The Atomic Bomb. In 1869, Walter Bagehot wrote an interesting volume entitled Physics and Politics. Today we look again at this topic, but in a new and blinding light. The atomic bomb is an index of dynamic and revolutionary changes, the end of which is not in sight, and which I do not have the temerity to forecast. Even before the bomb was made, there were revolutionary changes on the way. We were on notice that physics, biochemistry, psychology, medicine, were bursting with possibilities which staggered the imagination of the most starry-eyed. This was before the bomb was dropped. Now we know that we were on the beam. We are now confronted by revolution, dimming in meaning all human revolutions rolled into one.

First of all, the meaning of controlled atomic energies is often wholly misunderstood. The real marvel is not that these vast forces exist, but that they are found and harnessed by the human mind. The real explosive force is that of the mind that unleashed these giants and made them available for the service of mankind. The mind is king, not the atom. We trapped the atom; we have mastered some secrets of its latent forces, not by accident, but by deliberate design, by organization and ingenuity. We may marvel at the display of physical force, but the deeper force of mind made this triumph possible, and will bring still greater triumphs as we move along through eras of discovery and invention.

The movement for labor participation in governmental agencies began long before America's entry into World War II, but no significant progress was made until the beginning of the national defense program. Recent economic pressures and the enlarged wartime influence of federal administrative agencies have intensified labor's demand for a more direct voice in the affairs of these agencies.

As early as 1939, when the National Resources Planning Board was created by President Roosevelt, labor manifested its concern over the failure to provide for its representation on the Board. At its 1939 convention, the AFL adopted a resolution providing that “on all War Boards, Labor shall be adequately represented by men appointed from the trade unions themselves.” A similar demand for appropriate representation on all important federal and state administrative agencies was made by the 1939 convention of the CIO.

It has been said that political thought of the sixteenth century can be classified into two types—an attempt to find a juristic basis for the raison d'état exemplified in the work of Bodin, and the antithetic point of view found in the Vindiciae and concerned with the establishment of abstract right.

There is, however, yet another trend of political thought observable at the time—a political theory which combines the two trends of political thought mentioned above, but which goes beyond the “long research into the terms of political obedience,” in its attempt at a synthetic view of the state and society. And one of the best expressions of this way of thinking is found in the writings of Andreas Fricius Modrevius (Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski), the most notable political author of sixteenth-century Poland.

The great significance of Fricius' writings to a modern student lies largely in the way in which they mirror the thought of the Renaissance and the Reformation, and in the successful combination that Fricius achieves of a predominantly Aristotelian analysis of the state with a Christian idealism which he imparts to his discussion of a “good state” and its ends. His ability to combine the best features of the ancient political thought and to adapt them to the realities of sixteenth-century Europe brought Fricius to the attention of such writers as Bodin, Althusius, and Grotius.

The government corporation, by reason of its use as an instrument for administering commercial and emergency programs in two world wars and one depression, has become a familiar device in American government. A recent census turned up some 115 federal corporate agencies, with over 20 billion dollars in assets. Admittedly, not all of these were government corporations “in the strictest sense of the term,” and some have since been liquidated with the ending of the war. More than half of the total of 115, moreover, are attributable to the fact that the federal land banks, intermediate credit banks, banks for coöperatives, production-credit corporations, and home loan banks are organized on a regional basis, with twelve individual corporations in each category. Nevertheless, the list is an impressive one, including such permanent major federal agencies as the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Panama Railroad Company, the Inland Waterways Corporation, the Export-Import Bank, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Public Housing Authority, and the Farm Credit Administration system.

While much attention has been given to the efforts of Congress to improve itself, the activities of the state legislatures which have sought improvements as diligently, incidentally fulfilling their laboratory function, have gone virtually unnoticed. Twenty-eight states have given consideration to the renovation of the law-making branch. Comprehensive studies were made in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and in a more limited manner in California. New York, currently intent on modernizing its legislature, has already issued an interim report on expenditures and personnel, although the complete recommendations of its Joint Legislative Committee are yet to come. Committees whose frame of reference limits them to “tinkering” rather than “overhauling” are at work in Michigan and Colorado, with no reports yet submitted. In Alabama, an interim committee called for limited changes. The Bureau of Research established by the Indiana General Assembly in 1945 is authorized, among other things, to conduct research into improved methods of legislation.

The crucial position of the state legislatures in our scheme of government cannot be over-emphasized. The failure to make themselves truly representative by periodic reapportionment and to streamline their organization and procedure, not to mention corruption among personnel, has resulted in an inability and unwillingness to rise to their responsibilities. Political collusion between rural legislators and their henchmen in local government has thwarted unification of multitudinous jurisdictions and the modernization of local administration. When depression-born demands for modern services were not met by state and local government, the federal government of necessity undertook new functions, causing centralization of government in the United States amid condemnation by the same state lawmakers whose inaction clipped democracy short at the grass roots.

In these days of widespread dissatisfaction with legislative bodies, we are being presented with numerous studies on legislative improvement. One of the most interesting has recently been made by a special grand jury which investigated the New York state legislature. Although the final presentment praises the “general efficiency” and “rectitude” of the legislature and concludes with the statement that “the general picture … is of earnest men diligently engaged upon a public task in an earnest manner,” specific findings reveal serious laxities in the conduct of the state's legislative affairs. No doubt similar laxities may be found in most other states.

There are always rumors and whisperings as to evil goings-on in our legislative halls. The New York special grand jury did a real service in finding out their truth or falsity. It is of interest that neither the legislature nor the governor would, on their own volition, have considered such an investigation. We owe it to the fortuitous circumstance that Republican Governor Dewey and the Democratic political machine of Albany county did not like each other.

In continuation of a previous study, the rôle of some nationality groups in the last three presidential elections has been investigated. Whereas the previous study was based upon political behavior by counties within eight states, the present work is based upon political behavior by wards within four cities. The cities were chosen because they contained large proportions of certain nationality groups, and because in these cities it was possible to order census tract material from the 1940 census by wards. Only four cities (Buffalo, Chicago, Detroit, and Pittsburgh) were examined because of limitations of time and expense. New York City is not included because of appreciable changes in the boundaries of Assembly districts between elections.

In order that a group be amenable to our procedure, it was necessary that there be proportionately great enough concentrations within wards so that the actual voting behavior of the group could possibly induce a shift in the election results. In this respect, it must be remembered that the proportion of foreign-born is usually about one-third of the total stock of any given group in the localities. Of the fourteen nationality groups studied here, therefore, not every one could be tested by our method.

Periodically the reform of English local government makes its appearance in English public life. A Royal Commission sat for nearly the whole decade of the 1920's and its labors produced three reports, which ultimately led to the Local Government Act of 1929. Similarly, the 1939–45 conflict has raised again the question of what, if anything, should be done about the reform of English local government. In 1943, Mr. Churchill expressed the view of the Coalition that no major reconstruction of the structure was necessary, nor indeed could it be undertaken in the immediate postwar years. In January, 1945, Mr. Willink, Minister of Health, produced for public discussion a White Paper on the whole problem, the main burden of which was in line with the Churchillian dicta of 1943, but which proposed the creation of a boundary commission with power to recommend alterations in the status and areas of local authorities after suitable local inquiry. These proposals were debated in the House of Commons in February, 1945, with little significant difference of opinion becoming apparent on the fundamental problems involved. Before the end of the Coalition, a bill creating the Local Government Boundary Commission had passed into law.

The United Nations Organization is an essentially American product, as the jeep or the atomic bomb. Conceived at Dumbarton Oaks near the American Capitol, inspired by American ideas, born under American chairmanship on the American West Coast, having decided on a permanent site in America, it is even endowed with an American surname. In fact as in word, there would be no United Nations were there not a United States.

It is therefore very generous of an American body to ask me, as a foreign visitor to your shores, what I think of this American product. But it is correspondingly embarrassing for me to attempt to tell you. When one is invited out to dinner, it hardly does to comment, except in terms of the highest enthusiasm, on the cuisine of your host or on the beauty of his daughter.

Your invitation to this intellectual feast therefore obliges me to choose between politeness and sincerity. As I am speaking here at your request, not in any diplomatic capacity whatever, but solely as a friend among friends and as one man of science to a host of academic colleagues, known and unknown, I unhesitatingly opt in favor of complete frankness. I venture to trust that our common ideals of scientific freedom will assure my impunity from any reproach of indiscretion or of impertinence.

The Panel on Public Law is one of a number of such organizations which came into being under the auspices of the Committee on Research of the American Political Science Association. Its purpose is to survey research in public law as now conducted and to give such guidance to methods and areas of future research as is possible and as the members think desirable. Since the date of its organization in the summer of 1942, the Panel, with a somewhat fluctuating membership, has exchanged ideas through extensive correspondence. On September 9–10, 1944, it met in Washington for more detailed discussion and sharing of opinions. It met again in Philadelphia on March 29, 1946, pursuant to the program of the annual meeting of the Association. The range of opinions and attitudes has proved very wide. It reflects a high degree of individualism in the field—the result, no doubt, of differences of initial training and experience and habit of mind, and also, perhaps, of the comparative isolation one from another which characterizes the working conditions of the representatives of the field. The correspondence and the oral discussions already held have dealt with too many problems to make possible a report of widespread agreement.

During the past generation, social welfare has risen to a position of almost prime importance in the work of government. “Social services” have rivalled “defense services” as objects of public expenditure. “Social security” has complemented “national security” as an objective of public policy. Graduate schools of social work have taken their place alongside law schools, schools of education, and military and naval academies as important training-places for public service. It is perhaps time that we now inquire in what ways political science has been, or may yet be, affected by so phenomenal a change. If, as we are often assured, atomic fission means a revolution in our political thinking, the large-scale pursuit of social welfare might at least be expected to call for an equally vast, even though more gradual, evolution in our attitudes.

As an organized body of professed political scientists, how have we reacted to this change? We have, by and large, welcomed the extension of governmental activity. As teachers, we have helped habituate a new generation to such expressions as “the service state,” “positive government,” and “the new belief in the common man.” As scholars, we have followed with interest and approval the successive steps by which jurists have brought these activities within the framework of the written constitution of a federal state. As theorists, we have given to personal insecurity an honored place in the new psychopathological chapter in our evolving political philosophy. As citizens, we have played our part in planning and administering social welfare policies.