clear, as Senator Fulbright has said, that I do not come here as an expert in American foreign policy, and certainly not as an expert in or even very knowledgeable about Far Eastern or southeast Asia policy. My own studies have been almost wholly in American and European intellectual history. Your chairman has asked me to come here to talk about a broad, almost an amorphous, subject, "American Attitudes Toward Foreign Policy," and Mr. Chairman, you must indulge me. therefore, if in response to your mandate I submit somewhat broader historical generalizations than I would myself tolerate in a graduate student. In a sense, Mr. Chairman, the task you have assigned me is more difficult than that which you imposed on my distinguished predecessors, precisely because it is so vague and general. And because it is not given to anyone to know the mind of his fellow men, have no doubt but what I give you here is with the best intentions in the world. rather my own interpretation of some attitudes toward American foreign policy than any résumé of the attitudes of Americans, past and present. UNITED STATES AS AN ASIAN POWER First, I should like to say a word about this matter of the United States as a world power-perhaps more particularly about the United States as an Asian power-which has attracted so much attention of late. The word "power" is an awkward and even a dangerous one, for it is used in two ways and it is almost fatally easy to confuse the two uses. It is clear that the United States has immense power anywhere on the globe it chooses to use it. But it is by no means clear that the United States is, therefore, a world Power-that is spelled, you will note, with a capital P-nor does it follow that we should wish to be a world power. If you have the strength and do not care overmuch about consequences, it is easy enough to exercise power, but to be a Power is a very different thing, and it is a very difficult thing. I do not think the United States is prepared to be a Power everywhere in the Western Hemisphere, in Europe, in Asianor do I think we should wish to exercise power everywhere. There have been, in the long course of history, many nations that regarded themselves, and always with some justification, as world powers, but there has never been a nation that could, in fact, exercise power everywhere on the globe; neither one whose word to use Secretary Olney's phrase whose word was fiat everywhere it chose to exercise it. POWER HAS ITS LIMITATIONS What impresses me most about power-we are not talking here about the intellectual and moral power exercised by such peoples as the Athenians or the Jews or, in modern times the English and the Scandinavians-what impresses me most are the limitations on the effective use which those who possess it can make of it. I am sure that all of us are familiar with the limits of power on homely and domestic levels. A marriage where husband or wife ascertain and use all of their lawful powers is headed for the rocks. Parents doubtless have great legal and material power over their children until they are 21 years of age, but any parent who imposes his will on his older children by the overt exercise of power is very shortsighted. Boards of regents and trustees may have extensive powers over presidents and faculties of universities, but the quickest way for them to wreck a great university is for them to indulge recklessly in that power. To consider the matter |