That possibility sounds like scare talk. Some will dismiss it as
apocalyptic nonsense. But things have been happening in this country that
I would not have believed when I came to Washington sixteen years and four
Presidents ago. I have seen a President and his brother, a presidential
candidate, murdered by assassins. I have seen the Capitol of the United
States blasted by explosives on one occasion, and ringed by arson fires on
another. I have circled our national monuments in an airplane carrying the
Vice President of the United States and watched the tears in his eyes as
he saw the magnificent capital city set to the torch by its black
residents, venting their rage and frustration at the murder of Martin
Luther King, Jr. Time and again, I have heard from the Capitol, and lately
even from the White House, powerful men speak as if they did not
understand that unless we obliterate the tragic heritage of slavery, it
will obliterate us.
I have seen speakers shouted down and heckled into silence by student mobs
at our oldest university, and I have seen police in a dozen cities use
their clubs with savage delight on the heads and arms and backs of
peaceful demonstrators.
Above all, I have heard the conversations of hundreds of average
Americans, who see their world, their plans, their hopes crumbling, and do
not know where to turn. I cannot forget a doctor's widow in Richmond whom
I interviewed in 1970 saying: "You can't tell from day to day, but if it
doesn't do better than it is now, it won't be much of a country. This is
the saddest situation I've ever seen. I've seen this country go through
four wars and a depression, and this is the worst."
Where do we turn? To ourselves. Obviously, that must be the answer. There
is no solution for America except what we Americans devise. I believe that
we have the instrument at hand, in the party system, that can break the
long and costly impasse in our government. But it is up to us to decide
whether to use it.
What would it entail on our part if we determined to attempt responsible
party government? First, it would mean giving strong public support to
reform efforts, which in the recent past have been carried on entirely by
a small group of concerned political insiders, aimed at strengthening the
machinery of political parties and government. Here are some of these
reforms:
* We should seek to strengthen the liaison between the presidency and
Congress, on a mutual basis, and between the presidency and the heads of
state and local government.
* We should elect the President in the same way we elect all other
officials, by direct vote of his constituents, with the high man
winning.
* We should expand the role and responsibilities of the party caucuses and
the party leaders in Congress. The caucus should choose the floor leaders
and policy committee members, the legislative committee chairmen and
committee members, not on the basis of seniority, but on the basis of
ability and commitment to the party program. That leadership ought to be
held accountable for bringing legislation to which the party is committed
to a floor vote in orderly and timely fashion, with adequate opportunity
for debate and particularly for consideration of opposition party
alternatives. But procedures for due consideration should not justify
devices like the filibuster, which prevent the majority party from
bringing its measures to a final vote.