From Heaven to Earth:

THE DESTINY
OF AMERICA
BY ROBERT R. LEICHTMAN, M.D.

The Twenty-Fourth in a Series

 Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2011

http://www.archive.org/details/destinyofamericaOOIeic
 THE DESTINY OF AMERICA:

" There has been a severe erosion in this country of

the freedom we fought so hard for in the beginning.
The common person has much less freedom today than
two hundred years ago.
'

— Thomas Jefferson

"It has to become clear to every individual in this

country that massive transfers of wealth from the pro-
ductive to the nonproductive can only lead to an econo-
mic crisis.Unless limits are put on the taxation of pro-
ductivity and the welfare portion of the federal budget,
this problem will get worse.
'

Alexander Hamilton
' —
*
'There is very little worth respecting about the way
we Ve handled the world 's problems during the last dec-
ade. We have approached them in an unprincipled man-
ner, with the same greed and ignorance that motivate
the other powers of the world.
'

Benjamin Franklin' —
'
were President today, I would dismantle half of
'If I
"
the programs I instituted fifty years ago.
—
Franklin Delano Roosevelt

'
'Guys who tell us they can solve all our problems by
spending more of our money ought to be rode out of
town on a rail. They are no good.
'

' — Harry S. Truman

'
'This country was divinely inspired. It was created
through divine intervention — through of people the acts
in tune with divine will
. '
— Teddy Roosevelt
"In the end, ours is the only system that truly honors
the spirit of the individual and the reality of what it

means to be a human on this planet. And we can 't let go

of this
! '
— George Washington
 FROM HEAVEN TO EARTH:

THE DESTINY OF
AMERICA
BY ROBERT R. LEICHTMAN, M.D.

The Twenty-Fourth In A Series

ARIEL PRESS
THE PUBLISHING HOUSE OF LIGHT
COLUMBUS, OHIO
Second Printing

This book is made possibleby gifts

to the Publications Fund of Light.

THE DESTINY OF AMERICA

Copyright © 1984 by Light

All Rights Reserved. No part of this book may be used or repro-

duced in any manner whatsoever without written permission, ex-
cept in the case of brief quotations embodied in articles and re-

views. Printed in the United States of America. Direct all inquiries

to Ariel Press, P.O. Box 30975, Columbus, Ohio 43230.

ISBN 0-89804-074-4

Library of Congress card catalog number: 83-70303

 THE DESTINY OF AMERICA

It has been my pleasure, over the past eleven years,

to interview the spirits of some of the most outstanding
leaders, geniuses, psychics, and innovative people from
the recent past — people like Albert Einstein, William
Shakespeare, Thomas Jefferson, Nikola Tesla, Edgar
Cayce, Carl Jung, Benjamin Franklin, Albert Schweit-
zer, Mark Twain, Paramahansa Yogananda, Abraham
Lincoln, Richard Wagner, H.P. Blavatsky, and
Andrew Carnegie. The interviews began as a way to
explore the inner dimensions of life and to solicit the
current thinking and ideas of individuals who made sig-

nificant contributions to human life but have left the

earth plane and now live exclusively at inner dimen-
sions. But like all good projects, the scope of the inter-
views grew. Each interview became, essentially, an

experiment in bringing something more of heaven to

earth. The seemed determined to live up to the

series
fullest implication of its name, From Heaven to Earth.
The first twenty-three books in the series each

[5]
focused on one key individual and his or her work.
They provided a marvelous format for these great peo-
ple to comment intelligently on how they made their
contributions and what it was like to be immersed in
such active and productive lives —
what motivated
them, what problems they had to deal with, and what
they were conscious of trying to achieve. It was espe-
cially interesting to listen to their observations on their

own work, now that they live exclusively at a higher

dimension of life. They have the advantage of looking
back on what they did with a new understanding and a
fuller grasp of the purposes involved, the way events
unfolded, and the real meaning of the contributions
they made.
One of the most striking messages to emerge out of
these interviews, to my mind, is that there is both con-
tinuity and evolution in the life of people and the life of
ideas. Rembrandt and Wagner continue to be inter-
ested in art and music and have expanded their thinking
to keep up to date with recent developments in their re-
spective fields. Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung continue
to be interested in human nature and in exploring the
meaning of human experience —
and they have not let
themselves get bogged down in the specific focus of
ideas which characterized their earthly careers, as so
many Freudians and Jungians do. Einstein, Tesla, and
Luther Burbank continue their scientific work, and find
it liberating to work now without the immense limita-
tions that physical existence puts on the adventure of
discovery and exploration.
But From Heaven to Earth is not just a chronicle of
and ideas of two dozen great geniuses.
the lives Al-
most everyone we interviewed reported that he now

[6]
recognizes that the work he participated in during his
physical career but a fragment of a larger and more
is

magnificent scheme of events —

the evolution of ideas
and human culture. Together, I believe the first twen-
ty-three books in the series present a wonderful collage
not just of human creativity and genius, but of the
potential of our evolution as a race.
Still, we did not feel that any one book in the series

adequately captured this larger scheme of evolution.

And we did not want the series to end without making a
strong statement that it is not just the role of great indi-
viduals to bring heaven to earth — ultimately, it is the
role of all humanity.
It is for this reason that this final book in the series,

The Destiny of America, is focused on a creative mis-

sion that many people share, not just one exceptionally
talented individual — the creative mission of the spirit of
America.
While the concept may be difficult to grasp at first,

every nation has a soul or spiritual core as well as a

personality, very much like any human being. And the
nation grows and evolves through its experiences, very
much like any human being. The scale is bigger and
encompasses a longer span of time, but growth is much
the same, whether in a nation or a human.
In fact, like humans, nations also tend to become
absorbed in the daily crises of their personality, focus-

ing so much attention on their desires, idiosyncrasies,

struggles, problems, and failures that their underlying

spiritual base of principles and potential is usually

obscured or even forgotten. When this occurs, the

nation loses its sense of purpose and direction.

It is not possible, of course, to talk directly with the

[7]
personality of the United States, let alone its spirit, to
find out how well we are doing in fulfilling our destiny
as a nation. But it is possible — and quite illuminat-
ing — to speak with the spirits of various individuals
who have been the inspired agents of this spirit, either
at the formation of the nation or at critical times
throughout its history. So this is what we did.
We began by talking with Alexander Hamilton, who
spoke on the state of the economy. We went on to talk
with Thomas Jefferson, who commented on the quality
of modern leadership and the size of government, and
Benjamin Franklin, who discussed America's role in the
world. Franklin Delano Roosevelt appeared in order to
speak about the need for greater fiscal responsibility and
new ideas in solving economic problems, and Harry
Truman showed up briefly to speak of the need for
—
more enlightened leadership and to give hell to those
'leaders" in Congress and the White House who put
1

their own reelection ahead of the interests of the coun-

try. Theodore Roosevelt addressed the need for
"guts" in pursuing what we know to be right.
At the end, George Washington summed up the
basic themes that had already been discussed and em-
phasized the need for a more intelligent involvement in
the life of the country by the citizens. He called on all
of us to rise above our immediate personal interests and
recognize that many of the freedoms and values of our
democratic form of government can be lost if we let our
selfish interests overwhelm our sense of public respon-

sibility — or if we allow manipulative leaders to artfully

advance the cause of special interest groups at the ex-
pense of the well-being of the entire country.
The interviews in From Heaven to Earth have always

[8]
 —

sought to present provocative ideas which will stimu-

late each reader to explore the deeper implications of life

more fully. In The Destiny of America, I think this pur-

pose of the series reaches its highest expression. The
spirits who appear in this interview represent the moral
and intellectual headwaters of this country. What they
have to say is important to every citizen of America
and every thinking person in the world, actually and —
should be carefully thought through and absorbed.
Collectively, they challenge us to take heed of what
has happened in America. In fact, in his closing com-
ments, Washington states that it is his intent to sound
an alarm that our democratic form of government is in
danger. Having created a government designed to pro-
mote and reveal the nature of freedom and the enor-
mous contribution it makes to social and spiritual pro-
gress, we have not wisely maintained it. Under the
double burden of selfishness and greed often dis- —
guised as compassion for the poor and disadvantaged
it is systematically being destroyed, and the citizens of

the United States are allowing this deterioration to go

unchecked.
These are strong words, eloquently spoken, but they
are both necessary and urgent. The obvious problems
confronting America at the moment confirm the need
for the warning. But there is another reason why the

warning is important — an even greater reason. The

United States does have a noble destiny which deserves
to be fulfilled! In earlier interviews in From Heaven to

Earth, Jefferson, Franklin, Andrew Carnegie, and

Abraham Lincoln commented briefly on this destiny.

But it is only in this volume that we are able to unfold

this theme completely.

[9]
 It may seem odd to some readers to think of America
as having a destiny, let alone a spiritual origin. But it

does! This destiny was perhaps more clearly

recognized in the early days of the nation, when high

idealism was respected and expressed, than it is today,
when it is often considered chic to scorn altruistic
motives or noble purposes. But America is not just a
gratuitous accident, devoid of meaning.was founded It

by people who loved freedom and wanted to create a

system that would become an inspiration to all who
yearn for freedom throughout the world. Their values
and noble ideals were written into the Declaration of In-
dependence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
From this beginning, the personality of the nation has
developed. And the spirit of lives on, most
America
visibly in the ideals, the vision, and the acts of our great
leaders, but also in the minds and hearts of all who love
freedom and strive to be responsible citizens.
The gentlemen interviewed in this book state that
the spirit and ideals of this country are still quite healthy
and intact. But they are unanimously concerned that
'

the 'personality" of the United States has become ill

and less able to manifest its enlightened design than
before. It is as though the country is going through a
phase of adolescent rebelliousness and selfishness,
temporarily ignoring the high ideals and examples of its

"parents," as well as its current obligations and re-

sponsibilities.
Repeatedly, everyone we talked with warned of the
awesome consequences of failing to make major correc-
tions in the course our society is taking and the trends
our government is following. But they did not just
condemn. They explained the basic principles on which

[10]
thiscountry was founded and the underlying design it is
meant to fulfill. And they gave practical examples and
suggestions of what can be done, both at the national
level and by each citizen individually.
There are three main categories that the discussion
returned to time and time again:
1 The gradual destruction of the economy by huge
taxes, budgets, and deficits, plus the transfer of wealth
from the productive to the nonproductive members of
society.

2) The bloated bureaucracy and its innate urge to

feed itself and expand its influence.
3) The stunning lack of leadership in both the
domestic and foreign areas of policy.
Alexander Hamilton, our first secretary of the Trea-
sury, took the lead in commenting on the destruction of
our economy. He makes a bold declaration that the
cause of inflation is clearly the fault of the govern-
ment — not big business, big labor, the oil-rich Arabs,
or even the Japanese. By continually spending more
than takes
it government
in, the automatically degrades
the value of the dollar. Hamilton also addresses the
problem of excessive taxation and the transfer of wealth
from the productive to the nonproductive; he states that
this has strained the economy terribly and will continue

to have far-reaching, disastrous effects.

Several of those participating in the interview lam-

baste modern tax laws and massive spending schemes
as oppressive and inimical to the spirit and destiny of
America. This country was designed to foster indepen-
dence and resourcefulness, they say, not dependence on
government. Yet the high burden of taxation on the
most productive members of society discourages and
oppresses resourcefulness, innovativeness, and produc-
tivity. And the constantly expanding involvement of
the government in supporting the nonproductive mem-
bers of society has stifled their growth and independ-
ence. Indeed, Franklin Roosevelt flatly states, if he
were President today, he would work to abolish or re-
duce many of the programs of government assistance he
initiated in the thirties.
Another concern of all the participants in this inter-
view is the insidious erosion of freedom which has
occurred in America. This country was founded to
demonstrate that freedom is the best means of fostering
the growth and expression of our individual and collec-
tive spiritual natures. Our government was designed,
therefore, to exist with a minimal amount of meddling
in the affairs of the citizens, whether through taxation,

regulation, or legislation. Naturally, some taxation

and regulation are essential to guarantee the freedom of
all citizens. But the founding fathers were careful not to
give the government any more power than it absolutely
needed. Jefferson in particularwas a fervent advocate
of the restraint of government. He went so far as to in-
sist on spelling out our freedoms in the Constitution and
the Bill of Rights — a significant innovation in govern-
ment at the time.

Unfortunately, our modern government no longer

respects the need to let the individual citizen be truly
free to achieve his or her maximum potential. From a
government which was designed to be kept as small as
possible, we have gone to a government which is about
as huge and as cumbersome as possible. And from a
government which was told specifically what it could
do, and was expected to keep its nose out of everything

[12]
else, we have gone to a government which seems to be-
lieve that it has an ordained right to protect us, regulate
us, feed us, educate us, and otherwise control us in
every way imaginable. As a result, we have very little
real freedom left.

That is not what we believe, of course. Most of us

blissfully accept the idea that the Bill of Rights is still

intact, preserving our freedoms. But Jefferson warns us

that this is just government sleight of hand designed to
cover up our actual loss of freedom. We are constantly
reminded that we are free to publish any idea, live
wherever we wish, protest almost anything we dislike,
see any movie we choose, and rant and rave about any
dogma, and the government is there to protect our free-
dom. Yet much of this verbal legerdemain is actually a
smokescreen designed to obscure the fact that far more
basic freedoms —
the ability to work and spend the fruit
of our labors as we want to —
have been surreptitiously
eroded by the government.
The loss of freedom in this country is tantamount to
a loss of the basic vision which inspired and created our
nation. Why have we let this happen? There are many
reasons set forward, but Hamilton comes up with per-
haps the most compelling. We have failed to recognize
that freedom is a powerful force in American life. As
the country has grown and developed, we have become
more aware of the way other countries and nations
structure their societies. We have lost our nerve- — the
nerve to be a beacon of freedom — and have begun ex-
perimenting with ideas and concepts which do not fulfill

our destiny. They are worn out ideas we have bor-

rowed from others.
As a result, many of our basic premises have been

[13]
inverted. Instead of continuing to admire productivity
and ingenuity, we have
let selfish interests build up a

pernicious which whispers to us that

philosophy
wealth, productivity, talent, and achievement are not
to be highly prized any more —
only coveted. To be
poor, disadvantaged, or a minority, on the other hand,
has somehow become a special virtue which merits
indulgence and governmental protection.
In any wealthy and humanitarian nation, consider-
able attention must be given to assisting those who
need help, whether they are poor in income, opportuni-
ties, or hope. But generations of venal politicians and
well-organized activists have succeeded in enshrining as
sacred and inviolable the needs of certain special inter-
ests — at the expense of the welfare and freedom of the
rest of the country. What began as a noble and
humanitarian concept — the desire to help the truly
needy — has somehow been perverted into giving the
nonproductive special advantages the rest of us do not
enjoy. But this is not freedom, it is paternalism. As an
example of this, Franklin Roosevelt states that un-
employment insurance was initially proposed so that
people would at least have money to buy food when
they were out of work. Nowadays, however, it has
been expanded to provide support for all living ex-
penses. This tendency toward indulgences and special
favors for the nonproductive is what has led the govern-
ment into more and more involvement in our lives at —
the price of our freedom. The individuals participating
in this interview all decry it vigorously.
What is worse, they say, is that our leaders have
been willing to permit these trends to continue uncor-
rected. In the interest of getting elected, more and

[14]
more promises are made for more and more govern-
mental spending, more and more governmental regula-
tion,and more and more governmental involvement in
making us all happy. Our freedom has been bartered
away for a mess of votes.
These great individuals do not stop at sounding the
alarm, however. They go on to say that there is a great
opportunity at present to reverse these trends. It is not
at all hopeless, they insist, and as evidence cite their

own interest in making these ideas known through the

vehicle of this interview.
In fact, they say, the corrections which need to be
made in our government and our society are all obvious
and have been suggested before. And they are sensi-
ble, not extreme.
These are not just voices from the past, counseling us
to return to the way things were fifty or two hundred
years ago. In fact, they emphasize that such retreat
would be a bad idea. Instead, they encourage us to
return to the and principles of the spirit of
ideals
America and work from that perspective to generate
new and sensible solutions which will lead us into the
future. Old ideas, and our reactions to them, they say,
are actually the two poles or extremes which keep us
polarized politically. They warn against the stagnation
caused by polarization, and make it clear that what we
need the most is moderation and common sense, not
extremism.
They are also very clear in saying that the solution
must come from the American public —
that the Ameri-

can public must make sure that our leaders restore the
freedoms they have taken away from us. We need to
make sure that what they actually do is in line with

[15]
what they say and promise. Only if the public itself
rises above the temptation to look out just for its own
self-interest, and begins to guard the interest of the
country as a whole, can America once more get back on
the track of fulfilling its destiny.
There is great wisdom in these pages, as well as a

sincere and honest plea we all should heed. I feel privi-

leged to have played a part in making this interview

possible, and am grateful to the spirits for the consider-
able time and energy they devoted to preparing for and
participating in the discussion.
Far more than was ever the case in the earlier inter-
views, it was clear to me that a great deal of thought

and planning had occurred on the inner planes before we

turned on the tape recorder and began the first session.
The spirits had obviously decided who was going to
discuss which subjects, and had coordinated the effort
among themselves, so that they did not contradict one
another. Each came in with a cogent, thoughtful open-
ing statement. Washington spoke for a good
In fact,
twenty minutes without pause. It was one of the most
well organized, coherent speeches I have heard in a long
time.
The medium for this interview was Paul Winters. I

am joined in asking questions by my friend and col-

league, Carl Japikse. The interview was conducted in

the middle of 1981 , shortly after the Reagan adminis-

tration took office.
Because this interview is the last in From Heaven to
Earth, the session began with an extra treat an ap- —
pearance by Cecil George, the spirit in charge of coordi-
nating the whole project on the inner planes. Cecil had
appeared prior to the first interview many years ago

[16]
 ,

[seeEdgar Cayce Returns, the first book in the series]

and had at that time set the tone for all that followed.
Now, he reappeared to complete the cycle and give a —
little extra insight into the meaning of our final experi-

ment, The Destiny of America.

Cecil George: Since this is the final installment of a

project that has lasted for quite a number of years, I
would like to makefew comments about it, for the
a
benefit of those who have read the series.
First, I would like to say that from the beginning this

has been a project which has been conceived, devel-

oped, and promoted from the inner side of life. There
have been many individuals on this side of life who
have worked with me in coordinating the project and
trying to make sure that all of the interviewees have
been available, that the mediums and their spirit guides

were ready at the appointed times, and many other

technical details. In a very real sense, it has been our
project.
It may be hard for the reader to believe this, but this

project was not created in the mind of Dr. Leichtman or

Mr. Japikse or anyone else involved in it on the physical
plane. It is not a portion of their imagination. It is not
justan exercise in wish fulfillment. Dr. Leichtman and
Mr. Japikse have graciously provided the vehicle over
the years to conduct the interviews, edit them, and get
them published — which was a very great task indeed.
Obviously, without their involvement, this project

could not have succeeded.They know this; this is part

of their work. And we want to take this opportunity to
thank them and everybody involved for their time and
effort. But the project has been directed and guided

[17]
from the inner planes. It has been our program.
I thought it might be appropriate to preface this last
interview with a statement of this kind from the pro-
ducer.
Leichtman: Yes. Well, most worthwhile projects
are inaugurated from the inner planes, even though
most people don't recognize that fact.
Cecil George: I also thought I might interview you
for a minute. [Laughter.] How did you find these
interviews? Were they interesting to do?
Leichtman: They have been absolutely fascinating to
do, even when they were difficult and we had trouble
getting answers to our questions. I 've certainly learned
an enormous amount over the years in the interviews.

Cecil George: Was there anything we could have

done over here to make it more successful? On second
thought, maybe I 'd better not ask that question. We 11
get ourselves in trouble. [Laughter.]
Leichtman: What is very difficult to convey in the

final, printed version of the interviews — and I don't

think there's much you or we could have done to
improve it — is the difference in quality and vibration,
for want of a better word, in the presence of the differ-
ent spirit entities. Schweitzer, Cheiro, and Churchill in
particular had very strong presences, but each spirit we
interviewed was unique. And it wasn't just the
medium's gestures and tone of voice, even though they
often varied substantially from spirit to spirit; it was the
quality of the presence. I 'm afraid we have not always
conveyed these striking differences as well as we might
have, but it is hard to capture such an intangible essence
as individuality in printed words. In any event, I was
always quite convinced that we were talking to real

[18]
people, not just projections of our own imaginations.
Cecil George: That brings up a point which has been
mentioned several times in the interviews, but is worth
repeating. Although the various spirits who partici-
pated in the project were pleased to be involved, the
real value of these interviews does not lie in proving,
once and for all, that they actually were who they said
they were. The purpose of the interviews has been to
present some ideas and concepts and principles that are
worth reading about, examining, and putting into prac-
tice.

Leichtman: Yes.
Japikse: Have the interviews lived up to the expec-
tations you had when you began?
Cecil George: Yes, I think so. Some of them were a
little disappointing in that we weren't always able to
get across all of the ideas we wanted to. Some of the
had much more
individuals difficulty using a medium
than we had expected.
Leichtman: Yes, we could definitely tell that some of
the people had apparently never come through a
medium before.
Cecil George: And probably never will again.
you comment a little
Japikse: Could bit more on the
problems you had, working from your side, in getting

ideas across from heaven to earth?

Cecil George: The major difficulty is the factor of
glamour. There is so much misunderstanding in the

world about the process and value of mediumship that it

is not easy to keep a project such as this unaffected by

it. There whole bunch of thoughtforms and mis-
is a
representations associated with the issue of medium-
ship, and we have had to post a whole army of guards,

[19]
so to speak, to protect these interviews from such con-
tamination. Sometimes, even at that, unwanted ele-
ments slipped by.
Of course, it is not just the glamours about medium-
shipwe had to contend with. Many of the issues that
were discussed are so controversial that we had to pro-
tect against the misunderstandings and glamours they
tend to arouse.
Leichtman: Yes, I remember that when we were
talking to Churchill we got onto some questions about
World War II, and pretty soon some of the negativity
associated with the Nazi party was beginning to creep
in. It was very unpleasant.
Cecil George: The other limiting factor is that we
attempted to present a high quality interchange
between the interviewees and the interviewers, and
that meant we were dealing with a much different level
of mediumship than is usually associated with the idea
of mediumistic work. In most mediumship, the focus of
the conversation is on bringing through memories and
comments dealing strictly with the personality of the
spirit. But that was not our aim. We were seeking to

achieve a level of communication which dealt primarily

with ideas and the qualities of the inner being. Yet that
is almost paradoxical, because as the personality is

dropped and the transition to the inner planes occurs

after the end of life on the physical plane, only a selec-
tive number of memories and concepts about these
kinds of ideas and qualities remains. There is fresh
insight and experience, but itbecomes more and more
difficult for the spirit to communicate them in the
language and associations of his old personality. And
that was a major factor limiting our ability to get all

[20]
the ideas across we wanted to convey.
It's a lot easier to dabble in the lower forms of
mediumship, and it can be a lot of fun to do. But that
was not the goal of these interviews.
Leichtman: Is there something in particular, beyond
the specific ideas of each interview, that you hope our
readers will get out of these interviews?
Cecil George: The major philosophical theme would
be that life is evolving. Ideas and concepts and indi-
viduals are evolving and continuously updating, chang-
ing, and growing. Each statement that is made by an
individual life is only a momentary statement of a much
greater whole. And the work of the great leaders and
geniuses of mankind continues on; it does not stop
when they leave the physical plane. A single life,

however great it may be, is only one step on the road to

enlightenment — a snapshot in a series of snapshots.
I would hope that these interviews have demon-
strated that the interest of these great people continues
just as their work continues. It's not just a one-shot
contribution.
Leichtman: I think another major statement the
series has made is that good creative work is supported
by invisible beings. I believe it has been reassuring to
many people to learn that as they take on important
projects on earth, they may well find that invisible
entities are interested in what they are doing and can
help out in subtle ways.
Cecil George: Sure. And I hope that this series has
itself been a demonstration of higher corres- the
pondence of this —
that as people such as ourselves on
the inner planes try to initiate a project on earth, we are
able to find individuals who are interested in and

21
capable of providing the physical support for it.

Leichtman: Yes, although it was a great strain.

[Laughter.]
Cecil George: Oh, I know, I know.
[More laughter.]
Japikse: Do you have anything to say to reassure
those readers who may be disappointed that the series is
ending after 24 books? Why are we ending here? Or
are we?
Cecil George: Well, at the risk of asking for more
work, I would say that we certainly could entertain
another series. But we would insist that it be invoked
from the readers, not just the two of you. If the people
who read this are interested in seeing more interviews, I

would suggest they write to Ariel Press and provide

suggestions and comments on the interviews that have
been published and give ideas on who might be inter-
viewed in the future. If enough people did this, we
would certainly take a look at it. And it might be fun.
Japikse: Gee, that wasn't the answer I was looking
for. [Laughter.]
Leichtman: Indeed.
Cecil George: Is it ever? [More laughter.] You can

exclude this if you want, but it might be fun to see if

your reading public will invoke further interviews or
not.
Now, this final interview is going to be a series of
interviews with individuals who have been leaders at
different stages of the history of the United States.
Some of them have already been interviewed at length
in the series. Others have not been interviewed before.
They all were involved in government. Each will make
a short statement about the destiny of America and then

[22]
open the session up for your questions.
Leichtman: Is there a special theme that you want us
to focus on in our questions?
Cecil George: Well, yes. There's a very good rea-
son why we are concluding the series in this particular
way. One of the ideas that has been discussed at some
length in earlier interviews is that there are spirits and
personalities for countries as well as individuals. The
spirit or inner being of America would be the ideal the
United States has represented since its founding. The
personality would be the actual public expression of
these ideals on the physical plane.
Unfortunately, the personality of the United States
has been somewhat ill and has not been fulfilling the

destiny of the spirit of America in recent years. And

this country was formed with such promise and solid
ideals that it is a real disappointment and cause for
alarm to see its personality — the populace, really — los-
ing sight of them. This has become a hindrance to the
growth of the country as a whole, but it is more than
this alone —
it is a cloud over the whole world. At one
time, the United States represented a beacon of light
and hope to the rest of the world, but this has been
altered in the last few years.
One of the themes I would like brought out in this

final interview is the potential of the United States to

once again take a leadership role in the world — not by
dint of its military and economic power, but by once
again living the principles on which the country was
founded. The role of the United States in the world is

crucial, and it is absolutely important that the people

who make up America today begin taking this role more
seriously. The purpose of this last interview is to pre-

[23]
sent some ideas on how America's potential for true
leadership can once again be tapped. And what better
way to do this than by talking with those who were the
stewards of the spirit of America at its beginning and
throughout its history?
That is our goal — to present the current insights of
these American leaders on the problems and challenges
facing the United States today, as it struggles to fulfill

its destiny. What we are not going to do is present a

rehash of the favorite ideas and positions each of these
individuals embraced during his lifetime. In a democ-
racy, each individual has a right to his or her own
opinions, and the great leaders of every age always
become identified with certain specific ideas or causes.
But this interview will not just be a historical reprise of
the past; it is our hope to add something to the future.
I say this to advise the reader that our primary
interest is not to strain for historical credence, but to
provoke intelligent thinking about the present.
Japikse: Well, certainly not very much of the poli-
tical thought of two hundred years ago would be
apropos today. The quality of statesmanship would be,
but not the actual issues.
Cecil George: Yes.
Leichtman: Yes, the integrity and character these
people demonstrated certainly ought to still inspire us.
Cecil George: Yes. Well, that is the major point I

would make in introducing this final interview. Your

first interviewee will be Alexander Hamilton.
But before I let him come in, let me thank you both
again for taking part in this work. It couldn't have
happened without the two of you. And please thank
the two mediums for us, too.

[24]
 Leichtman: Sure.
Japikse: Thank you.
George then withdrew from the body of the
[Cecil
medium and was replaced by the spirit of Alexander
Hamilton.]
Hamilton: While I am getting adjusted here, I guess
I ought to say that you are talking to one of the world 's
poorest marksmen. [Laughter.] Of course, Aaron
[Burr] and I are quite good friends now, despite the fact
that even on the inner planes we wrestled with each
other for many years.
He's quite a jovial fellow, you know.
Leichtman: No, we didn't know. I 'm glad you told
us. [Laughter.]
Hamilton: Yes, I thought you would be delighted to
know that. Well, it's going to take me a little while to
figure out how to do this.

Leichtman: That's all right.

Hamilton: It's sort of like putting your hands in

warm grease. I'm trying to find the little knobs here

that make the words come out. [Laughter.]
I guess I'm due for a statement.
Leichtman: Yes.
Hamilton: Historically, the role I'm most noted for

as Alexander Hamilton was the part I played in the

creation of the American economic system. I was the

first secretary of the Treasury,which meant it fell to me
to try to figure out a system of monetary and fiscal
responsibility. So I would like to spend my limited time
in this interview commenting on the economic policy of

today, as well as the government's role in the

economy, the government's role in the private sector,
and the vast accumulation of power by the government

[25]
»*•*••>' I

ALEXANDER HAMILTON

[26]
over the years, especially in the realm of the economy.
I have an old, old friend who has stated many
times — and is oft quoted by economists and political
scientists — that one of the major drawbacks of the
democratic system is that once individuals discover the
power of the vote, they begin voting themselves bene-
fits from the coffers of the government, particularly as
the tax receipts grow in size and the government has
more and more money to disburse. One of the major
changes that has occurred politically since the beginning
of this country has been the enfranchisement of a large
number of voters who are not productive but who wield
a great deal of power, because their vote, en masse, is

critical to the election of government officials. In the

early years of the Republic, each man and woman had
to be productive, because the government at that time

did not dish out money to people for merely existing.

This major shift in the function of the government over
the years has caused some major dislocations.
One of the first problems that must be dealt with in

order to refocus the economy so it reflects the ideals of

the spirit of America again is this transfer of funds from
productive to nonproductive individuals. As the ratio
of nonproductive to productive individuals has grown
over the years, with more and more people receiving
government funds, it has put a severe strain on those
who are producing. This strain is evidenced primarily in

higher taxes. But what is the incentive to produce

more, when the more you produce the less you are re-
warded?
I do not think that there is enough focus on the part
of the government, the populace in general, and the
thinkers in this country on the actual problem. It's

[27]
talked about in different ways. It's talked about by

politicians in wayswon't offend the nonproductive

that
voters, and it 's talked about by the productive members
of society in terms of the heavy burden of taxation. But
that sets them up to be accused of being greedy. They
are told that they should be willing to give up the fruits
of their labors for the good of the country. But it's not
for the good of the country —
it's only for the good of

the nonproductive members of the country.

The reason why this is such a serious problem is be-
cause it is the nature of a democracy to ignore this kind
of inequity. The nonproductive obviously aren 't going
to complain about it, and the politicians don't want to

upset them, so the only people who are overtly con-

cerned about it are those being taxed —
and they get
criticized for being greedy. So the problem gets larger
without anyone doing anything about it. But sooner or
later it will reach a crisis stage, and this will happen in
either one of two ways. Either it will become fiscally
impossible to continue transferring the wealth of the
country in this way — at which time those who are non-
productive will have to face the stark reality that they
will no longer receive funds for doing nothing — or,
those who are nonproductive will become so dominant
that they will vote in officials who will take away all in-

centive for being productive, in order to protect the

nonproductive, much as Ayn Rand portrayed it in her
fine book.
Leichtman: Atlas Shrugged.
Hamilton: Yes. To avoid either one of these two ex-
tremes, it will be necessary for the public to work
toward an "in-between" solution. And I would
emphasize the words in-between and compromise. It 's

[28]
very easy to become polarized on this crucial economic
issue. Either you are for welfare transfer payments or
you are for private enterprise and business incentive.
Each side tends to polarize on the issue and accuse the
other of ruining business on the one hand or being
heartless on the other. It's the old liberal and con-
servative conflict.
But the fact remains that this is an issue which must
be dealt with. It has to become clear to every individual
in this country that continuing these massive transfers
of wealth from the productive to the nonproductive can
only lead to an economic crisis. Unless some limits are
put on the taxation of productivity and some meaning-
ful ceilings are put on the welfare portion of the federal
budget, this problem will get worse instead of better.
In the early days of the United States, we had very
low taxes. After all, we had fought a war in order to rid
ourselves of what we felt was an excessive tax on our
productivity. We did not think that anyone across the
sea had the right to tax the products of our labors just
because they had claimed our shoreline once upon a
time. But the incentive of the American economic
dream has in a sense been lost. The more that wealth is

transferred from the productive to the nonproductive,

the less and less incentive there is to produce.
So along with placing limits on what the nonproduc-
tive should be entitled to, the shackles must be removed
from private enterprise. The individual needs greater
incentive to work harder and longer to be more pro-—
ductive — whether he's a small business person, a
worker in a factory, or someone providing professional
services. And means being able to keep more of
that
what he or she earns —
which means limiting taxation.

[29]
 — I

This issue is simple and straightforward. Yet when it

is taken before the Congress, becomes complex, be-

it

cause of all the special interests that have cropped up in

this country —
and the tremendous economic power the
government now wields. And yet, it is the biggest
problem that exists in America today, and it 's not being
solved.
Now, there has been a lot of discussion lately
[1981] about inflation being the all-encompassing
problem today — the cause of all economic problems.
Inflation has always moved in cycles throughout his-
tory. If one dares look at economic history going as far

back as ancient Egypt — which is, I daresay, farther

than we want to go — the inflationary cycle has always
existed. And it has always existed because it is a
hidden and devious means for extracting more tax from
the populace. I don't intend to go into a textbook ex-
planation of what inflation is . I just want to say that in-
flation is caused by the bureaucrats and the govern-
ment. Rather than raise taxes and take the conse-
quences, the government — whether it's a democracy, a
theocracy, a monarchy, or a fascist dictatorship
makes the decision to inflate the currency. This is done
by printing more money or by massive borrowing —
don't want to go into the mechanics of inflation but —
it's really a subtle form of raising more money for the

government.
Make no mistake about it — it's the government that
inflates. Nobody else does. The individual worker
doesn't inflate. The owner of a business doesn't in-
flate. Nobody inflates but the bureaucrats and the
politicians.
If you would study history, you would find that we

[30]
 '

were concerned about inflation in my day, too. We

it had its place
realized that I — certainly opted for the
old inflationary technique myself at times, and saw
massive depreciations of currency and all the effects of
inflation.
Howdo we solve the problem of inflation? You
solve itway it's always been solved, and that is to
the
make the hard and fast decision that it is not in the best
interest of the country to continue inflating. Now, that
may sound very simple — and it is.

And the simplest way to halt inflation is to adopt a

gold standard or silver standard or some value by which
the currency is measured. Historically, we have been
on the gold standard before, but presently are not. For
any student of economics, the critical point in this
country's battle with inflation was the time when the
currency was taken off the gold standard. That's the
time when the politicians said, "Get ready, folks, the
money is going to come pouring out and inflation is
'

going to get much worse.

Just as a side note, it might behoove the people who
have been very distressed by the recent problems of in-
flation to look at their history. They will find that dur-
ing the period before America went off the gold stand-
ard, the government absolutely refused to inflate. But
the economy was stagnating very badly, and there were
those who accused the government of being heartless,
cold, and cruel. And the inflationists said that to get
out of this economic mess, we must inflate. Of course,
that is ironic when you look at what inflation has led us
to now.
The solution is in between the two extremes of infla-
tion and stagnation. I would advocate a move back to

[31]
the gold standard, bringing inflation under control and
then moderating in between the extremes.
As with the productivity issue, again there are two
sides in this country — the people who refuse to bite the
bullet and bring down inflation because of the effects
this would have on those whose income is improved by
inflation, and the hard money crew, who have become
more vocal in the last decade and who are saying that
we should never inflate and we must do away with
money and go back to gold bullion.
And again, the answer lies in compromise and pru-
dent judgment —which is somewhat lacking today. I
would propose a return to a gold-backed currency that
the populace can be assured will retain its value — but in

the same breath I would say that a must

little flexibility

be permitted in working with the supply of money. A

little inflation is better than none at all —
or a lot.
There 's one more issue I would like to address before
we get to the questions, and that is the world economic
condition, which is much more interrelated than it was
during my physical existence as Alexander Hamilton.
The world is poised on a delicate economic thread. I
would like to raise the flag for those who may not be
sophisticated in economic terms but who may happen to
read this little book and mention that a massive amount
of debt has been incurred by all countries. The United
States has basically been operating by borrowing
money for the last decade, and so has much of the
world. Not only has the United States caused a lot of
economic disruption by the transfer of wealth and the
increase of public debt, but so have most other
countries.
I might say that the transfer of wealth that is occur-

[32]
 —

ring on a micro scale in the United States is occurring on

a macro scale in the world. Large amounts of money
are being transferred from the most productive nations
in the world to the nonproductive, and this is most
alarming. The vehicle for this transfer has largely been
the oil producing countries, who have succeeded in ex-

tracting a very large "tax" from the industrialized

countries and then have turned around and lent this
money to the less-developed and nonproductive coun-
tries, as well as consuming it themselves. And while I

am not saying that all of this money has been misman-

aged — many of the oil producing countries have many
worthwhile projects going — a majority of the oil

money has been directed into the hands of the nonpro-

ductive, and this creates the potential for quite an eco-
nomic dislocation.
We are finding there is a situation in the world where
increasingly large amounts of debt are not able to be
repaid. It is in the public pressIf you read
every day.
the paper with economic eyes, you can almost always
find a story about some country which is having a big
meeting with Western benefactors because it can't pay
its debt and they want to restructure it so they can con-

tinue not having to repay it.

The solution to this problem is more complex than

the first two I talked about. The first step is for the pro-
ductive nations to recognize just what is going on
that the oil producing countries have taxed the produc-
tive countries. It should be clear to any student of his-
tory that the oil producing countries of the world were
mostly nonproductive countries. They did not have
vibrant economies. But now, because they are able to
control the supply of oil and blackmail the productive

[33]
countries, they are producing an extreme dislocation of
world wealth.
Once the problem is understood, the solution lies in
finding ways to reduce or eliminate this blackmail, by
trying to provide other ways for developing nations to
acquire the same economic benefits that the producing
nations enjoy.
The point I am making here is that the same problem
with the transfer of wealth that we find in the United
States is occurring on a global scale. And this is a

critical problem at both levels, because the productive

are becoming less and less enchanted with working
hard, since they have less and less incentive to produce.
So it is absolutely vital to find ways to stop or lessen
these massive transfers of wealth.
These are the three major points I wanted to make.
Do you have questions?
Leichtman: I'mata little bit of a loss to figure out
how by the OPEC countries. Can you
to handle the tax
comment on that a little more specifically?
Hamilton: Well, I may let some of the diplomatic
experts who will be participating in this interview
handle that question, because it is a diplomatic issue as
well as an economic one. But I will say that diplomacy
without a sound economic policy has caused this prob-
lem. For many years, the foreign policy of this country
has been directed without an extensive study of the
economic consequences of particular actions. Although
economic conditions often do lead to diplomatic
actions, pure diplomatic policies are often undertaken
without any thought of how they may be backing this

country into an economic corner, or causing one country

to unleash its economic wrath upon another.

[34]
 '

Leichtman: Is there someone in specific coming in

later I should ask about the diplomatic factor?

Hamilton: Why, sure. It's the individual who re-

fused to discuss diplomacy the last time you inter-

viewed him [Benjamin Franklin].
[Laughter.]
Leichtman: Good. I'm waiting to get him.
[More laughter.]
Hamilton: We figured that.
Leichtman: Thenlet me take up your second point.

What do you have to say about those individuals who

propose that we should have a constitutional limitation
on taxes, limiting them to increases in the gross national
product, or that we should amend the Constitution to
mandate a balanced budget? Are these viable solu-
tions?
Hamilton: Too much emphasis is placed upon the
balanced budget. This is not to say that a balanced
budget is not desirable. But over the years, the govern-
ment has become so sophisticated that a balanced
budget is really meaningless. First of all, there are so
many items that are off the budget and out of control
that even if the budget were balanced, it wouldn't be.
I 'm trying to steer away from detailed economics, but I

think I can give you an example of what

I mean. When
the government guarantees a loan to a farmer, that is an
1 ' '
'off budget item which could become 'on budget
'
*

if the farmer defaults. And there are so many such '

'off
'

budget ' items that even if the published budget were

balanced, it wouldn't make any difference.
It is very hard to discuss this in simple terms, but
suffice it to say that an unbalanced budget is not neces-
sarily the cause of inflation. For many years the

[35]
 —

government operated without a balanced budget and

with very large was not very high.
deficits, yet inflation

The government merely borrowed money. The point is

that the government has borrowed so much money in
the last ten years that it has reached the point where it is
not going to be able to do it much longer.
The budget deficit should be brought back into rea-
son. But it is misleading to assume that a balanced
budget will end inflation. The government would find
other ways to inflate. Many other governments in his-
tory have inflated without a budget deficit.
Leichtman: What about a constitutional amendment
to
Hamilton: A constitutional amendment to limit

federal spending would be a very good first step and

would go a long way to providing a grasp on the
problem.
Leichtman: Tying spending to the gross national
product or something like that.
Hamilton: Sure. It could be an arbitrary rate — it

doesn't really make much difference.

The problem is that many of the transfer payments
are not budgeted at all. For instance, the government
does not say at the beginning of the year that it is only
going to spend "x" number of dollars on welfare. It

says, '
'We anticipate that this many people will be on
welfare this year, so we will probably have to spend
this much money. M Now, if more people end up on
welfare than the government projected, the budget
deficit will get worse. It is not budgeted in the usual
sense.
Of course, you can anticipate the political difficulties
of saying, "We will spend 'x' number of dollars on

[36]
 ]

welfare and when the money runs out, no one will get
'

any more. ' It would be very healthy for the economy,

however.
Leichtman: Very healthy or very unhealthy?
Hamilton: Very healthy for the economy. It would
be hard to do politically, but the problem must be
addressed and government expenditures must be
brought into line.

That would be a good place to start — to limit federal

spending to a particular level and let it grow only as the
gross national product grows.
Leichtman: Well, who's going to successfully arti-

culate these themes and translate them into policy when

we have such strong pressure groups around that will
fight such reform vigorously? And then there are the
bureaucrats who administer these programs; they will
tend to oppose any reform as well. And of course there
are certain elected government officials who know they
have a constituency they dare not anger.
Hamilton: This is true. But one of the beauties of
the free enterprise system, if we can still call it that, is

that if the public and the politicians and the bureaucrats

refuse to face reality and correct this kind of problem,
the problem will ultimately correct itself. Of course, it

will correct itself in a most uncomfortable manner.

Leichtman: A major depression?
Hamilton: Possibly. That's not necessarily proba-
ble, but it might happen.
Japikse: What's more uncomfortable than a major
depression ? [Laughter.
Leichtman: Yes, what did you have in mind?
Hamilton: Well, I don 't know. One of the interest-
ing things about economics is that all you have is his-

[37]
 —

tory. All you have is the ability to look at the way

things were ten years ago, the way things were twenty
years ago, and so on. And by studying what happened
in the past, you make your deduction that if the econ-
omy continues as it has been going, then we will have a
depression, or runaway inflation, or severe dislocations.
Generally, you will be surprised what actually does
happen.
Leichtman: You're not going to make a prediction?
Hamilton: Let's see am I going to make a predic-
tion?
Leichtman: Oh, go ahead.
Japikse: He 's going to predict whether or not he will
make a prediction. [Laughter.]
Hamilton: Well, there are so many factors that it is

very hard to make a prediction. I do not believe we will

have a depression. do believe that unless the govern-
I

ment takes the action which is necessary to bring infla-

tion under control, the chance of severe destruction of
the currency is very high.
I would say there 's about a ninety percent chance of
inflation getting out of control and continuing for many
years.
Leichtman: You mean asbad as it is in South Ameri-
ca, where the inflation is one hundred or two hundred
percent a year?
Hamilton: It's very possible. This would not mean
that it would be unbearable to live. It just means you
would have to adjust.
Leichtman: Sure.
Hamilton: My major prediction, though, would be
that those who are productive are going to revolt. This
is already happening, actually. It is very evident in the

[38]
amount of commerce which transpires unrecorded — the
so-called underground or cash economy.
Leichtman: The barter system?
Hamilton: Yes, the barter system is regaining popu-
larity. And it's do when the
the natural thing to
government takes too much of the fruits of your labor.
When that happens, you might as well try to get
around it as best as you can. It's not legal, but not too
many revolutions are legal.
It's very possible that the underground economy
would survive even if there was a severe economic dis-
location.
Leichtman: It would be very hard for people living
on pensions and retirement funds, though.
Hamilton: The real problem is that if our economic
problems were dealt with forthrightly, many individ-
uals would suffer. And the people who would suffer
would be those who are on the receiving end of transfer
payments. Now, if you are a politician, or even the
president of a large multinational corporation, you may
make the decision that inflation is far superior to an-
archy. Because anarchy is what would happen if you
cut off payments to the nonproductive members of
society and they took to the streets. I'm sure this

decision has been made — that 20 or 30 or even 50 per-

cent inflation per year would be more desirable than
anarchy.
Leichtman: Even when Milton Friedman discusses
these reforms, he suggests they be phased in over a
period of years so that the momentum quietly slows
down in a healthy way.
Hamilton: That's the only way politically you can do
it. The hardliners on both ends of the spectrum are the

[39]
 ,

ones who are wrong.

Leichtman: As we speak here in the middle of 198 1

are you pleased by the efforts of the current [Reagan]

administration to institute some reforms?
Hamilton: Yes, it's a very good first step. Unfortu-
nately, the momentum is such that it is going to take
much more than what has been done. What is being
attempted at present will be much more watered down
in its final form. The political realities will once again

win out over the economic necessities, but it is a good

first step. I think the democratic process spoke in the
recent election. The people said, 'Okay, we are tired
'

M
of this now and we want something else.
Japikse: I don't want to get you off of the practical
subjects you 've been addressing —
I 've been very much

interested in what you 've been saying but could you —

talk a little bit about the role of the economy in fulfilling
the destiny of America? Is it a special role?
Hamilton: Thank you for bringing that up. In the
past, America has been an outstanding demonstration
of what a free individual could produce when left on his
or her own. The economy of this country was built on
the free enterprise system, where the individual was
free to enjoy the income he produced from his labors

without taxation. The free enterprise system gave

every American the opportunity to produce whatever he
wanted to for whatever price he wanted to charge. The
American was free to pursue his own destiny with
whatever measure of vigor — or lack thereof — he had.
The American economic system was the greatest
demonstration in the history of the world of what free-
dom can do to motivate individuals and groups of indi-
viduals. And this demonstration of freedom provided

[40]
us with the best standard of living and the greatest eco-
nomic miracle the world has ever seen.
Of course, the free enterprise system is no longer
free. As we talk here today, six countries now have a
higher standard of living than America. Now, they do
tend to be the oil producing nations, and this will
eventually change. I don't want to get into that.
But this country has lost sight of its economic ideal.
It has gotten enmeshed in the same difficulties that
itself

other countries have. As the United States grew up and

became more and more involved in world politics, some
of the attitudes and priorities common in the rest of the
world have rubbed off on our politicians. We have
accepted ideas that have tarnished our freedom.
After all, as government officials interact diploma-
tically with the members of other governments, they
are able to see what is happening in those systems.

And even though freedom may be in short supply in

certain countries, it may appear that these countries are

doing well economically and that the leaders of these
countries are popular. So it is tempting to want to
change your own system, thinking that maybe a new
idea from over here and another one from over there
will work in America, too.
As a result, many of the principles of socialist, fas-
cist, and communist systems have been brought into the
American system, particularly in the area of economics.
These all tend to favor a powerful, centralized economy
as opposed to a free enterprise system.
Leichtman: You are saying that certain socialist, fas-
cist, and communist economic concepts have infected
the economy of the United States?
Hamilton: Yes. In many ways economically, we

[41]
have become almost the same as a majority of the coun-
tries in Our government con-
the world, except in size.
trols the economy much as it is con-
centrally just as
trolled in other countries. Well, not as much as it is
controlled in the Soviet Union, but certainly as much as
it is in Germany, France, and England.
We may call it by a different name, but it still smells
the same.
Japikse: Are you suggesting, then, that we have lost

a good deal of our economic freedom?

Hamilton: Our economic freedom is just a memory
from the past. I would take a bet against anyone who
thought he could prove that we still have very much
economic freedom.
Leichtman: You are not suggesting, though, that we
should return to the unrestrained, unregulated economic
climate of the mid-nineteenth century, are you?
Hamilton: No, I am not suggesting that we move
backwards. But there are certain steps we could take to
move back toward our ideals that would be beneficial.
Japikse: Well, what does that mean? Is there a key-
note or idea or purpose we should be heading toward in

the future? Are we supposed to recapture what we had

economically but have lost? Or are we supposed to
hammer out some kind of a new definition which will
restore America's economic destiny?
Hamilton: I believe that we have all the seeds now
for making a new definition. The difficulty lies in need-
ing to leave old ideas behind to make way for the new
definition, yet at the same time incorporating the best
of the old ideas into the new.
First of all, the United States needs a new sense of
definition and direction. I think we all agree to that.

[42]
The American public is sort of muddling around here,
wondering who we are and why we are here and what
our role in the world is.

The central feature of America's identity — of who

we are — has always been freedom. And the greatest
demonstration of this freedom to the world has always
been the way in which we manage our affairs internally.
You can't convince a rational person in Argentina that
you have good ideas they ought to adopt when they can
look at the economic mess in your own country and
chuckle, "You are going to help us?"
The definition of what America is to become
economically must be made by seeing how the pendu-
lum has swung from the excesses of the nineteenth cen-
tury to the excesses of the twentieth century and finding
a compromise in between those extremes which guaran-
tees economic freedom for the productive and compas-
sionate care for those members of society who are
unable to be productive.
It is good to remember that during the early stages of
this was always economic
country's development, there
opportunity. you were out of work, you simply
If

moved West and began a new life. There was always

more land to conquer and more factories to build. It
was only as the United States moved into the twentieth
century and there was no more land to develop that it
began experiencing some of the same problems of
caring for the economically disadvantaged that the older
countries in the world had been facing right along. But
unfortunately, instead of developing new ideas based
on American free enterprise, we tried to solve these
problems with worn out ideas.
There is a solution to this problem which is uniquely

[43]
American. It has yet to be found, however, because we

have been relying more on outside help than our own

initiative. We must return to the basic principle of
American economic freedom and enunciate it once
again. If we do, and we keep the ideal of individual

economic freedom in the background of all economic

decisions that are made, then not only will our modern
policies get back on track but we will also see the new
definition you speak of emerging in a way that will
have real meaning.
Japikse: You almost seem to be implying that the
ultimate resolution of the way we provide for those
who are at the receiving end of welfare must be within
the context of individual economic freedom, which it is
not at present. These people are as enslaved to our
system as those who are being taxed to support it.

Hamilton: Sure. don 't think anyone living on wel-

I

fare or receiving money from the government really

feels good about it.
Leichtman: Then in addition to economic reform we
need to promote the work ethic and incentives for phi-
lanthropy. Is this what you mean?
Hamilton: Sure. Some of the old ideas weren't too
bad. [Laughter.]
Leichtman: Yes.
Hamilton: Well, I don't know if I have said every-
thing I should have, but I think it is time to yield the
stand to the next person. We have a whole committee
here, so I don't want to hold things up. But I will be
around for the rest of the session, so if you want me to
pop in for another question or two, just speak the
word.
Leichtman: All right.

[44]
 Hamilton: I thank you.
Leichtman: Thank you.
Japikse: Thank you.
[The spirit of Alexander Hamilton then withdrew
from the body of the medium and was replaced by the
spirit of Thomas Jefferson.]
Jefferson: It has been awhile, but it is a pleasure to
be back. I would few moments to com-
like to take a

ment from my perspective on what Mr. Hamilton was

saying.
In the destiny of America, one of the crucial issues
that the people of this countrymust face is the extreme
importance of economic freedom. While there is a lot
of rhetorical bantering about freedom for this and free-
dom for that, it is generally forgotten that one of the
most important freedoms is economic freedom the —
freedom to earn and prosper and participate in the com-
merce of the country and the world.
It is a common ploy used by many governments to

promote a wide range of personal freedoms while con-

straining economic freedom. And the unsophisticated
citizen — the person who would rather be led than
lead — often accepts the deceit. He may think that he
has quite a lot of freedom — he 's permitted to read any
book he likes, or see any movie, or travel to any state.

It appears he is free to participate in any way he likes in

a free society. In reality, however, the whole economy

and commerce of the system is being carefully regulated
and taxed and controlled. It 's a little political maneuver
that the public should be more aware of. The percep-
tion of freedom and the reality of freedom are two
distinct things.

One of the points Mr. Hamilton enunciated was the

[45]
THOMAS JEFFERSON

[46]
gradual erosion of economic freedom in this country and
what it will take to correct it. It is the destiny of
America to express both individual and economic free-
dom. Economic freedom is the one that has been taken
away and is most severely constrained at this time.
And until economic freedom is restored, the destiny of
America will be unfulfilled.
So it is crucial at this juncture in history to
thoroughly examine just what economic freedom is.

Each individual in America should search within himself

to determine just what freedom is, what the value of
freedom is to him, and how much of this kind of free-
dom he enjoys. And if the individual citizen will do
this, I think he will come to the realization that we have
lost much of our economic freedom, that more freedom
is necessary to fulfill the destiny of America, and that it
is worth fighting for.
There has been a severe erosion in this country of the
freedoms that we fought so hard for in the beginning.
It has been eroded under the guise of many noble princi-
ples, but the fact remains that the common person in

America has much less freedom today than two hundred

years ago.
I hope that adds something to Mr. Hamilton's
discussion. Do you have any questions on that?
Leichtman: No. It makes a great deal of sense.
Without the ability to control your income and spend it
as you wish, the other freedoms are somewhat useless.
Japikse: Would it have been helpful to have had an
eleventh item in the Bill of Rights guaranteeing econo-
mic freedom?
Jefferson: Yes, it probably would have. At the time,
we assumed the need for economic freedom was self-

[47]
evident. There was a minimum of taxation, just
enough to keep the government running. The thought
of the government becoming as gross and as large as it
is today never occurred to us. We did try to put some
constraints on the government's ability to create money
and coin money out of metals; we were quite aware of
the fallability of paper money, because we had printed
money ourselves during the Revolution, and it wasn't
worth much.
Leichtman: Probably what we really need, although
it isn't actually feasible, is a Bill of Responsibilities to
go with the Bill of Rights. It's not feasible because it

wouldn't be enforceable.
Japikse: Perhapswe should draw up a bill like that
and add it addendum to the interview.
as an
Jefferson: You could, but it's really something each
individual reader should draw up for himself or herself.
That would be much more beneficial.
Ahh, very good. Well, we talked with Mr.
Japikse:
Hamilton about a number of possible constitutional
amendments. Would it be a good idea at this time to
amend the Constitution to guarantee the freedom to
pursue economic achievement?
Jefferson: Well, it is very lofty to propose something
like that, but the fact of the matter is that the govern-
ment which exists now is the government the people
want. This isone of the fallacies of the democratic
process — the government merely represents the will of
the people in its truest sense. Until every individual
does a great deal of soul searching, trying to figure out
why we've gotten into the mess we are in, and
demands that a change be made, tinkering with the
Constitution would not help.

[48]
 And it wouldn't happen, for that matter.

Japikse: Sure.
Jefferson: On the other hand, we did put into the
Constitution the mechanism for making changes in it.

We were aware that we couldn't set down everything

that would be needed to preserve freedom in this coun-
try. The people and the times change, and a constitu-

tion must be able to change with them. Perhaps now is

the time to think out and add to the Constitution some
severe restraints on the government's ability to take
control of the lives of people economically.
Of course, I was one of the major proponents of a
very small central government from the very beginning,
so you when you com-
are talking to the right person
plain about large government encroaching on the rights
of the individual. And this will be the major focus of
my comments in this interview. I've been given the
responsibility to talk about the problem of our large
bureaucracy.
I guess I would start by pointing out the obvious.
Everywhere you turn today, the government has be-
come involved. There is a rule here, a restriction there,
and a paper to fill out for just about everything. It has
grown beyond anything imaginable to us in the early
days.
The problem now is: how do you phase back gov-
ernment influence? When you look at the mechanics of
the federal bureaucracy and how it works, it becomes
quite apparent that it is geared to spending money. It

takes money from the citizens of the country through

taxation and then decides how this massive amount of
money is going to be spent. But it constantly wants
more, so if it can't raise taxes, it borrows money so it

[49]
can continue spending, as Mr. Hamilton discussed.
If you take an in-depth look at how the bureaucracy
moves today, you will find that it consists of a hierarchy
of managers. These managers are charged with devel-
oping programs in their particular departments, which

means generating a budget, acquiring a staff, and im-

plementing the programs. Each individual department
can be thought of as an economic unit whose health
depends upon the amount of funds it receives from the
Congress and the administration. But that does not
promote efficiency —
it promotes the exact opposite.

The managers of the various government departments

have very little incentive to be efficient, because their
prestige and importance are measured in direct propor-
tion to the size of their budget. And so there are two
factors that motivatemost bureaucrats. One is to make
sure their departmental budget increases every year,
and the second is to use the funds allotted to them in
any given year as inefficiently as they can, so they can
justify a bigger increase the next year.
So every year, every manager in government except
the ones with the loftiest of motives plays this game of
lobbying for an increased budget. They say they are
doing this to serve the public better, of course, but that
is not the reason. It is a bureaucratic game. And then
the money is spent with absolutely no concern for
efficiency. The all-consuming goal of the bureaucratic
manager is to make sure that all of the money in his
budget is spent —
and it almost always is. Very seldom
has any department of the government come in under
budget, reporting,
'

'There's two million dollars we

didn 't spend this year so we are giving it back. We Ve
been efficient and have cut back on some staff, and in

[50]
this way we 've been able to save the public two million
'

dollars. ' [Laughter.]

That just isn 't heard of. What is heard of, and does
get reported some in the press, is a mad rush at the end
of each fiscal year to spend every dime that has been
allocated. It's an appalling situation, and it reflects the

gross inequities that have developed in the bureaucracy

over the years.
Until this problem of lifetime bureaucrats whose
prestige and career path are dependent on ever-increas-
ing budgets is corrected, the system will not get better.
There needs to be a major redefinition of the priorities

of a successful bureaucrat so that they are in harmony

with the public's interest, not the bureaucrat's.
The current administration is a breath of fresh air in a
long series of big spenders. But it is not just enough to
make adjustments in the economy as a whole, or even
government spending as a whole. These steps must be
complemented with an aggressive program to provide
incentives for efficiency and frugality in the federal
bureaucracy —
and to take away the rewards for bigness
and increased spending. The managers who make the
real decision whether money is spent efficiently or not

must be given the incentive to save money and return it

to the public coffers.
But the one thing that must not be done is to go out
and hire consultants to come up with such a system!
[Laughter.]
It just takes common sense.
Leichtman: Are there other ideas that can be drawn
from private enterprise other than financial incentives in

order to save money?

Jefferson: Sure. There are many ways profitable

[51]
companies encourage and reward efficiency, and these
should be drawn on. It might not be a bad idea to
develop a committee from private enterprise to look at
the functioning of government and make some recom-
mendations on how to restructure it.

Leichtman: Yes, one of the great virtues of the

this is

capitalist system — the profit motive does tend to pro-

mote efficiency. What about sunset legislation, where
government programs die after a certain period of time
if they are not specifically renewed by Congress?

Jefferson: Every bit of legislation should have a sun-

set clause in it.

Leichtman: Can anything be done to prohibit the

deviousness found in many government programs,
where the program starts out with an expenditure of
only $500,000 the first year and is expected to grow to
no more than two million dollars in five years, but
somehow ends up mushrooming to an expenditure of a
billion and a half? The food stamp program mush-
roomed in exactly that way.
Jefferson: The root of the deviousness, of course,
lies in the administration of the program. I think we
would all agree that it is a good idea to alleviate the
hunger of poor ghetto families. But if a study were
done on how much of the money in the food stamp pro-
gram is actually spent on helping the people it is tar-
geted for, you would find it is a very small part of the
total budget. Most of the money goes to the bureau-
crats who administer it, the contractors who provide the
services,and the consultants who promote and explain
the program to the public. There is a whole economy
which is built up around the administration of govern-
—
ment programs private companies and individuals

[52]
whose sole source of government funds.
income is

Leichtman: Well, system, if a judge is

in the judicial

called on to adjudicate a case in which he has a conflict

of interest, he is supposed to disqualify himself. Can't
we carry that kind of precedent into the bureaucracy?
Perhaps people who are going to benefit directly from
government largesse should be disqualified from having
a voice in how the program is formulated or how it is

implemented.
Jefferson: Of course, but the situation at present is

the direct opposite. The people who will gain the most
from new programs are tl)e ones who lobby for it. It is

very seldom that the people for whom the money is tar-

geted come forward and lobby for it.

If you examine some of the programs for the disad-

vantaged segments of society, you will find that the
majority of people screaming at the government to per-
petuate these programs are not the people who are sup-
posed to be benefiting from them, but the people who
administer them. Now, it can always be said that the
disadvantaged need a voice in Washington, that they
are not competent enough to lobby for themselves. But
I would say that if the program was really important to
them, they would find a way to speak up for them-
selves. That's what democracy is based on, after all.

Japikse: Along this line, I was surprised to learn the

other day that apparently the majority of nonprofit
corporations in this country are set up for the purpose of
receiving federal funds. They are not supported by
charitable contributions from the public — only by fede-
ral funds. And they are making quite an organized
effort right now to oppose and obstruct the current
administration's efforts to cut back on the various fede-

[53]
ral programs that keep them alive. These groups liter-

ally exist in order to accept and distribute federal

money. To me, that defeats the whole charitable pur-
pose of nonprofit status.
Jefferson: Well, this is another example of the loss
of economic freedom in this country and the immense
transfer of wealth which is occurring, both in blatant
and in subtle ways. Rather than provide an incentive
for philanthropic activities by the public at large, the
almighty government has taken it upon itself to decide,

in its immense wisdom, who is going to benefit from

public funds. This is totally contrary to what we had
originally intended for the role of government.
Leichtman: Yes. Well, let me ask this. There are
laws — I 'm not sure if they are federal or state — that
limit theamount of money charitable organizations can
spend on fund raising to a certain percentage of their
income. In Maryland, there was a certain organization
that was spending something like 95 percent of its
funds to raise more money, and only 5 percent was
going to fulfill its charitable purpose. All hell broke
loose, of course, and they were sued and put out of
business. Can't the same laws be applied to govern-
ment agencies, limiting overhead to a specific percent-
age, with all the rest of the funds being spent to fulfill

the purpose of the program?

Jefferson: That would be a perfectly viable solution,
yes. There are many ways to do it.
Leichtman: And of course there is the example of the
Federal Drug Administration, which insists that a new
drug must be proven effective before they will license
it. Can't the same thing be done for government pro-
grams —they have to be proven effective before we un-

[54]
leash them on the whole population?
Jefferson: Ah, but that would be questioning the
altruistic motives of the bureaucrat proposing the pro-
gram. [Laughter.]
Leichtman: Damn right. [More laughter.]
Japikse: Of course, a restriction like that would just
generate a new breed of consultant who would prove
that all these programs work. [Guffawing.]
Leichtman: Well, we need to take a close look at the
hypocrisy and deception.
Jefferson: Running an efficient government is no big
secret. All of the tools are available. This country has
more than enough management techniques and well-
trained managers to make the government run effi-
ciently. The problem is not know-how; the problem is

that an efficient government is not the desired goal. It

is oft stated to be the desired goal, but if you look at

what people do rather than what they say, you will see
there is very little interest in efficiency.
Even the efforts of the current administration, which
seems serious about improving the efficiency of govern-
ment, fall far short of the minimum necessary to change
the tide and the momentum of governmental policies.
The Reagan administration has taken some good steps,
and we are pleased that at least the idea of restraint in
government is being discussed, but the efforts are fall-

ing far short. And all such efforts will fall short until the
will of the people is mobilized to demand that if in fact

they are going to be taxed at these rates, the govern-

ment had better be more accountable for the way it is

spending the money.

Let me digress for a moment and make the observa-
tion that this is the first time in the history of the United

[55]
States when a generation is coming of age that has
never really known a time when the income tax did not
exist. The previous generation grew up at a time when
the income tax was still relatively minor and not a major
factor. But the generation now moving to maturity is
really the first one that has never known a system of
economic freedom.
Leichtman: There's even propaganda in the way the
income tax is discussed. It is labeled progressive, be-
cause the more you make, the more you pay. Whereas
a flat tax is labeled regressive, because it is thought to
penalize the poor. It is a cleverly deceitful way to
obscure the real issues.
Jefferson: Yes. Of course, the Soviet Union has a
progressive tax system, too.
Japikse: But they make no pretense to economic
freedom.
Leichtman: They take it all and then give back what
little they want to.

Jefferson: Many of the socialist countries have pro-

gressive tax systems. If an individual advocates a pro-
gressive tax, I would be very skeptical that he had any
concept at all of what economic freedom entails and
how the workings of a free society should intertwine.
In fact, advocating a progressive tax is the surest sign
of all that the individual is in fact talking against eco-

nomic freedom. It is appalling.

Leichtman: But people today talk seriously about
what they call the reverse Robin Hood effect, that a flat
tax would take from the poor and give to the rich. I
think that shows how deeply these ideas have become
entrenched in a relatively short time.

Jefferson: Absolutely. Fifty years ago the thought

[56]
 —

of a reverse Robin Hood would have been foreign

effect

to the majority of Americans, so you can see how de-

graded the level of political and economic thought in

this country has become. It has reached the point where

people who do not have a productive bone in their

bodies are proclaiming their right to sap the energy of

the productive members of society in the form of trans-
fer payments.
As Cecil George put it in his short preface, the per-
sonality that embodies the spirit of America has become
ill and is going through a period of psychological im-
balance.
Japikse: Would you take a moment to describe in
some detail exactly what the impact and likely conse-
quences will be if this sapping of the strength of
society 's productive members continues? Not all of our
readers may fully understand what we are referring to
here, or why it is so harmful.
Jefferson: Well, as Mr. Hamilton mentioned, it

eventually produces a situation where the entire system

begins to crumble around you. The productive mem-
bers of society form an underground economy, and it
reaches the point where the government is unable to
collect enough funds to keep it running. Then, either

the entire system crumbles or a new governmental

system — much more totalitarian and repressive
emerges, leading to an even greater loss of freedom.
Leichtman: Don't you also have a falling off in the

productivity of formerly hard working people, as they

begin to realize that it doesn't pay to work so hard? II

their productivity is going to be penalized, why work?

Jefferson: Right. But you can't expect the govern-
ment to suddenly get smart and see what is happening

[57]
and back off. American public which must get
It's the

smart, search their inner values, and realize that as the

government gets bigger and bigger, it's going to tax
more and more. And the only form of protest will be
either to refuse to pay taxes or refuse to be productive.
And in either case, the potential is there for the govern-
ment to respond by intruding on individual freedoms
even more.
Leichtman: Yes. It is often noted that the most
Gestapo-like elements of many governments are the tax
collecting agencies. Certainly in the United States, the
Internal Revenue Service has more subpoena rights and
more legal grounds for invading our privacy and check-
ing our records than any other branch of government.
And it is the only branch of government that considers
you guilty until you prove yourself honest.
Jefferson: Absolutely. And it could get worse. Part
of the reason why we are all participating in this inter-
view is to raise the flag and warn people of the potential
for the erosion of even more of the individual rights and
freedoms of the American people.
It's an extremely dangerous period in the history of
the United States.
Leichtman: Well, should we perhaps be looking for
a way promote incentives for productivity that go
to
beyond do your own thing?
just being able to
Jefferson: Well, the government of the United
States has spent a good fifty years taking away all of the
incentives for productivity that once existed, and now
that it has taken them and we have gotten ourselves
into this mess, it is turning around and saying, "Gee,
maybe we ought to give the public a few incentives to
be more productive.

[58]
 This is the way the twisted thinking of our bloated
government works. A rational person, however, can
easily see that it never should have taken any of the
incentives away in the first place. So the debate is not
really whether or not the government should now give
us a few incentives. Giving people a few incentives to
be more productive is not giving them anything. The
only true incentive to produce is to remove government
interference.
This is an important point which is oft forgotten.
We would still have the incentives we need to be pro-
ductive if the government hadn't taken them all away.
So all this talk about productivity incentives and capital
spending incentives is really clouding the issue. The
only solution to these problems is the reduction of
taxes.
We don't need incentives. We need people who
will stand up and tell the government, "Give us our
'

freedom. Take off the shackles.

Leichtman: Well, I agree completely with that. But
Iwas suggesting something a little different. Andrew
Carnegie, for instance, set up a fund to honor heroes
people who had done unusual things and deserved to be
acclaimed publicly and recognized as a benefactor or
hero. And then there's the MacArthur Foundation,
which gives money to people who are being unusually
creative to help sustain their good work. I see these as
positive incentives.
Jefferson: Oh, I see what you are saying. Yes, that
can help, as long as it does not obscure our real need —
return to genuine economic freedom.
Japikse: Yes, the real issue here is economic free-

dom, not the doctoring the government might do from

[59]
time to time to give the appearance of substantial
change.
Jefferson: Yes. The government has appointed itself

the ultimate dispenser of economic freedom, and this is

a total reversal of what we established.

Leichtman: And you can't dispense freedom any-
way — you can only guarantee it.

Jefferson: Or not.
Japikse: And I think this is a point we should all

dwell on.
Leichtman: Yet what do you say about those who
claim that certain minorities, or even the public as a
whole, need government protection? It seems to me
that sometimes this protection is carried to the extent
where they are protected from having to be competent
or make a living.

Jefferson: That is true. The role of the government

should go no further than to protect the minority from
the majority. That means providing them with the
same opportunities, rights, and environment for suc-
cess. If discrimination and injustice keep a minority
from enjoying the opportunities, rights, and environ-
ment for success the majority enjoys, then it is a proper
role ofgovernment to step in and be a referee.
However, the guarantee of equality and freedom
does not mean that everyone 's income will be equal or
that everyone 's talents will be equal, or that everyone 's
economic well-being, intellectual capacity, or emotion-
al security will be equal. It merely means that every in-

dividual has an equal chance to achieve success, what-

ever his or her definition of success would be.
Of course, this concept has been grossly distorted,
and the government has apparently decided that equal-

[60]
ity means that everyone should have the same amount
of income, whether he is productive or not.
Leichtman: And that undercuts the factor of account-
ability, doesn't it? In private business and the profes-
sions, you have to be accountable. If you are a doctor,
for instance, and you do not render reasonably good
medical service, then you can be sued for malpractice.
But if everyone has a right to a certain level of income,
no matter how lazy or incompetent he may be, then
accountability has no meaning. And it seems to me that
the principle of accountability is an inherent part of sus-
taining freedom.
Jefferson: Yes. And here once again we see evidence
of the erosion of freedom. The government has
assumed accountability for protecting the individual,
and yet in doing so, it has taken this responsibility
away from those who have traditionally held it. And so
now we have the government insuring that the products
of business and the services of the professions meet
standards it has developed.
There definitely is a role for government protection
of the health of the individual . Certain minimum stand-
ards of health care must be met. But in the final analy-

sis, the value of a product or service in a free economy

should be determined by its ability to be sold. And the
greatest exercise of individual freedom is the choice not
to purchase certain goods or partake of certain services.
The government does have a role in pointing out
standards, but it should not expand that role to take the
responsibility for making a rational decision away from
the individual. And unfortunately, the government has
taken on this responsibility, and we have suffered a loss
of freedom.

[61
 Of course, given the quality of the individuals we
have in government, you can understand why this has
happened.
Leichtman: I wonder about the hypocrisy of some of
these people, though, who seem to think that bigness is
bad in business but perfectly all right in government.
It's bad for Exxon to have huge profits but seems to be
all right for the government to take a hundred times as
much from the public.
Jefferson: Yes. Well, let me summarize and then I

will let someone else have his say.

The destiny of America is to demonstrate to the
world that the all-important issue for humanity is free-
dom — and specifically economic freedom. And before
this message can be transmitted effectively to the
world, and before freedom and dignity and the divine
right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can be
spread to include the whole world, these principles
must be expressed and demonstrated here in the United
States.
It is the destiny of the United States to express this
freedom, both individual freedom and economic free-
dom. But rather than expressing its own mission and
individuality, the United States has succumbed to the
disease that has plagued humanity for countless thou-
sands of years. Unless its vision of destiny can be re-
vitalized, and the principles this country was founded
on can be restated in the light of current world situa-
tions, then the great divine experiment which was the
United States could be aborted.
Unless some real soul searching on the part of this

new generation occurs, examining the principles on

which this country was founded and finding new ways

[62]
to express them again, there is a real possibility we
could end up with a mediocre country, a semi-socialist,
semi-greedy, huge, bloated bureaucratic government
that is no different than any other country in the world.
Now, while that sounds relatively gloomy and pessi-
mistic, I do want you to understand that there is a great
opportunity here to see that succumbedwe have in fact

to the historical momentum of greed, ignorance, and

selfishness —
we have an opportunity to see that the
pure American system has been altered. And if we can
see this, and make the necessary changes, we will be
able to fulfill the destiny of this country.
The spirit of America has immense power, you
know, and it has a very important statement to make to
the world. If we can effectively harness the will of the
American people to deal with these problems, then we
can restore the freedoms we have lost and demonstrate
them once again to the whole world.
In the final analysis, the components, the creative
impulse, and the benefits of the American system are
correct. And it is our deep conviction that the system is

basically correct and will prevail in the end, in spite of

these problems. But if the system is to evolve into what
it can be — something that will express the divine
presence of the spirit of America for all the world to
see — then we must seize this conviction, because it is

only this conviction that can give us the strength to

change the system. The destiny of America is to

demonstrate to the world that our system of democracy

works and is a model that can be implemented through-
out the world. It is a large task. It is not a simple task,
because it is very easy to lull yourself into just accepting
the status quo.

[63]
 It will take a concerted effort of will on the part of
the majority of Americans to decide that we can
improve the system we have, and that we owe it to our-
selves, to the future, and to the spirit of America to do
so. We can learn from history and see that there have
been times when we have had more freedom than we
do today. We can see that the system has been tinkered
with and the psychological atmosphere has been
muddied.
If we will be guided by these historical lessons, up-
dating them to fit the modern scene, there is still great
hope. There 's a great opportunity for the United States
to lead the world out of the critical situation it is now in,
and provide a basic pattern for government in which the
destiny of human beings throughout the world can be
fulfilled.

This is the destiny of America.

Leichtman: Very good.
Jefferson: If that is enough, I think I will leave.
Thank you.
Leichtman: Thank you.
Japikse: Yes, thank you.
[The spirit of Thomas Jefferson then withdrew from
the body of the medium and was replaced by the spirit
of Benjamin Franklin.]
Franklin: Greetings.
Leichtman: Hello there.
Franklin: I'm going to try to wind my way through
some philosophy and discussion on the role of the
United States in the world, as opposed to its internal
problems, and try to focus on just what that role should
be. Just as Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Jefferson observed
that there has been polarization in this country on in-

[64]
ternal issues, there has also been polarization on the
role of the United States in the world.
On the one hand, you have the isolationists, who
fondly remember the old days when we were protected
from the rest of the world and could turn all our energies
to our internal development and growth. And at the

opposite extreme, you have those who insist that the

world is totally interdependent, and that all of the in-

ternal interests of this country should be subjugated to
the needs and whole world. These people
will of the
have actively sought a world government and would
advocate subjugating the American system of govern-
ment to a world government.
This debate continues, of course, and is the cause of
much flip-flopping in our foreign policy, and ambiguity
about what our role in the world should be. Obvi-
ously, any rational solution would be a compromise or
middle position between the two extremes. Unfortu-
nately, we have managed to avoid the middle position,
and instead have taken the course of moving from one
extreme to the other, depending on who happens to be
in power at the time. There seems to be less cohesion in

foreign policy from one administration to the next now

than ever* in the past, and this creates an interesting
world situation where an ally can become an unwanted
friend without doing anything to cause this change.
The change is the result of our own changes in attitude

and policy as new administrations take over.

I want to make it clear from the beginning that the
world is becoming more and more interdependent, and

it is only a matter of time before some kind of world

body with a significant amount of power is given the

authority to direct the world 's affairs. Sovereign coun-

[65]
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

[66]
tries are no longer self-sufficient unto themselves, as is

most obviously exemplified by the oil problem. We are

interdependent on each other throughout the world.
And as the economies and political systems of the
various countries evolve and develop, more and more
interdependence will be necessary. The art of diplo-
macy is going to have to be exercised with extreme care
and competence.
A first priority for America in this changing world is a
deep understanding of who we are and what we are
able to contribute and receive from the world. This is

important, because it is this kind of understanding that

will preserve our freedoms and role in the world as
nations become more interdependent. The rise of inter-
dependence in the world does not in any way mean that
the principles and freedoms a country enjoys should be
subjugated or diluted by becoming a member of a world
body. Each individual country has the right and the
obligation to maintain its own identity and system of
government, and should be free to choose how it will
participate in the world body.
At the same time, however, we must understand
that participation in an interdependent world is neces-
sary. It would be virtually impossible at this time to
revert to an isolationism which would cut off our free
democracy from the rest of the confused world. Those
who speak out in favor of isolationism in essence refuse
to accept America 's role as a beacon of policy and prin-
ciple for the world.
And so I am a voice which counsels compromise and
moderation between these two polarized approaches to
international relations.
Okay, where do we go from here? I'm going to

[67]
need a little guidance in the form of questions; I 'm not
as organized as the rest of the folks here. I tend to wing
it. [Laughter.]
Leichtman: Well, let's start with this. Some people
think we should use the issue of human rights to deter-
mine our foreign policy. They feel we should promote
human rights everywhere in the world, meaning that
we should not give any support to repressive regimes
of the right or the left — because they oppress human
rights. Many good people find it hard to compromise
on this particular issue, and that causes quite a lot of
conflict.

Franklin: In principle, everyone in this country

should be for human rights. Any American — or any
human being, for that matter — should retch at the
thought of anyone's human rights being abused. The
right to pursue freedom, self-expression, human fulfill-

ment, and one 's own ideas is a right that is fundamental

to human existence and will eventually manifest
throughout the planet.
However, does this mean that our interaction and
contact with other political systems and governments
should be withheld because of the abuse of human
rights — any other kind of abuse? Just because the
or
kind of government we enjoy here is not enjoyed by
others does not necessarily mean that we should shun
them or treat them in a less than civil way.
It is often thought that it is somehow the responsi-
bility of the United States to free people throughout the
world — to take on the responsibility of helping coun-
tries or the people within countries to free themselves
from the bonds of tyranny which confine them to their
And sometimes we lose per-
particular sad situation.

[68]
spective that the ropes that bind a people must be
thrown off by the people themselves. An outside force
cannot impose its will on a people in the long run. It
may be able to in the short run, as we have seen many
times and will continue to see. But it is not the respon-
sibility of the United States to free the people of the
world.
Our responsibility, as Mr. Jefferson put it so elo-
quently, is to demonstrate our ability to live as a free

people and to show that our system of economic and

political freedom is one that flourishes beyond all other
systems. We are meant to be an example to the world,
and if we can just do that well, we will be acting in full
harmony with the destiny of this country. And as Mr.
Hamilton and Mr. Jefferson said, the first order of
business is to get our own house in order. Once it is in

order, then we can make this statement to the rest of

the world.
Our house is not in order at present, and our foreign
own confusion about the meaning of
policy reflects our
freedom. becoming increasingly unclear what this
It is

country stands for. This must be thought out. We

must have a clear perception of who we are and what
we stand for. Only this will give us the direction we
need.
Leichtman: Well, what about turning it around the
other way and discussing foreign policy from the stand-
point that the United States needs good friends, good
neighbors, and good allies? And so we obviously need
to do those things which promote a good neighbor poli-
cy — where we demonstrate that we are a good neigh-
bor and friend to those countries which are our allies. I

would say we haven't done a very good job in cultivat-

[69]
ing our friendships in recent years.
Franklin: I would tend to agree. A country needs to
have good friends and allies among other nations. And
we should therefore be interested in being a good part-
ner in commerce, an advisor when advice is requested,
and a source of support when that is required, as well as
a proponent of freedom. Obviously, our closest friend-
ships will be with those countries that have a system of
government and a culture which are similar to ours. But
we can at least treat other countries civilly and under-
stand that it is in our best interest to cultivate strong ties

wherever possible.
We should also understand, however, that we can
build ties in some countries that are not free by support-
ing and encouraging the people in those countries who
are yearning for freedom. It is certainly within the
scope of the role of the United States to promote free
choice among the peoples of the world. It is certainly
congruent with our beliefs and principles to aid people
who are yearning and fighting for freedom in their own
countries. In fact, would be very diligent in aiding
I

those who are struggling to become free throughout the

world.
Leichtman: Let me make sure I understand what you
are saying. What kind of diligent aid are you advocat-
ing? Some of our allies throughout the world are basi-
cally dictatorships. If we worked diligently to help the
freedom loving people of those countries overthrow
their governments, we would very quickly undermine

our good relations with those countries.

Franklin: You are absolutely right, and I am not in

any way advocating an active promotion of revolution

throughout the world. The United States should not in

[70]
any way foment and support revolution or try to force
its will on any people —
as it has been known to do in

the past. We should limit ourselves to living the ex-

ample of what freedom can do and be willing to help
those who set up systems similar to ours.
The problem, as I see it, is that all too often we find
ulterior motives for aiding and/or changing govern-
ments. It is seldom a simple case of helping promote
freedom and restore human dignity. Usually, there's
an economic or political motive that does not necessarily
ring true to the ideals we are trying to express. So we
have to learn to be more discriminating, and see the dis-
tinction between promoting revolution even promot- —
ing it from within —
and merely aiding those who are
yearning and fighting for their freedom. It is a subtle
distinction. I cannot give you a hard and fast rule in this
forum, because there isn't any.
It takes clear thinking and judgment to determine
whether the desires and goals of a group of people are in

fact in harmony with those of the United States. If they

are, then aid should be given to them, if they are strug-
gling to change their system of government. But aiding
people is not the same as initiating revolution.
Leichtman: And there are so many factors that com-
plicate the issue, aren 't there? There are any number of
South American countries with dictatorial regimes, for

instance, and every one of those countries has groups

that are opposed to these represssive regimes. And yet,
if they ever won and gained control, most of them
would be just as bad — if not worse — than the regime
they overthrew.
Franklin: Absolutely. And this is precisely my
point. Just because a group is fighting a repressive

[71]
regime does not mean that it loves or embodies free-
dom. And if it does not, we should not support it.

Leichtman: However, it is sometimes to our advan-

tage to promote a stable government.
Franklin: A stable government, yes.
Leichtman: Certainly England did that in the late

nineteenth century — it often didn't care who was in

charge of a country just as long as they could maintain a
stable government the English could work with.
Franklin: Yes. Not everyone in the world is going to
live as we live. And it is rational to take the stance that
we have a system that works, a system that promotes
freedom and it. We choose to live under it, and
we like

we would promote it throughout the world as a

like to

system that does honor the best in the human family.

We would like to see the whole world operating under
a democratic system such as ours. But the cold reality is

that many countries do not. It often takes quite a

period of growing up before a people realizes that they
can live under a system such as ours. That is their

choice. We choose to live as we do. They choose to

live as they do. We should respect that choice and find
ways to cultivate good ties with them.
It is only where the people want to be free but are
not being allowed to make that choice where I would
diligently give support. And as I even then
said earlier,
I would be careful to avoid backing revolutionary forces
for anything other than the most altruistic reasons.

Avoiding the issue and just watching out for our own
economic security is better than supporting a revolution
that does not result in freedom.
Leichtman: Okay. Would you like to say anything
about the Arab-Israeli conflagration, or is that too hot?

[72]
 —

Franklin: I'm not sure I could say anything that

would not be out of date by the time this gets into print.
Japikse: Well, how about talking about the way the
United States should deal with what are obviously very
entrenched antagonisms in certain parts of the world
the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Northern Ireland-English
conflict, and other bitter antagonisms?
Leichtman: Or South Africa.
Japikse: Yes, South Africa, or even Viet Nam. We
stumbled into some bitter regional antagonisms there,
too. Have we been naive in our diplomacy to get
drawn into these conflicts?
Franklin: I think we often try to take sides in situa-
tions where we don't understand what the sides are.
Yes, we have been far too simplistic and a little naive.
Those who determine our foreign policy seem to think
that it is necessary to take sides, to back one or the
other of the participants in a conflict, and sometimes it
is not wise to do this. Sometimes it is better not to take

sides, but to try to resolve the conflict in the best inter-

ests of everyone involved — the interests of the warring

parties.
Far too often, we get embroiled in an "us versus
them kind of mentality which does nothing but move
'

'

the whole art of diplomacy down a notch or two. It is a

retreat into a degree of barbarism, actually. It is time
for our leaders and the people of this country to say,
1

'Look, we have a system that we like. We would like

to promote it throughout the world, but we understand
that not everyone will be able to or should live under
this system at the present time. Therefore, we will pro-
mote our own system when we feel that the people
have invoked it, and otherwise, we will follow a course

[73]
of enlightened impartiality in the conflicts of the world.
We will try to be a strong referee in world affairs, rather
than lower ourselves to becoming a combatant.
Leichtman: Or just a meddler.
Franklin: Yes, we do tend to meddle more than we
should.
Japikse: Could you define the distinction between
meddling and refereeing a little more precisely?

Franklin: Well, if you look at the Arab-Israeli con-

flict, it is clear that the government of the United States

made the decision at some point in time that it must

take sides. And it made the decision that good relations
with Israel were more important than good relations
with the Arab nations. And of course, we could un-
ravel this whole conversation talking about the reasons
why we should or should not support Israel. But the
fact of the matter is that we chose to take a side in the
conflict. We we chose
didn't have to take a side, but
to. And now you can attribute part of the oil
of course
problem to the fact that we did choose a side.
Leichtman: Yes, it is obvious to me that if we choose
Israel as a friend, then we also take on Israel's enemies

as our enemies. People don't seem to realize that,

however.
Franklin: Yes. So rather than take sides in a conflict
such as this, we should promote ourselves as ambassa-
dors of goodwill among all nations. We should not
lower our diplomacy to the level where we are aligning
ourselves with one particular interest. Nor should we
ever make a commitment to back any interest anywhere
in the world except the interest of freedom.
Of course, the pursuit of freedom can be warped and
blur our thinking, as has happened in the past. But we

[74]
 —

should strive to be a strong mediator and peacemaker,

rather than take sides in conflicts.
Japikse: These comments would seem to imply the
need for a certain amount of responsibility on the part of
every American citizen. After all, in this country, we
have citizens who have ties with every country in the

world. It would seem to me that a major reason why

we have gotten caught up in the conflicts in Israel and
even Ireland, for example, is not because the govern-
ment wants to but because of pressure put on it by citi-

zens who still have a greater allegiance to these coun-

tries than they do to America. Or they are willing to
compromise America's interests to promote the
interests of a favored country.
Franklin: Well, I don't want to get into specific
details, but yes, internal politics do have a lot to do
with why was made to take sides. This is
the decision
another reason why we must get our house in order and
decide who we Are we a bunch of people who are
are.
the melting pot of the world and who must now turn
around and use our power to save the old country
whatever the old country may be — or are we something
more than that?
I think the destiny of the United States is more than
that. It is more than taking sides in conflicts, sending in
arms and troops to squash the other guy. I don 't think
that is a role for this country at all, even though it has,
in fact, been a role we've played. But the fact that we
have followed this course merely reflects the pettiness
of our leaders and the inability of the American people
to enunciate the principles by which they desire our
foreign policy to be conducted.
Leichtman: Of course, some people forget that peo-

[75]
pie in other countriesdo not have the same values or
culturalbackground as Americans do. They will look at
the black people in South Africa as though they were
citizens of Alabama or Georgia, for instance, and that
doesn't wash. But that may explain why some people
think as they do.
Franklin: Yes. And many people do believe that it is

the responsibility of the United States to clean up the

problems of other countries in all parts of the world.
Leichtman: Or they will say that the United States
cannot afford to be totally neutral while Cuba is acting
as a surrogate of Russia, promoting Russian imperi-
alism.
'

Franklin: Isn't it interesting that the term 'imperi-

alism' '
has now been bantered around for so many
years that it has taken on a negative connotation?
I would say that generally the scenario is as follows.

The Soviet Union goes into an area of the world and the
United States immediately lowers itself to its level and
says, "Look at what the Soviet Union is doing. We
have to combat this.
'

' And that is definitely not what I

think the stance of the government of the United States

should be. It should be clear that we do promote the
freedom of people to decide on their own government,
and that we will diligently check the Soviet Union in its

attempts to subvert this freedom — and we have the

strength to do it. But we should not lower ourselves to
their level.
The Soviet Union operates at very base levels. They
are very sophisticated at being devious. And it is not
good for the United States to try to match their base-
ness and deviousness with baseness and deviousness of
our own. We should try instead to block their efforts

[76]
through a campaign of '
'checkmate, " where the neu-
trality of the super powers in influencing smaller coun-
tries is maintained because of the strength of each. If

the Soviet Union attempts to impose its will on an un-

willing people, it is our responsibility to help prevent it.

It's an act of war. But our general policy should be to

avoid such conflicts by remaining clear about our priori-
ties and principles.
My personal opinion is that the United States has
lowered itself and abased its dignity in the last couple of
decades through its conduct of foreign policy. We have
not lived up to the spirit of America and have gotten
sucked into a lower level of conduct in world affairs.

Japikse:You've mentioned a couple of times the

need to define the identity of America and the kind of
self-image we ought to be projecting. Could you com-
ment a bit more in depth about the kind of identity we
should be generating? What should our self-image be?
Franklin: Well, I think I've been answering that
question in everything I Ve said, but I suppose it would
be useful to summarize it. I'm trying to make a case for
America as a peacemaker, a strong but compassionate
people who enjoy their freedom and wish to promote
the freedom of people throughout the world. It is a
people who refrain from taking sides and who attempt
to be a mediator in disputes arising between other coun-
tries, a people who would carry on commerce with most
countries and who would make a very serious stand
against any outside aggression — indeed, when asked,
would aid the fight against outside aggression.
Does that make it clearer?
Japikse: Yes. I think if that was the image conveyed
through our diplomacy, it would be very effective in-

[77]
deed. What suggestions could you make to American
diplomats to make them more effective in the art of
diplomacy?
Franklin: Well, there are two things. The first is the
need for a central policy and set of principles on which
we all agree. It is very difficult to be a diplomat in a
foreign country when you are pretty sure the people in
charge back in Washington don't know what they are
doing. It is very difficult to promote a coherent image
of America if there is no direction or basis for making
decisions. It's very difficult to interact with other
governments or serve as a spokesman for our interests if
no one has coherently defined what those interests are.
American diplomacy has been a patchwork of deci-
sions made on the spur of the moment by individuals
who have failed to think through the large picture the —
scope of what the role of the United States should be
and the philosophy which should guide specific actions.
Of course, the second part of the art of diplomacy is
the ability to cultivate close personal relationships with
the members of other governments, so that we can
begin to understand them and begin to have an idea
how those countries will respond to particular situa-
tions. At its highest level, the good diplomat should
almost be able to predict in advance how a country will
respond to policies and events, because he has culti-

vated these close personal relationships and gotten to

know the key decision makers of the other government.
There is nothing worse than surprises in foreign
policy — particularly the surprises which arise when the
United States acts in a mode that was not anticipated.
Consistency is a key good diplomacy consistency
to —
in why we are doing what we are. The diplomat ought

[78]
to be able to tell other governments, ''These are the
principles we believe in and these are the ideas we arc
going to promote in the world. No matter what situa-
tion arises, we are going to evaluate it and act on these
particular principles." And we should let the world
know what these principles are.
I would venture to say that right now the United
States appears as unprincipled as the Soviet Union, be-
cause it is operating on a level that is no better than they
are. We are not conducting our foreign policy with any
more principles than any other country, and I think it is

time we got back to defining and living by the principles

of the American spirit.

So there!
Leichtman: Does the United States have any special
degree of obligation to the international community to
lend a helping hand in promoting industrialization or
the development of natural resources?
Franklin: We certainly have a responsibility to help
the world develop. But unfortunately we have let our
own where we
internal situation deteriorate to the point
are no longer the force we once were. We no longer
speak with the voice of authority we once had; we have
become so inconsistent in our own development that
our credibility is not what it once was. We certainly are
not in as good a position now as we once were to help
developing countries increase their productivity. The
economy of this country has deteriorated rapidly in the
last two decades, so how can we possibly offer advice if

we can't even run our own economy?

We certainly don 't have the credibility that the Japa-
nese have. They have done a remarkable job in increas-
ing productivity in commerce and industry. If were I

[79]
going to ask for help, I probably would go to them first,

rather than come to the United States. We are no

longer in the dominant position we once enjoyed. That
is clear, and I don 't think it will be much of a surprise to
any of our readers. We must renew our principles and
redefine our philosophy, so that we can move into the
next period of our history.
Leichtman: All right.
Franklin: Let me close my comments then. The des-
tiny of Americapromote by example the concepts
is to
of individual freedom, economic freedom, and human
rights throughout the world, and to make sure that the
climate in any part of the world is such that these con-
cepts can grow. It is sort of like the farmer who puts a
seed in the ground and waters it and adds fertilizer to it,

in hopes that the seed will grow. And the farmer does
what he can to keep the environment healthy, so that
the plant will grow. Sometimes it doesn't grow, but
the farmer does all he can.
And the destiny of the United States in the world,
and the role it should play diplomatically, is to provide
the climate in which individual choice and freedom will
flourish.It must make the statement of what freedom

means and reinforce it as best it can. We cannot force

freedom on anyone, or shove it down anyone's throat.
We've tried it and it doesn't work. And it shouldn't
work. Democracy and the yearning for freedom come
from within. They cannot be forced on anyone. But
we should be willing and able to provide the fertilizer

and the water to make sure the seeds of democracy

around the world are nurtured.
The primary way of doing this is to show by example
what freedom is. And until we get our own house in

[80]
order and begin to demonstrate this example intelli-
gently, we are going to have increasingly less and less
voice in world affairs. There is very little worth re-
specting about the way we have handled the world's
problems during the last decade. We have approached
them in an unprincipled manner, with the same greed
and ignorance that motivate the other powers of the
world.
I think it is time the citizens of the United States set
forth the principles and beliefs that ought to guide the
actions of our diplomats, and let the world know that
we believe in these ideas and values and stand ready to
defend them — and to defend our system — with all the
energy that we have.
It is the best system the world has ever seen and that
has been proven. That is real clear. But we have let

confusion and an identity crisis set us back, and some

greedy, power hungry, and incompetent people have
made some decisions for the whole country that have
tarnished our prestige in the world community. So we
now must decide that the principles we live by and the
way in which we conduct ourselves are far more impor-
tant than any other consideration. It is always good to
act in ways that promote our best self-interest, but it is

possible to get too caught up in making sure that we

preserve this supply of ore or that supply of oil. Re-
spect does not come from having control of assets or
control of people. comes from the calm sense of
It

knowing who we areand what we stand for what we —

are willing to defend and promote to the best of our
ability.

Until we rejuvenate the clear vision that once was

the American dream, we are going to see a chaotic

[81]
world, a world in which we are not any better or worse
than any other country in the world, just different. But
we don't want to be just a different system. We want
to demonstrate that democracy is the best system — the
system that provides the most freedom and creates the
best climate for the full flowering of human evolution
been present on this planet. And we are
that has ever
charged with the responsibility of promoting this
system throughout the world.
Japikse: That sounds like a noble challenge.
Leichtman: Yes.
Franklin: That's all I have to say. But I'm being
prompted to go over a few technical details with you.
Any ideas ofwhere you want to go from here with
these interviews? We have a lot of options open.
Leichtman: One possibility would be to look more at
the events in the last two or three decades which have
led to the severe problems the three of you have been
talking about. Maybe we need to hear from someone
closer to the modern scene, now that we 've talked to all
of you old duffers. [Laughter.]
Franklin: All of us old duffers?
Leichtman: Yes, I think it is time for a newer duffer.
[More laughter.]
Franklin: A newer duffer.
Japikse: Or even a new age duffer.
Franklin: Well, one of the reasons why we have
stayed with the old duffers is that we have a particular
air about us. [Laughter.]
Leichtman: I know.
Franklin: Would you like to talk to Landslide
Lyndon?
Leichtman: That would be fine. It would be a great

[82]
honor. But that would be too recent. Too many people
would still think of him purely on the personality level,
rather than as an expert on the spirit of America.
Franklin: Yes.
Leichtman: And the Republicans would be suspi-
cious of anything he said, unless he said he has changed
his mind now that he's in heaven, and then all the
Democrats would howl. [Laughter.] The advantage of
talking with you old duffers, I guess, is that you are all
so ancient you are now thought of as saints.
Franklin: Yes.
Japikse: There certainly are people who played
major roles in guiding America toward its destiny in
between 1790 and 1980. I don't want to prejudice
anything by asking for someone in specific, but there
were some great people.
Leichtman: There were many great people. Even
some of those who have a slightly tarnished reputation
were great people. I don't think there have been any
really rotten presidents. They all have had some degree
of greatness.
Franklin: Okay, we'll let it be a surprise. But it
won't be all old duffers, even though papa George will
be one of the ones still making an appearance.
Leichtman: Good.
Franklin: I thank you.
Leichtman: Thank you.
Japikse: Yes, thank you.
[The interviews broke off for the day. The follow-
ing day they resumed with Franklin Delano Roosevelt
appearing through the medium.]
Roosevelt: I had so much fun popping in on Church-
ill [Roosevelt made a brief appearance during the inter-

[83]
FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT

[84]
view with Sir Winston Churchill earlier in the series]
that I just had to come back for more.
So how's it going? This is real exciting. I thor-
oughly enjoy this. It is quite a unique thing to be par-
ticipating in.
I've been listening to the whole session, of course,
and I began to think some of these comments may be
getting a little too somber. I tried to give Franklin a
little goose in what you call the astral. [Laughter.] But
I wasn't able to accomplish that, so I decided to pop in
for an actual appearance.
Of course, what they have been talking about is seri-

ous, but some of us do retain our sense of humor, in

spite of tremendous adversity.

I want to bring up a line of thought I got into during
the Churchill interview, so for those who have read
Churchill Returns, it may seem like I 'm repeating my-
self. But I think the message is important enough to
reiterate here in The Destiny of America. The point
was this. All too often, old and worn out ideas are
dredged up from the annals of history in the attempt to
solve current problems. The old way of doing things is

always appealing to those entrenched in narrow think-

ing, but retreaded ideas are not able to solve current
problems. Each generation has its own particular set of
problems to solve, and those problems demand a solu-
tion unique to that generation. So, instead of trotting
out all the old, worn out ideas, the new generation
should seek out creative, dynamic people who are will-
ing to try something new.
The way I see it, this is what is needed today, in

order to pull America out of its stagnation. We are

stagnating on all fronts, and so we have to rejuvenate

[85]
and revitalize this country. We have to rekindle our
sense of destiny, our sense of direction, and the sense
of excitement that life is worth living. The world has a
lot of opportunities, and if we will work with these
opportunities, we can improve it. We need to shake off
the gloom and doom that has been spreading through-
out the United States and the world in the last several

years and see that the United States has opportunities in

many areas of the world to get involved and promote
new and creative ideas.
Before I first took office, I had made all sorts of
promises, as all of us politicians do. But when I got into
office, I realized that some of the promises were wrong.
So I had to change directions. You tend to have one
perspective on problems as a candidate, and another
perspective when you have the full responsibility of the
office. You see that conditions are different than you
had believed, and they need different solutions.
I recognized right away that would not be able
I to
cling to my old beliefs and accomplish what needed to
be done. So I decided I might as well take the heat and
get in there and do what I thought had to be done. This
is sounding pep talk, I guess, and maybe it is. I
like a

am enthusiastic about what can be done. At least the

new resident of the White House, and many of the
politicians he brought in with him, have a new spirit of
adventure. And if they don't succumb to the old ways
of running the government, the momentum can be
shifted.
Of course, my three predecessors in this interview
don't share my enthusiasm for the possiblity of change
at this time, but then again they did not have to deal
with a massive change in the direction of public policy,

[86]
 —

as I did. It is very possible to make these major

changes, you attack the problem with optimism and
if

vigor and a sense that something has got to be done and

by God, you had better do it, because nobody else will.
And if you take that attitude, it can be done. And it
was done.
New ideas are needed today. Some that have been
suggested are going to work, and some aren't. But a
lot more are needed. My appeal to those who will read

this book is to promote creativity in our public officials.

Encourage them to take some chances. Don 't be rigid.

Look at new ideas.
Okay?
Leichtman: Do you have some concrete suggestions
for overhauling programs such as Social Security?
Roosevelt: I hadn't really anticipated that question,
but I guess I should have, since it was my creation. Can
I have a moment for some reflection?
Leichtman: Of course.
Roosevelt: Perhaps you would like to hum some-
thing while I think — some music to contemplate by.
[Laughter.]
There are two problems with Social Security. The
first is that it has become something it was never in-

tended to be. It was never intended to provide the sole

support of a retired individual. When it was instituted,
the intent was to provide supplemental income to a per-
son 's life savings. But over the years, this fundamental
purpose has been warped and distorted, and Social
Security has become the primary — and even the sole
source of retirement income for a majority of Ameri-
cans. And this, of course, has changed the nature of
Social Security.

[87]
 The second problem is that Social Security is run by a
bunch of bureaucrats who have no conception of how to
run a pension fund. A pension fund is a fund where you
put in money, earn investment income on it, and then
give it back to the people. It should not be necessary to
raise the Social Security tax to make it solvent — not if

the fund were properly managed.

Why is Social Security being so mismanaged? Be-
casue there has been no incentive to run it efficiently, as

a pension fund should be run.

There are only two alternatives for overhauling the
Social Security system — either up the tax or cut the
benefits. It 's very simple. But until the American peo-
ple understand what has happened to the system,
nothing will be done. The politicians certainly aren't
going to do anything. On the one hand, you have the
'

crew that says, 'We can't raise the tax anymore.

'

' I

certainly agree with that — it is much, much higher than

I ever imagined. And on the other hand, there is the
crew that says, "We can't cut benefits, because all of
these people need this income and have been promised
" So what will the politicians do? Nothing. They
it.

won't do anything, and the problem will just get worse

and worse.
The system is basically going broke, but until this is

clear to the public, nothing will be done. The only

feasible solution is to cut benefits and provide incen-
tives to people to save for their retirement instead of
depending on Social Security as the primary source of
retirement funds.
Leichtman: But there is no incentive to save; in fact,
savings accounts in this country are taxed. And of
course, government-sponsored inflation almost makes

[88]
saving money counter-productive.
Roosevelt: Well, a comprehensive program provid-
ing incentives for productivity and accumulating the
fruits of one's labor, as discussed by Mr. Hamilton,
would allow each citizen to keep more of his or her
earnings.
Of course, in my day we had different ideas about
the policy of America. But they were for a different
time and a different set of problems. That does not
mean that they were bad ideas, but they are pretty
worn out today. And I would be the first to say that the
New Deal is now the Old Deal, and we need a better
deal today. [Laughter.]
Of course, there are still some worn out politicians
who hang on to the ideas we had in those days as
though they were gospel. They are still entrenched in
the old rhetoric. Now, those ideas and economic poli-
cies were fine for that time. They worked and we're
proud of that. But now it 's clear that thosesame ideas
won't work anymore. We need to find some new
ones. We need to bring the pendulum back to fiscal
responsibility, cut the deficits, not borrow so much,
and be more prudent.
We certainly have a good enough lifestyle in this
country that we shouldn't have to borrow continually
to maintain it. Borrowing continually is the road to
bankruptcy. And if we continue acting as we have
been, we are going to go bankrupt — and that will be a
helluva mess.
Leichtman: Well, at present, we are still a very
powerful and wealthy country.
Roosevelt: A very powerful and wealthy country
heading for bankruptcy.

[89]
 Japikse:Would you mind talking a bit about how a
new becomes an old idea? Do you have a ballpark
idea
figure for how long it takes for a good political idea to
become a worn out idea?
Roosevelt: A good idea becomes a worn out idea
when it is used continually to no avail.
In the throes of the great depression, for instance,
we used government 's fiscal might to put some peo-
the
ple to solve the unemployment problem. We
work and
used the relatively debt-free government to borrow
some money to spend on creating jobs. It was a radical
idea for the time, but the time demanded radical solu-
tions. It was certainly not something I had intended to
do; we were all balanced budget people at the time.
But we needed some radical approaches, so we thought
them up.
That was fine. But the problem is that once you
have done something like that, then every time a little
unemployment develops and the economy looks bad,
"
everyone instantly says, Let's throw some govern-
'

ment spending at it. They don 't go through the crea-

'

tive process of struggling with pulling themselves out of

a mess and coming up with a new solution which is
right for that time.No, they just use the solution which
worked ten years ago, or twenty years ago, or fifty
years ago, without thinking about whether it will work
now. So, rather than pay back some of the debt we in-
curred to end the depression —
and the even larger debt
we ran up fighting the war —
we just continued to bor-
row and raise taxes.
But it has gotten to the point of being ridiculous.
It's time to turn back and try some fiscal responsibility

for a change. We have got to start paying back the

[90]
debt. We have got to start getting our house in order.

We've overborrowed and overspent, and we're getting

close to insolvency.
I guess an old idea would be one that is still being
used after forty or fifty years. And that's what is

happening today. The old New Dealers are still ex-

pounding the same principles after fifty years.
I think it's refreshing that we have a new President

in the White House saying, "Let's try some new

ideas.
'

' Of course, the old idea people are ranting and

raving, "You can't do this. You can't take all this
"
away from us.
"
And I say, "To heck with them.
Japikse: The liberals have become the reactionaries.
Leichtman: Yes, indeed.
Roosevelt: We need a little fire in this country. We
need somebody to shake everybody up, to tell the pub-
lic the truth, to stand up there and say, 'Look, we are
'

in a mess, and this is what we must do to get ourselves

out of it.
" We need someone to tell the public the
straight truth.
Leichtman: It's not easy to get reelected doing that,
though.
Roosevelt: That may be. But why should the Presi-
dent have to worry about being reelected?
Leichtman: I certainly agree with that sentiment.
Roosevelt: The President who puts his own personal
political fortunes above the best interests of the country
makes a travesty of the office.
Leichtman: Of course, pressure groups are much
better organized and funded in this day and age than in
your time.
Roosevelt: This is true.

[91]
 It would be a marvelous challenge to be President
today, because there is so much to tackle in govern-
ment. Just the staffs alone are incredible. It would be
fun to hack 'em. It would be fun walk into a big
to
bureaucratic agency and slam your on the table and
fist
'

say, '
'You're all fired! ' It would be great. It would
really get your adrenalin running.
Leichtman: The unions would probably call a nation-
wide strike.

Roosevelt: Good! Then we wouldn't have to pay

them, and we could balance the budget.
Japikse: I think you've been smoking pot in heaven.
[Laughter.]
Roosevelt: I 'm just having fun. Obviously, some of
what I 've just said is ridiculous. But my point is a seri-
ous one. We need some bold leadership. We need to
cut the government back, fire some people, and shake
up the system. And why not? We've got nothing to
lose. It can't get any worse.
Leichtman: I can think of several people we might
elect who could indeed make it worse — but not because
they would take any of those steps.
Japikse: Well, in terms of these bold steps, could
you comment on what kind of changes would be most
beneficial to the unfoldment of the spirit of America
beyond what we've already discussed in the earlier
parts of this interview? Do you have some helpful
hints to stir up our thinking?
Roosevelt: Well, let me go back to the problem of an
incumbent president having to choose between policies
that will help him get reelected and policies that will
fulfill his duty. I think there should be a limit on the

time one can spend in government.

[92]
 Even though I had several terms as President, I think
the office should be limited to one term. There are
arguments both pro and con, of course, but removing
the need to be reelected would definitely be a great con-
science leveler for any individual.
I would also argue for limits on how long senators
and congressmen can serve; I would make them go back
to private life and live by the laws they have generated,
rather than just sit in Washington and make more.
There should be no lifers in government, because our
government was not created for lifers. It was meant to
be representative. The people who are elected are
meant to go to Washington and represent the people of
their districts or states, and then return home.
We ought to restore that representative spirit to our
government.
Japikse: Can this same idea be applied to our
bureaucracy?
Roosevelt: I would think so, although the bureau-
cracy is more difficult to deal with. You can't kick
everybody out every four or six years and expect the
government to keep functioning. You can't have con-
stant rotation, but I think you certainly could apply that
principle to the leaders of the bureaucracy.
Japikse: Well, would it be possible to have a pro-
gram that would encourage the people who are in the
bureaucracy to return to private business and industry
for a spell, so that they will find out what it 's like out in
the real world? Would that be healthy?
Roosevelt: I guess you could do something like that.

I'm more concerned about the elected officials. The

best way to handle the bureaucracy is just dismantle it.

Clean out all those people who just slink away into the

[93]
corners of the bureaucracy for thirty years and do
nothing. Get lean — lean and productive.
Leichtman: Would the citizens actually support a
President who did that?
Roosevelt: don 't know. Part of the reason for con-
I

ducting these interviews is to get some of the public

thinking in these terms, so they do call for this kind of

action. It has to come from the people. The politicians
certainly aren't going to vote themselves out of their
jobs — that is clear. It has to come from the grass roots.
And it is very difficult to make some of these changes,
because the politicians are thinking primarily about
getting reelected.
Some of the scandals that have come up in recent

years have made it pretty clear that our representatives

and elected officials are doing more than just represent-
ing the people. And that is the fault of the electorate,
which has not been taking its responsibility seriously.
It has not been calling forth the kind of leader who will
clean house and put the government back on a proper
course.
Leichtman: It sounds as though we need to call forth
a few scintillating leaders who could really jawbone the
bureaucrats and labor unions and pressure groups and
pound them into being more reasonable and responsi-
ble. Is that what is going to turn the country around?
Roosevelt: Yes. It will take some people who can
put their arms around the system and mold it to their
own specifications. It will take people who are willing
to take bold steps and go out on some limbs.
Japikse: Well, how do we find them?
Roosevelt: You're going to have to appoint them. I

would be very suspicious of anyone who would volun-

[94]
 —

teer, because such people generally are guided by ulter-

ior, motives.
Public service is a thankless job. It is quite a large
sacrifice to go into public service in America today
and it's not just a financial sacrifice. The personal
attacks, the invasions of privacy, and all of the prob-
lems associated with public life tend to weed out those
who would be superior leaders, because such people are
usually offended by the indignities a public servant
must endure today. And this is a problem. It would be
helpful to make public service more appealing to those
who are competent enough to do the job, but that
means restructuring the whole of the electoral process.
Right now, the electoral process requires more stam-
ina than competence.
Japikse: Could you suggest a better system?
Roosevelt: Well, you could shorten the electoral
process. You could provide forums for discussion that
are somewhat more substantial than media events.
Most campaign appearances anymore are just picture
taking sessions. You could work on developing an elec-
toral process that would focus on the qualities of the in-

dividual and his or her ideas and leadership abilities.

At present, the only thing the electoral process tests
is stamina and persistence.
Leichtman: Are the voters collectively bright enough
to focus on the issues instead of personalities?
Roosevelt: In the end, they will be forced to. In one
sense, your assumption is correct, in that the ideas of
the candidates and the issues of the campaigns have
tended to be lost in the big smile and the right clothes.
This is due to the enormous increase of the media pres-
ence in the last couple of decades, especially television.

[95]
 But in the end, the public will regret voting for some
of the people it elects, and I think it already realizes that
some of the people that have gotten elected recently
have been bozos. Eventually, the public will learn to
be more discerning.
Leichtman: What about these groups who use well-
funded advertising campaigns to go after targeted con-
gressmen and senators? And they say, ''Look, your
senator voted for all this garbage and did all of these
. '

things here These groups work primarily

' to defeat
senators and congressmen they don 't approve of, rather

than directly supporting a candidate they endorse. Is

that an underhanded, devious, and dirty practice — or

does it have some merit?
Roosevelt: Oh, I think it has much merit. It is

politics at its best, because it focuses on the issues.

It is very interesting that the big outcry in this last

round of elections [1980] was against these groups.

But of course the people who complained the loudest
were the ones who got elected with the support of
interest groups in the first place.

You have special interest groups promoting certain

candidates, and that is an accepted part of the electoral
process. Why not have special interest groups whose
interest is to remove people? To my way of thinking,
this kind of campaigning raises the level of the aware-
ness of the voting public, if only to a small degree.
These groups are saying, "Look at this guy's voting
record. He's a nice looking guy and says all the right
things, but look at what he's done to our country I
Let's cut through all the glamour and rhetoric and look
at how he has voted.
Leichtman: There 's a drug company that periodically

[96]
 .

runs a large ad in a national news magazine it runs —

about four pages — and it is a commentary on what they
think is wrong with the government. One of the ads,
for instance, pointed out that every time the govern-
ment raises the minimum wage, it produces an increase
in unemployment. It makes it more and more difficult

for young people and unemployed people to get jobs at

the lowest end of the job market. In essence, the
government is actually creating unemployment.
Roosevelt: That's right.
Leichtman: I take it we need more of that kind of
commentary on the issues.
Roosevelt: Oh, absolutely.
Leichtman: Is that actually a significant problem?
Does the government's policy actually create a good
deal of our unemployment?
Roosevelt: Absolutely. It has gotten so bad that
often one government program will be creating the
problem that some other government program is

designed to solve.
Leichtman: What issues besides the minimum wage
law would you include on that list? Do you have a hit

list in heaven for programs to abolish? [Laughter]

Roosevelt: A hit list? Yes, I certainly do. But I'm
not sure this interview is the proper place to present it.

Leichtman: Well, is there one government agency

more than any other that you would single out as hav-
ing the most absurd and excessive regulations?
Roosevelt: You want me to rank the worst depart-
ment?
Leichtman: Sure.
Roosevelt: Well, it's perfectly clear that the Depart-
ment of Energy is an absolutely ridiculous concoction of

[97]
the most perverse political thinking. The only reason it
was created was to give the impression that the energy
problem was being tackled. So this huge bureaucracy
was created to handle the problem, and yet I do not
know of anyone who would be willing to say that any-
thing at all has been done to actually solve the energy
problem since the department has been created.
don 't think that would be at the top of my hit list,
I

but would certainly be in the top five.

it

Leichtman: What about government regulations

which seem to give organized labor an unjustified
advantage over management?
Roosevelt: Of course, in the early days of the labor
movement, was the other way around.
it

Leichtman: I know.
Roosevelt: Management did exploit child labor and
labor in general. But, yes, we have gone just the other
way. The pendulum has swung to the opposite ex-
treme, but it will come back. It is becoming increas-

ingly clear that over the long term, labor must be made
a free market again.
There is no bidding on labor. A citizen is not able to
go into a factory and say, "See that guy running that
machine for $ 10 an hour. I would be happy to do it for
$9." That just isn't possible today. And this is one of
the major reasons for our decline in productivity. There
is no bidding for labor. If you are out of work, you
collectunemployment benefits, rather than go out and
bid for work.
Leichtman: Do you think unemployment benefits are
excessive —
and even regressive?
Roosevelt: Yes, I do. They were never intended to
make it possible to live without working. The intent of

[98]
unemployment benefits was to provide food for people
—
who were out of work not automobiles and records
and movies and luxuries. Again, this is an old idea that
has been perverted into something different than its

original intent.
It is very clear today that if someone loses his job, so

what? You don 't have to worry about it for a year. In

some cases, your standard of living may actually
improve by being unemployed.
Leichtman: Yes.
Roosevelt: Some people can collect more unemploy-
ment benefits than they can make by working. Now,
that's a total travesty and waste of the taxpayer's
money. It only serves to make the economic system
function worse.
If I were President today, I would dismantle half of
the programs I instituted fifty years ago.
Leichtman: Do you think you could do it?
Roosevelt: Sure I could. I would use the same old

charm I used back then. [Laughter].

Leichtman: You probably could.
Japikse: Well, it's obvious you still have the same
old charm. [More laughter].
Leichtman: Well, it would require real leadership to
accomplish something like that. You would really have
to mobilize public opinion.
Roosevelt: Yes.
Japikse: Would you comment briefly on what the
discerning reader of this book should look for in a good

leader?
Roosevelt: The qualities and characteristics of a good
leader? A person you can trust.

Leichtman: With a nice smile. [Laughter].

[99]
 a
'

Japikse: And a lot of charm. [More laughter].

Roosevelt: And someone who wears the right
clothes and says the right things.
would probably say
I the ability to talk straight is the
most important quality — the ability to stand up in front
'

of the American people and say, "Here is the truth.

You want to look for someone who will not try to cover
up the
1
truth — someone who's not going to say,
'Well, I can't tell them this, and I can't tell them that,
because if they find out about these things, I'm going
cover up today —
'

to be in trouble. ' There's a lot to

lot of sneaky deals being cut — but our system cannot

survive if our leaders are constantly hiding what they
are doing from us. We need people who will talk
straight.
That may sound simplistic, but it would go a long
way.
Leichtman: But I know a lot of people who talk
straight and get knocked down for it.

Roosevelt: That is true. But a leader is someone

who can talk straight and not get knocked down.
Japikse: It sounds as though we need to encourage
the public to appreciate people who talk straight, too.
Roosevelt: That's the point. Right now, the people
who get elected are the ones who promise to give cer-
tain segments of the public more money from the
government coffers, not the people who talk straight.
But pretty soon the public will have no choice but to
draft someone who is an effective manager someone —
who has the ability to deal with complex issues in a
large bureaucracy, and has experience in getting things

done.
Right now all we elect are lawyers who come out of

[100]
law school and handle big court cases. 1 am oversim-
plifying, of course.
Leichtman: We need a Will Rogers, I guess.
Roosevelt: He'd be fine.

Well, I think I 've been enough of a pest for one day.

Leichtman: It's been very interesting.
Roosevelt: Is there any meat in all of that, or is it all

fat?
Leichtman: Oh, there's plenty of substance. We'll
roast it a bit and melt away the fat. [Laughter]
Roosevelt: Yes, you retain the license to do that, I

know. The rules were discussed before I came down

here. I came of my own free will, in spite of that. You
can take my words and roll them around all you like.
Leichtman: Add some mushrooms and a little crust.
Japikse: I think the crust is already there.
[Laughter],
Roosevelt: Very good. Someone else will be in
shortly. Goodbye.
Leichtman: Thank you.
Japikse: Thank you.
[The spirit of Franklin Delano Roosevelt then with-
drew from the body of the medium and was replaced by
the spirit of Harry Truman].
Truman: I don't have an opening statement.
Japikse: Succeeding Roosevelt again, eh?
[Laughter].
Truman: must be my fate in life.
It

Leichtman: If you were to give hell to someone

today, who would it be? [Laughter].

Truman: Well, I don't want to get personal.
Japikse: Oh, go ahead.
Truman: I think I would give hell to anyone who has

101
HARRY TRUMAN

[102]
been in Congress for more than five years, even though
senators are elected for six.
I must say it is interesting that this "give 'em hell,
Harry' ' cult has grown up around me.
Leichtman: Yes, your reputation has improved enor-
mously.
Truman: Yes, so it has. I certainly don 't deserve it,

but I will take it. [Laughter]. I think it is the public's

subconscious yearning for plain speaking today.
Leichtman: Well, I think you were one of the most

forthright and honest-speaking Presidents we have had

in quite some time.
Truman: It was basically a case of being a simple
man who tried to be practical. Some of my cohorts in
the political arena tried to be complex, but I always
tried to be as simple as possible.
Leichtman: Yes, you weren't overawed by the
Presidency. And, of course, your mother and mother-
in-law weren't too impressed by it, either.
Truman: It's a job that has to be done.
The most appalling statement I heard made in one of
the most recent elections was by a guy I won't name —
any names —
who was standing in front of the White
House, looking at the television cameras, and he said,
1

'Boy, this would be a great place to live. Of course, '

'

it is a nice home to live in, but that should not be the

reason why anyone would want the job. If said any I

more, you would figure out who it was.

Incidentally, we do monitor all the elections up here.
They are fun to watch from up here, because we can
check out the auras of the candidates and see what they
really mean versus what they are saying. [Laughter].
Leichtman: Yes, of course. Well, if you could be

[103]
given ten or fifteen minutes on national television
today, what would you say to the American public?
What would you warn us about?
Truman: I would tell them that if they think the
government is going to solve their problems for them,
they are greatly mistaken. Just because times are tough
and things are not going as well as they would like, that

is no reason government to take

to clamor for the
greater control of their lives. The government does not
have the ability to solve the real problems America
faces —the public must do that. But what the public is
doing is taking its responsibility and shoving it off on
the government.
Now, government has absolutely no business
the
taking for these problems, and will
responsibility
probably screw them all up trying to deal with them.
The people need to learn that, and they need to learn
not to take these problems to the government. They
need to stop whining and complaining about the world
and go out and solve their problems on their own.
It is just too easy today to call up your senator and
say, '
'Give me some action; am being I treated unjustly
and you had better deal with it, because you are the
government. That approach is totally abhorrent to
me. And it would be abhorrent to everyone taking part
in the interview, too. If I took a vote among the past
American leaders gathered here for this, I think the vote
would be unanimous that the delegation of the respon-
sibilities of the individual citizen to a bureaucrat or
elected official is a very big mistake.
The government has no business being in anybody's

business. But until and the public

the tide turns,
recognizes its responsibility again, the problem will

[104]
continue to get worse rather than better.
Leichtman: I think he would really love to tell them
that, too.

Japikse: He just did. [Laughter.]

Leichtman: If you could address a joint session of
Congress briefly, what would you tell them?
Truman: Boy, these are fine questions. [Laughter]
Who's giving you these questions?
Leichtman: I'm just invoking a little repartee.
Truman: If I could address a joint session of Con-
gress, I would probably tell them I would double their
salaries if they
Leichtman: Would stay home? [Laughter]
Truman: Yes, if they would stay home. No, I

would double their salaries if they would accept just one

term in office and then cut the budget to the point
where there would be a surplus.
Japikse: We could have a constitutional amendment
stating that Congressmen would get no pay in a year
that the budget was not balanced.
Truman: That's not a bad idea.
Leichtman: You'd never get it through Congress.
Japikse: Well, it can be done by the states.
Truman: I would tell them to get off their butts and
start solving some of these problems instead of making

them worse.
Leichtman: Do you think this country's leaders need
to promote some of these ideas more directly to the
public than they do? Do we somehow need to educate
the public to watch out for big government?
Truman: Well, that's very difficult to do. It's like
expecting someone to say, 'Watch out now, because
'

my job is really unnecessary and you are paying me for

105]
 .

being unnecessary. " The problem with the system is

that too many of the people in power are working pri-
marily to perpetuate their power, instead of dealing
straight with the public. And until they deal straight
and and explain it as it is, the American
talk straight
people are going to have to determine for themselves
what is reality and what is truth.
We tend to put far too much stock and credence in
the friendly man in the pinstriped suit who says he will
take away our problems by spending money. And until

this line of junk is seen for what it is, we won't be able

to recognize a real leader if we see one. We have to
realize that guys who tell us they can solve all our
problems by spending more of our money ought to be
rode out of town on a rail. They are no good. We need
people who will tell us, "There are limits
to what
government can do. We can't continue spending all
And we need people who will put that
'

this money. '

philosophy into practice when they are actually

elected.
That's when you will see some things getting done.
Leichtman: It sounds like we need more organiza-
tions like Common Cause.
Truman: Yes. Well, I think my time is up. Do you
have any more questions?
Leichtman: I guess not. That was very refreshing.
Thank you.
Truman: Thank you.
[Thespirit of Harry Truman then withdrew from the

body of the medium and was replaced by the spirit of

Theodore Roosevelt]
Roosevelt: So they gave away my canal, huh? They
gave it away.

[106]
 Leichtman: I'm afraid so.
Roosevelt: This is really an interesting phenomenon
here. It's kind of like being in a foreign country. Did it

ever strike you as kind of weird to be using someone

else's body?
Leichtman: Not for a long time. [Laughter.] You'll
get used to it.
Roosevelt: Well, it's quite an honor to be here and
try this. If my sentences sound disjointed, it is because
I am disjointed.
Leichtman: You're doing okay. What would you
like to talk about?
Roosevelt: I would like to talk about guts, and the
fact that part of the destiny of this country is to have
some guts. Being a simple man with simple tastes, that
is the best way I can put it.

We don 't have a lot of guts today. This country was

founded on a lot of guts and built on a lot of guts, but
all too often today, the people and the leaders of this
country just fall back on the proud heritage that they
inherited from their forefathers. We are witnessing
today the last remnants of a generation that has been
living off the energy and self-sufficiency of those who
—
went before them a generation that has not had the
creativity and the guts to make things better. They
have sucked dry the energy and momentum that was
left over from earlier generations.
Excuse me; I have lost my connection here. There
appear to be some people who do not want me to say

what I am going to say.

Leichtman: Yes, I can tell.

Roosevelt: Okay, I'm back in the saddle. I want to

reiterate what good old Harry Truman said. The dis-

[107]
THEODORE ROOSEVELT

[108]
cerning citizen would help promote leaders who have
guts and who are willing to innovate and trynew ideas.
We are stagnating in America today, and we need to
move out of this condition. The new frontier which is

the destiny of this country is to explore and promote

ideas for human living compatible with our ideals of
freedom and democracy. It is time that individuals with
talent and ability take some chances and speak the
truth, rather than whining and crying about our
problems and catering to those who want their pain

alleviated. It is time we booted out the people who

want government to alleviate every conceivable prob-
lem of life, and replaced them with people with
common sense and strength.
Leichtman: But people notoriously do not like to bite
the bullet.
Roosevelt: No, that's true. So we need a bit of
luck, too. We need someone to run for office who has
guts but who doesn't do anything to really upset the
special interest groups until after he's in office. Right
now, we have the opposite. We have people running
for office who pretend to have guts and pretend to be
strong, but once they are in office and realize the
enormity of the problems to be dealt with, they become
spineless and meek. They fall prey to all the political

maneuvering that goes on in the capital.

It is time we had someone true to form, and that
person will appear if invoked.
Leichtman: Good.
Japikse: Could you talk about the potential of what
America can become, if we seize the opportunity before
us?
Roosevelt: America's potential is to be the leader in

[109]
the world — to demonstrate a viable political system
that is in complete harmony with the spiritual destiny of

humanity. That is a very sincere statement and a very

important statement. The potential exists.
This country was divinely inspired. It was created
through divine intervention — through the acts of peo-
ple who were in tune with divine will. It has a mission
to perform, but at this time in its history, this mission
appears to be in doubt. America needs some rejuvena-
tion — a little kick in the old proverbial rear to get back
on course. We need to remove these people who have
been perverting the principles on which we stand.
The destiny of the United States is to lead the world
out of the intellectual vacuum and political mess that it
is in —
to lead the world by example and by demonstrat-
ing that rational people can live in a rational world
under a rational system. It is our purpose to demon-
strate that you do not have to oppress or exploit people
in order to be a strong country.
The potential for America to be a true leader in the
world exists. It is really the potential to demonstrate
what the future system of government for the entire
planet should be.
Leichtman: How far along toward demonstrating

this potential are we, would you say? Ten percent?

Twenty percent? More?
Roosevelt: At one point, we were much closer. In
my day, I we were maybe fifty to sixty percent
think
there, but now would say we have slipped back to
I

maybe thirty or forty percent. The seed is there. It

merely awaits the full recognition of our citizens and

politicians and business leaders. We must see what a
fine system we have and put it to work.

[no]
 Leichtman: Very good.
Japikse: For some reason, you seem to be the right
person to ask this question: what do you think ot the
space program?
What do think of the space program?
Roosevelt: I

You were President eighty years ago.

Japikse: Sure.
Now we have been to the moon. What do you think
about that?
Roosevelt: We
have always been a country to ex-
plore new frontiers, and it is important that we continue
to do so. I think the space program is very important.
Japikse: Is it helping us?
Roosevelt: I think it is doing much more psycholo-
gically for the country than it is given credit for.

Japikse: Does it contribute to our expression of

leadership in the world?
Roosevelt: Most certainly. Since the government
usurps all of the private funds of industry through
taxes, the space program is one of the few areas left
where major technological development can occur. It

can't occur in the private sector, because the govern-

ment takes all of the private sector 's money. So at least

with the space program the government is spending

some of the money in a way that does us some good.
And I will say that the space program is one of the very
few areas where money spent by the government is
doing us some good as a nation. All of the technology
which has been developed for that program has been of
immense benefit to us and to the world.
Leichtman: You had a rather vigorous and aggressive
foreign policy. Would you have any comments or rec-
ommendations to make about our current foreign
policy — or suggestions for changes?

[mi
 Roosevelt: Well, I am not one for being too accom-
modating. I 'm not much of a diplomat in the pure sense
of the art.

Leichtman: Well, they gave you a Nobel Prize for

diplomacy, didn't they?
Roosevelt: An oversight on their part, I'm sure.
[Laughter].
Well, I might say we have lost our bearings. We
have lost our principles and our compassion. In a sense,
we have become greedy and manipulative in our con-
duct of foreign policy, and as Mr. Franklin said, we
have lowered ourselves to dealing on the same greedy
and manipulative level that other unmentionable coun-
tries are known to deal at. And I think that is beneath
us. As a people, I don 't think it is in our best interest to
succumb to deals like that.
Leichtman: Well, it is often necessary to compro-
mise with governments that are powerful and hostile
and devious.
Roosevelt: But not at the expense of your common
sense and principles.
Leichtman: Sure.
Roosevelt: As a people, we need to begin demand-
ing correct behavior from our government.
Leichtman: And from ourselves collectively, too.
Roosevelt: Yes.
Japikse: One of the accomplishments you are most
noted for today was your efforts to initiate our national
park program and advance conservation as an idea of
national policy. Do you have any observations or com-
ments to make on the issues of conservation at this
time, and more specifically in terms of the role that the
land itself plays in the makeup of America as a nation?

[112]
 Roosevelt: Well, the land has been the one constant
in the American experience. It is a beautiful country,
with many diverse climates and types of land and
formations. The major discussion now, I guess, is that
as the population has increased, what is the role of the
parks and the public lands? I am certainly one to pro-
mote the enlightened use of public lands. The purpose
of the park system was to preserve the land in its natural
state, but this does not preclude its use.
The modern day conservationist cries out that the
land ought to remain untouched, not used at all, but I

reject that claim. My intent was to preserve those lands

for enlightened public use.
Leichtman: Speaking of national parks, do you real-

ize thatwe are talking with one-fourth of Mt. Rush-

more right now? [Laughter].
How do you like your likeness in the Dakotas?
Roosevelt: Very much, thank you. Well, I think
I've said enough, don't you?
Japikse: We've just complimented him on Mt.
Rushmore, and now he's going to stonewall it.
[More laughter].
Leichtman: Yes. Thank you for coming.
Roosevelt: It's been my pleasure.
Japikse: Yes, thank you.
[The of Theodore Roosevelt then withdrew
spirit

from body
the of the medium and was replaced by the
spirit of George Washington]

Washington: It's interesting to have a subconscious

again. It can also be a liability.

Leichtman: I think we know who we are talking to,

but we'd better ask you your name for the record.
Washington: George Washington.

[113]
GEORGE WASHINGTON

[114]
 —

Leichtman: We had been told you would participate

in this interview.

Washington: I don't have any new subjects to bring

up particularly, but I thought I would try to summarize
what we've all been saying, and put it into a cohesive
whole. We have tried to focus on some of the major
problems and difficulties currently facing the country
problems in the way it is governed, the way the politi-
cal system has evolved, and the way the leaders are
chosen.
We have drawn the participants for this forum from
people who have been actively involved in leading
America in the past — either people who were present at
the founding of the country or who subsequently served
as President. We did this for several reasons, the major
reason being that these people were so intimately in-
volved in creating or guiding the destiny of this country
that they obtained a unique perspective on its problems
not available to other politicians, students of political
science, or philosophers. A chief executive shoulders
the burden and responsibility making decisions that
for
will affect the future of the country, and this gives him a
unique perspective. Others might have been as well
qualified to talk on these subjects, but they would not
have experienced this unique perspective.
We've divided the problems facing America today
into three different areas. The first is the economy and
its mismanagement. The second is the bureaucracy and
the inherent difficulties of controlling its growth. And
the third is the vacuum of leadership which has existed
in this country for several years now.
We felt it on three important
was important to focus
problems and keep emphasizing them over and over

[115]
again, from different perspectives. We want to make it

crystal clear that these are major problems that must be

dealt with. It is useless to discuss all the little subtleties
unless the major issues are dealt with, and dealt with
firmly, aggressively, and with some insight.
This is what we have tried to do.
Leichtman: I think that was fairly well done.
Japikse: Yes, there is obviously coherency in

heaven. [Laughter].
Washington: Well, sometimes it may not seem so.

I would expand a little bit on the vision of

like to

America which we all had at the beginning of this coun-

try, and which those great individuals who have sur-

faced in the time of our country's need have also

shared, leading the country through perilous times and
difficult choices. The vision that we hold, and wish to

promote, is one of a vibrant and living democracy which

deals with its own internal problems in a rational
manner, providing a vehicle for the most competent and
intelligent individuals toassume positions of responsi-
bility and lead the citizenry with their intelligence and

compassion into the future.

The inherent problems in the electoral process have
been discussed. If you look at the type of individual
and the qualities necessary to achieve public stature
today, they are the antithesis of the managerial abilities
which are needed. And this is an important issue which
must be dealt with. I believe some good solutions were
offered in the earlier discussion.
There is a crying need in this country for good
leadership — for a good manager, not a specialist, but a
good manager who is capable of looking at the govern-
ment and the country as a cohesive unit of changing

[116]
forces, moods, needs, desires, and wants and manage
these forces efficiently. But the individuals who gen-
erally rise to leadership positions today are all too often
not effective managers, but specialists — primarily spec-
ialists in law or working for the government. And one
suggestion would offer to the leaders and the people
I

of this country would be to make a diligent effort to

support those individuals who have had experience in
managing large organizations. We might well be better
off if the managers of large corporations were encour-
aged to take a more active role in the administration of
government. They should be the ones who direct and
manage the specialists.
As the government has grown over the years, it has
become virtually impossible for one individual to make
all of the decisions which must be made. We have seen
different management styles as different administra-
tions have tried to cope with this problem, but those
who have not been able to delegate management re-
sponsibilities to the specialists have stifled the decision-

making process and restricted it severely. This is partic-

ularly true in the Presidency, but you could also make
the case for the way congressmen have approached their

duties, too.
The crying need is not for experts in the law or ex-
perts in the workings of government, but for good,
solidmanagement generalists who can effectively draw
on the knowledge and experience of the specialists and
the experts, synthesizing them into a whole which is
the government. But all too often the individuals who
are leading this country are individuals who are experts
at campaigning and rhetoric. And until the public
begins to recognize that these particular characteristics

[117]
do not necessarily make a good and viable representa-
tive or senator or President, we will continue to be sub-
ject to a government run by people who are extremely
talented at creating a charismatic impression and pro-
moting ideas, but completely devoid of any intent or
ability to manage.
So the vision is one of competent management. In
the early days, there was very little government, and
running the government was basically a part-time
affair. Government was seen as something of a burden

or responsibility which must be shouldered by those

who cherished their freedom. But as such, none of us
wanted to see government expand beyond the most
minimal level needed to insure that the freedom of the
individual was maintained.
This, of course, has evolved into the monstrosity
that government is today. But it must be dealt with as
it and molded and changed into something
exists today,
effective for today, rather than destroyed. And this

change will come about as the public awareness of the

quality of the people who are elected to public office
grows, and the demand for responsibility and compe-
tence returns to American politics.
Of course, this isn't something of which you can
readily convince the public. In a democracy, there is a
lot of different opinion.
But once this —
new awareness dawns and there is
some question as to how long it will take, but we must
be optimistic and say that the collective wisdom of the
people is eventually going to surface and provide com-
petent leaders — then the next major difficulty lies in
dealing with the economic problems that were so well
delineated by Alexander Hamilton. Until these prob-

[118]
lems — the bureaucratic problem discussed by Thomas
Jefferson and the economic problems discussed by
Hamilton —
are dealt with effectively, the United States
will be in a weakened position to be a viable force for
goodwill and democracy in the world.
And this, of course, is the vision — to take the
divinely inspired system and form of government that
we have, a government that promotes freedom and
equality, and show the rest of the world that it can
work. We are meant to do this not by force or by per-
suasion, but merely by pursuing our ideals and destiny
with the quiet assurance that our own system works
where others fail. And part of the demonstration of our
free society is to show the world that our system not
only works, but also provides us with the strength we
need to resist those who would destroy our system. It

provides us with the quiet compassion to help those

who would wish to join in this fine system and partake
of the freedom that is the basic destiny of
humanity.
Until we get our own house in order, however, the
vision is tarnished. The destiny of America is in distinct
question. It has been hindered. The full flowering of
the American ideal and the American spirit is being
tarnished and constrained by what could be deemed to

be a psychological disease — a disease of not being able

to get our own household in order. And until we do,
the destiny of America is on hold. The ideal and
destiny of the spirit of America will not be fulfilled.
It is for this reason that we have taken the opportu-
nity to bring together this group of individuals and com-
municate our thoughts through the vehicle of this book,
so that we may sound the warning and raise the flag and

[119]
say, "Okay, we've gone too far now. We have lost
sight of some of our principles, and some of the major
truths of what it means to be America are missing from
the way we are running our government. And unless
these principles and truths are brought back into the
awareness and priorities of the American people, the
true intent and destiny of America will not be met.
While this is not a pleasant task, it nonetheless must
be done. There must be those who are willing to raise
'

the flag of caution and say, "It's gone too far. ' And
this is why we have chosen this unusual vehicle for ex-
pressing these ideas and bringing them to the attention
of mass consciousness.
Thereal medicine for this disease is an inward reflec-

tion on the part of every citizen of this country as to just

what the truth of America is and just what this country
stands for. Each citizen needs to think about how this
vision has been tarnished by those who would manip-
ulate the system for their own ends, rather than serve
the collective will of the people. And each citizen must
decide that these individuals must be removed from
office and replaced with competent people.
The challenge to America is to move forward and be-
come a mature democracy. There is a great amount of
thought among historians that as a democracy grows
and develops, eventually becomes segmented into
it

various interest groups, to the point where those who

are put into positions of power are elected primarily to
provide benefits and protection for a certain interest or
select group. And if this democracy is not going to fall
into the same historical pattern that has ruined other
democracies, a change in public consciousness is going
to be necessary. The country as a whole, and the indi-

[120]
viduals who make up the country, are going to have to
learn to put the needs of the country, the health of its

economy, and the health of its system ahead of the

little, petty needs of each individual — or each special
interest group.
We have tended to ignore the fact that extreme self-
ishness can flourish in a democracy and warp the true
benefits of the democratic process. But the extreme
selfishness of special interest groups and the high
frequency of incompetent public officials are proofs that
this is occurring.

Now, if the individual who has previously thought

only in terms of his or her particular cause and needs and
desires would take just five minutes and reflect on how
this damages the good of the whole, then significant
progress will be made. We all need to ask ourselves: is
what I am promoting going to benefit the whole of the
country, and not just myself or my own special interest
group? And if it won't, I would hope the individual
citizen would be mature enough to subjugate his or her
own particular desire and support the good of the whole
country instead. If this awareness can be nurtured,
America can move forward again toward fulfilling its

destiny.
The alternative is for the democratic process to de-
generate into a bunch of selfish coalitions that contin-
ually sway the masses to go one way or the other, to
support this program or that program. This kind of de-
generation has happened before in other democracies,
and it is happening now in this one. It is nothing un-
usual. It is nothing that isn 't expected in the growth of
a democracy to old age. But we have a unique opportu-
nity in America to break out of the historical pattern, to

[121]
break out of the bonds of the democratic life cycle and

move which we modify the system to be

into an era in
the prototype for the governments of the new age.
There are forces in the world that would very much
like not to have the United States fulfill its destiny.

There are those who

thrive on the antithesis of free-
dom — who on keeping people in bondage, on
thrive
manipulating and controlling people, and on taking the
fruits of the individual 's labor and using it for their own

particular ends. One of the major problems in a demo-

cracy always is that these forces are able to violate and
invade the democratic process and promote their ideas
within the democracy, not necessarily in their blatant
form, which is easy enough to detect, but by subtly
coloring the principles and values we believe in.
It's as though we voted the communist party or the
socialist party into power and never even knew it. And
of course the irony of this is that a democratic people is

voting for the antithesis of democracy. And this is what

we are doing, little bit by little bit. We are voting out
democracy.
For this reason, we must make sure
that democracy is
understood by the citizenry. We
must be very careful
not to permit this to happen. And that means we must
focus on the truth. We must keep the vision of what
America is meant to be in our mind daily, and remember
that the free and democratic system is the one which
keeps this country alive and vibrant.
So in the end, the call is for every citizen to search
the inner recesses of his or her being and to recall the
heritage that is ours — the great experiment that has
succeeded in the past and the great destiny which still

lies in front of America. And the call is to refocus on

[122]
this heritage and vision and make our system work
again, so that the full meaning and viability of freedom
is demonstrated again throughout the world.
In the end, this is the only system that truly honors
the spirit of the individual and the reality of what it

means to be a human on this planet. It is the only

system whereby an individual can freely pursue those
activities which would lead to the fulfillment of his or
her own individual destiny. And we can't let go of
this! The world cannot afford to let this system go, and
we can 't afford to, either. The forces that do not want
this freedom and this system promoted throughout the
world cannot be permitted to survive.
So we ask those who read this book to rally to the
call.

And that is what I had in mind to say. Any ques-

tions?
Japikse: How does the vision or ideal of democracy
in America differ from democratic systems in Europe or
elsewhere? What's so unique or special or inspired
about democracy here?
Washington: Other forms of democracy are certainly
acceptable, but it is not necessarily their mission to take
democracy to the rest of the world.
Japikse: Ah.
Washington: The American system of democracy is

not inherently superior to other democracies. There are

other systems that are certainly acceptable and do pro-
mote freedom. But it is America 's responsibility to pro-
mote these ideas throughout the world, and that differs
from the responsibilities of other countries.
Japikse: Okay. Early on in your comments, you
were quite forthright in your support of competence and

[123]
intelligence in leaders. Yet many people today consider
such attributes and scorn them. They use the
elitist
'

epithet '
'elitist to threaten competent people from ex-
'

pressing their competence and intelligence and bril-

liance. Do we need to restore a proper respect and
reverence for excellence before we tackle the other
issues?
Washington: Exactly. You must take the best peo-
ple the country has to offer and put them in positions of
power, and you shouldn't have to apologize for it. A
healthy democracy is able to recognize those who have
talent and competence and ask them to dedicate their
minds and management skills to leading the country.
I where the issue of elitism becomes confused is
think
that there are two kinds of elitism: the elitism which is
inherited by birthright alone and the elitism which
occurs by the achievement of excellence in intelligence
and competence. Elitism got its bad name, I'm afraid,
through the perpetuation of wealthy, elite families
whose founders were brilliant and competent and
acquired a great deal of wealth or social stature. But
these founders have long since passed away, and the
legacy of their elite position in society has been passed
on to their inheritors, even though they usually do not
possess the same outstanding qualities that made the
person elite in the first place.
Obviously, those are not the we would want in
elite

leadership positions of government. Instead, we would

want to elect the second kind of elite the people who —
have earned recognition as a result of their own achieve-
ments and success. If elitism was viewed as something
which is earned, not inherited, I think there would be a
lot less problem with the notion of elitism. The true

[124]
elitist is simply one who loves excellence.
Of course, when you speak of elitism, it is interest-
ing to note that elitism in America is in a sense created
through the economy and the tax system, permitting
those who inherit wealth to retain elite positions in
society, whether they deserve them or not. Has this

been discussed before?

Leichtman: No, I don't think so.
Washington: It may be an interesting idea to inter-

ject here, then. There are several ways for a govern-

ment to tax individuals. One is by taking a percentage
of their current earnings. The second is by taking a per-
centage of inheritance, taxing wealth as it is passed
from generation to generation. amount of each And the
type of wealth that is taxed determines what kind of be-
havior is being encouraged by the government. In a
sense, it sets the direction for the flow of wealth in the

country.
A country that heavily taxes current income, for
example, basically prevents the accummulation of
wealth. Rather than letting the individual accumulate
it, the government takes it. It is an extremely unusual
individual who is able to accumulate much wealth under
a system that heavily taxes current income.
By the same token, if a country taxes inheritance
lightly, it willpromote the retention of wealth in the
hands of those who inherit it. If it taxes inheritance
heavily, it diffuses the focus of wealth by taking it

away from those who originally accumulated it.

Now, by adjusting the ratio of how the different

forms of wealth are taxed, the government can promote
different aspects of society. It can control the makeup
of society. If, for instance, there is a heavy current tax

[125]
 —

and a very light inheritance tax, the wealth of the

country will remain perpetually in the families that are
already wealthy. Very little new wealth will be
created, because it is hard to accumulate wealth under a
heavy current tax. And a system like this would tend to
promote an economic elite focused in a very small group
of families.
This country was not created under the system we
now have. We basically now have a system where cur-
rent income is taxed heavily and inheritance is not
through the manipulation of the tax laws it is not diffi-

cult to shelter one's inheritance from taxation. So in a

sense, elitism has managed to escape the impact of the

tax laws and the wealth of the country has remained in
relatively few hands.
But this is not the way this country started. This
country was built on productive work and productive
individuals who were willing to take risks with their
capital because they had the incentive to accumulate a
great deal of wealth. There was very light taxation of

current income — none, actually.

If were on earth today, I would propose a change in
I

the mix, making the tax on current income very light

or none at all —
and the tax on inheritances very heavy.
I would not permit wealth to move into nonproductive

generations This would promote a revival of produc-

.

tivity and innovation and restore the ideal of elitism to

its proper meaning —

which is that they are the most
productive and energetic and successful people in the
country, rather than the people who happened to inherit
great wealth.
Japikse: Very good. You also mentioned that in

subtle ways we have actually voted out some of the

[126]
vital aspects of democracy. I was curious if you would
say to what degree this has happened already.
Washington: To a fairly large degree! The public
has continually yielded to the government more and
more of its freedoms in exchange for the government
taking on more and more of the responsibility for public
well-being. In a sense, that is what I mean by voting
out democracy.
And I believe I will conclude on that note. We thank
you for the opportunity to present these ideas and
sound the warning.
Leichtman: Thank you.
Japikse: Thank you.
Washington: And thank you.

127]
 FROM HEAVEN TO EARTH

Both series of 12 interviews are available by sub-

$27 each
scription for (for foreign delivery, including

Canada, $30), or $50 together ($55 for foreign deliv-

ery) . Each interview is published as a paperback book.
The spirits interviewed in the first series of 12 are
Edgar Cayce, William Shakespeare, Cheiro, Carl Jung
and Sigmund Freud, C.W. Leadbeater, Sir Oliver
Lodge, Thomas Jefferson, Arthur Ford, H.P. Blavat-
sky, Nikola Tesla, Eileen Garrett, and Stewart White.
All 12 books are now in print.

The spirits interviewed in the second series of 12

are Albert Schweitzer, Rembrandt, Sir Winston
Churchill, Paramahansa Yogananda, Mark Twain,
Andrew Carnegie,
Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin,
Richard Wagner, Luther Burbank, and Abraham Lin-
coln. The final book will be an interview with a
number of spirits, titled The Destiny of America. All
12 books are now in print.

Orders can be placed by sending a check for the

proper amount to Ariel Press, P.O. Box 30975,
Columbus, Ohio 43230. Make checks payable to
Ariel Press. Foreign checks should be payable in U.S.
funds. In Ohio, please add 5 Vi % sales tax. Be sure
to specify which set of books you are purchasing (first

or second series).
Individual copies of the interviews are available at
$3.50 plus $ 1 postage each. If 10 or more copies of a
single title are ordered at one time, the price is $2.50 a
book plus the actual costs of shipping.

[128]
$3.50

The Destiny of America

America's greatness lies in the capacity of its people
to respond to the keynote and direction of the nation's
inner spirit.Throughout America's history, a number of
gifted leaders have helped present a vision of this inner
spirit to the citizens of the country. Yet no one can
lead unless others are willing to respond.
The Destiny of America is a unique book, in that it

gives the spirits of many of the great leaders of

America's past the opportunity to articulate for our
modern times the principles and insights which guided
them. It is the report of conversations held mediumisti-
cally by Dr. Robert R. Leichtman with the spirits of
Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin
Franklin, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman,
Theodore Roosevelt, and George Washington. They
speak forthrightly of the loss of economic freedom in
America, the burgeoning of bureaucratic government,
the contributions America has made to humanity's spir-
itual growth, the inner spirit of America, and the trends

of destiny which are shaping this country's future.

The Destiny of America is the final one of 24 books
in the series of interviews conducted by Dr. Leichtman

and published as From Heaven to Earth.

The illustration on the front cover is a symbolic por-
trayal of the spirit of America as an eagle soaring over
the country's heartland to meet its destiny. It is the
work of artist D. Kendrick Johnson.

ARIEL PRESS ISBN 0-89804-074-4