|1.||Barbara Hubbard, in a review of "Upwingers: A Futurist Manifesto," The Futurist, February 1974, p. 28.|
|2.||Unpublished paper, Harvard Business School, 1974.|
|3.||Peter F. Drucker, as quoted in Carl Madden, The Clash of Culture ( Washington, National Planning Association, 1972), p. 51.|
|4.||Democracy in America ( New York, Vintage Books, 1945), Vol. I, pp. 450, 451; Vol. 2, p. 151.|
|5.||Ben Wattenberg, The Real America ( New York, Doubleday, 1974). For a less rhapsodic survey of middle-class influence see Thomas C. Cochran , Business in American Life ( New York, McGraw-Hill, 1972). And for a sharp disagreement, attempting to prove that the American blue-collar class is degenerating into a powerful proletariat, see Andrew Levison, "The Working Class Majority," New Yorker, September 2, 1974.|
|6.||See James Baughman, "New Directions in American Economic and Business History," in American History: Retrospect and Prospect, edited by G. A. Billias and G. N. Grob ( New York, Macmillan, Free Press, 1971).|
|7.||Beyond the Stable State ( New York, Norton, 1973), p. 80.|
|8.||"An Agenda for Research and Development in Corporate Responsiveness," unpublished paper, Harvard Business School, 1974.|
|9.||"Suffering a Sea Change," June 29, 1974, p. 41.|
|10.||Ivan Illich, Tools for Conviviality ( New York, Harper & Row, 1973).|
|11.||Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, "The Entropy Law and the Economic Problem", in Toward A Steady State Economy, edited by Herman E. Daly ( San Francisco, W. H. Freeman, 1973).|
|12.||Dennis Meadows et al., The Limits to Growth ( New York, New American Library, 1972), p. xi.|
|13.||Thomas M. Humphrey, "The Dismal Science Revisited," Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Monthly Review, March 1973, p. 2.|
|14.||Barbara Ward, op. cit., p. 49.|
|15.||Management ( New York, Harper & Row, 1974), p. 363.|
|16.||October 1968, pp. 110-122.|
|17.||"The World Corporation: New Weight in an Old Balance," address before the International Industrial Conference, San Francisco, September 1973; published in Vital Speeches, October 15, 1973, p. 18.|
The more one examines the web of influence woven by special interests and the accommodation of politicians to that influence, the less one anticipates changes from within the political system itself. It must come from citizens. They will never produce totally sanitary politics; but they can and must regain command of their own instruments of self-government.
Institutions don't overhaul themselves. They find it painful. When an institution is in need of renewal, someone must shake it up. In the case of political institutions, the shakeup must come from concerned citizens determined to create responsive government, determined to bring the parties to life, determined to cut through organizational dry rot and revitalize aging institutions.
It is no accident that Common Cause was launched in 1970. The time was ripe. Future historians may remember the 1970s as the decade when citizen action emerged as a revitalizing force in American society. If so, they will not report it as a new thing but as a familiar ingredient in American life that matured and came into its own.
They will note that, in the decades preceding the emergence, the American people had ignored their duties as citizens. They had allowed their instruments of self- government to fall into disrepair. They had allowed themselves to be smothered by large-scale organization and technology and