A WEEKLY COMMENTARY
Year Twenty-One ... Number Thirty-Eight ... September 27, 1974
THE CONTRIVED EVOLUTION
OF REGIONAL GOVERNMENT
PART TWENTY-ONE
THE WRAP-UP
Regionalism is a control system designed to provide corporate management of all production, development, and use of all the resources, both natural and human, of all the world. It is a plan to secure control over all things and all persons at every social and governmental -- level, from the local community to the entire world. It is a highly developed form of corporate socialism.
Regionalist Richard C. Hartman, executive director of the National Association of Regional Councils, is in partial agreement with our statement. He wrote:
"To demonstrate the breadth and lack of clarity of the term regionalism ('region'), one can check a dictionary and find definitions such as:
"Regionalism is based on a geographic and community denominator. How you define region is based on the need or objective to be achieved .... Historically, the national government has been the initiator and moving force for regional programs and agencies. The earliest concrete federal interest was in terms of multi-state regionalism to deal with specific concerns such as water resources or economic development. The noteworthy products of this interest are: creation in 1913 of the twelve-region Federal Reserve System ; establishment in 1933 of the Tennessee Valley Authority ...; cooperation with states to create ... water resource compact agencies (22 regions-Ed.) ... and, finally, creation in 1965 of the Appalachian Regional Commission and, under Title V of the Public Works and Economic Development Act, five economic development commissions. In the last two years Congress has considered additional proposals to establish more multi-state commissions for land use and transportation. There is also a pending proposal to expand the number of economic development commissions from five to ten to encompass the entire United States ....
"In 1968, by executive order, President Nixon did take a significant step in multistate regionalism. He established ten geographically defined federal regions .... "
All of the foregoing is quoted from The Regionalist Papers, a research project by Metropolitan Fund, Inc., published in April 1974 and consisting of twelve "Regionalist Papers" which are compared quite brazenly with the "Federalist Papers" written by Madison, Hamilton and Jay to explain the United States Constitution and the new form of government which it provided. These "Regionalist Papers" are similarly written to explain the new form of governance which is to replace the old federal form-if the Regionalists continue to have their way.
This Metropolitan Fund is a nonprofit research corporation, financed by Ford and other foundations, and by "contributions from business, industry, and labor organizations." These "Regionalist Papers," 284 pages in all, deal with Regionalism within the United States, but a similar set of propaganda papers might well deal with the progress of Regionalism on a world-wide scale.
Students of the World Government Movement will recognize the fact that one of the chief arguments used by One Worlders was the success which our Founding Fathers had in taking thirteen sovereign and independent States and welding them into one Federal Union. One Worlders argued that, if such a plan was successful with the United States, then why couldn't the plan be extended to form a United States of the World?
Regionalists have a more practical idea: Why not create, first, a series of Regional Governments, and then, when circumstances permit, bind them all together under one World Authority (as Orwell had foreseen)? This was the purpose behind the establishment -- under the authority of the United Nationa Organization -- of a series of Regional Organizations: NATO, SEATO, CENTO, the USSR's Warsaw Pact Satellites, etc.
It was understood by the Regionalists that a Regionalist World Authority could not be established while Iron Curtains and Bamboo Curtains and other divisive ideologies cut the world into separate parts.
This, we believe, was the chief purpose of Henry Kissinger's secret negotiations with Communist leaders in Moscow and Peking: In the interests of production, development, and use of the world's resources, both natural and human, the time had come when all the Regional Organizations of the world were to be brought together under one World Authority.
Meanwhile, Regionalism was progressing at National levels very satisfactorily. As we illustrated (with maps) in previous letters in this series, France and Italy had "Regionalized," behind the Iron Curtain the USSR had been Regionalized. And in that so-called "Third World" which consists of States not directly controlled by East or West Authoritarians, the United Nations was taking charge of Regionalization:
From the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations, we have a report on "Planning for Economic Development in Czechoslovakia and Hungary." An interesting observation: After describing a series of government agencies very similar to our own OMB, Domestic Council, Central Bank (FRS), Regional Councils, and an overall control system similar to PPBS, the UN report states:
"All of these agencies are specialized Government organs for the management of certain sectors of the economy, though they usually do not directly manage any enterprise or economic establishment. The enterprises and other economic organizations are managed by the Government (assisted by the above-named agencies) either through branch ministries or through regional agencies of the state power .... "
Here is an example of Regionalistic doubletalk: The regional agencies don't manage or control, the Government manages and controls through the regional agencies!
But, let's get back to Regionalism in the United States.
At the very beginning of this series of letters, we wrote about the three theories of governance which have developed in the United States:
We explained that the Compact Theory originated with the Mayflower Compact and implied true home rule, or local rule; that the Continental Theory looked toward a strong central government in Washington, with a corresponding diminution of State and local political power; and the International Theory implied World Government.
We find an echo of what we wrote at that time being used as an argument for Regionalism in the Foreword to these Regionalist Papers from which we have quoted previously. Instead of Compact Theory this author writes of "localists" and instead of the Continental Theory, he refers to "centralists." And he very carefully avoids any mention of the Internationalist Theory. However, just as the One Worlders point to the founding of the United States as an argument for World Government; just so does this author (Kent Methewson, president of the Metropolitan Fund) pervert the meaning of home rule, or localism, and use it as an argument for Regionalism. We quote:
I believe that The Regionalist Papers represents a clear and compelling call for strong and effective local government ... albeit on a regional scale ... a call for united strength in a metropolitan context ... a strength that has been dissipated through fractionation and debilitating competition among a gaggle of weak and ineffective political subdivisions.
Though it may be an imprecise analogy, I must liken the existence of our metropolitan regions today under voluntary councils of governments (in which this writer shares responsibility for creation of the COG institution) to the "disunited states" of America under the Articles of Confederation in the late 1770's and 1780's. And as others have said, the prospect for the future of our metropolitan regions is as bleak now in the absence of unity as was the future of our country in those critical times that spurred Madison, Hamilton, and Jay to write the Federalist Papers.
Our metropolitan areas now are undergoing that same struggle between the ideologies of the "localists" and the "centralists" as existed in 1787 at the national level. We are reminded that Hamilton found himself outnumbered two to one by the "localist" delegates when he and his followers arrived at the New York convention to ratify the new "centralist" constitution of the United States. The odds, actors, and arguments seem much the same today in the struggle to achieve an institutional arrangement sufficient to unite our metropolitan regions.
As pointed out by the authors of the Federalist Papers, the "excess of democracy" is as much to be feared as over-centralization. The balance between the two will be as difficult to chart in our metropolitan regions as our founding fathers found it to be in institutionalizing our nation. In Fairfield's introduction to his edition of the Federalist Papers, he speaks to this point when he describes the concerns of the Federalists in this way: "Can a republic, sometimes successful in small states, survive in a large geographical area -- or will the forces of localism triumph where men regard themselves as citizens of Massachusetts, Maryland, or Georgia, rather than the United States?" Let us today similarly ask : " ...or will the forces of localism triumph where men regard themselves as citizens of Detroit, Warren, and Pontiac rather than Southeast Michigan?".
In 1974 an effort should be underway -- this time at the regional level -- to create and gain acceptance of an institution to meet a challenge of similar magnitude to that faced by our forefathers .... Nearly two hundred years ago, authors of the Federalist Papers promised no miracle from a federated union but saw no alternative save to try. Today, enforced regional coordination of governmental services would provide no panacea for our urban condition, but because logic and experience tells us that benefit can be expected, it would seem that the time has come to move the discussion from whether regionalism should be attempted, to consideration of the best arrangement for the New City. Accordingly, the Regionalist Papers are presented for that purpose.
We have quoted extensively from The Federalist Papers because it seemed important to present evidence of the passionate intensity with which these professional Regionalists pursue their pet version of the utopian mirage. They present their cause as being just as critical as that of Madison, Hamilton and Jay when they urged the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. Just as the Founding Fathers urged adoption of the Constitution in order to install the original federalism which has distinguished our form of government, these Regionalists urge the adoption of Regionalism in order to install the new federalism. And, just as the Constitution saved the Union in 1787, Regionalism is supposed to save the Union and create a World Union in 1974 or thereabouts.
These Regionalists are so serious and so dedicated that they have drawn up a new flag which is to replace Old Glory if they have their way. The Regional Flag shown here was reproduced in the Smithsonian, a monthly magazine published by the Smithsonian Associates, 900 Jefferson Drive, Washington, D.C. 29560.
"Smithsonian asked for a new design from Whitney Smith of the Flag Research Center in Winchester, Massachusetts," says the 3-page, unsigned article which appears in the December 1973 issue of the magazine. In an article exposing the Smithsonian action, Jo Hindman commented: "It may be that the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, S. Dillon Ripley, might supply the answer to the question, who, or what tax-supported fund paid the vexilologist's fee for designing the unauthorized flag to replace the Flag of the United States of America?"
The seriousness, and the progress, of the Regionalists in achieving their aims, can be illustrated in two other ways:
1) A chief objective of the concept of Regional Governance is to replace elected officials with appointed administrators. As this is being written, the President of the United States is an appointed administrator, and the Vice President designate is to be an appointed administrator -- the latter being, in addition, a principal proponent and financer of Regional Governance.
2) In this series of letters, we have concentrated attention upon the Ten Standard Federal Regions which were established by executive order and which are governed by appointed regional councilmen located in the Ten Regional Capitals. We have also referred to other federal regions, such as the 22 regions established through federally controlled interstate river bed compacts, the twelve Federal Reserve System regions, etc. But we merely scratched the surface in this respect. The official U.S. Government Organization Manual contains some 80 different regional maps! While the Ten Region Map is the most important, and is called the map of the "Standard Federal Regions," other regional maps include environmental geology regions, mineral resources regions, oil and gas operations regions, food and nutrition service regions, the 13 Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Regions, Federal Communications Commission Regions, Federal PowerCommission Regions, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Regions, Federal Trade Commission Regions, etc., etc.
These are multi-State Regions; some of them disregard State boundaries; all are Federal Agency Administration Regions ruled over by appointed administrators often in total disregard of all State and local government officials, or even all Federal elected officials. These regions have nothing to do with Congress once they are established; their orders come from the eleven Cabinet rank Departments, or from the sixteen chief agencies within the Executive Office of the President (himself an appointee), or from one or more of the thirty-four independent offices and establishments of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government.
Key control center of this Regional Dictatorship is the Office of Management and Budget. It does manage the whole operation and it does approve the budget of every one of the regional and sub-regional operations. It also commands the computers and keeps the keys to the data banks.
However, anyone wanting to oppose this governmental behemoth should begin at the local level; for here is where real political power can best be applied by the individual citizen. And the Regionalist Conspiracy begins as an attack against home rule in the name of home rule!
In August 1974, in his brilliant minority report to the El Dorado County (California) Modernization Commission's Regionalization scheme, Supervisor William V. D. Johnson made the following important observations:
"In the beginning of American government, home rule meant exactly that: Local rule without interference from either State or National Government. The County Government was the unit which protected property, built roads and handled trials and execution of criminals. Slowly, State governments began creeping in and taking over where they had neither right nor duty ....
"This governmental reform (that is, Regionalism- Ed.) is a long-term project because it includes attitude adjustment of our young people in their education, with de-emphasis of the Constitution, patriotism and nationalism, and emphasis on the false premise of antiquated constitutions, laws, etc., plus attitude adjustment of adults through the news media and television, as well as financial manipulation by the Federal Government; all of this done to induce the citizens to think this is what they want ....
" ... a report published by the Committee for Economic Development in 1966 contained the following recommendations:
"In recent years the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) has been promoting these same ideas .... "
And so have all the agents and agencies of 1313, the Fabians in our midst, the gullible officials who ought to know better or ought never to have been elected, and the culpable politicoes who do know better but find that revenue sharing, federal grants and fine titles are commendable ways of enlarging their bank accounts or exalting their egos.
It was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, an early advocate of Regionalism, who made the statement: "We have to get over the notion that the purpose of reorganization is economy. ... The reason for reorganization is management!"
And total management is the purpose behind Regional Government; management of you and yours, of the community, the State, the Nation, and eventually the World.
But effective opposition must begin at the personal, and the local level. It is our hope that this series of letters will help you in educating friends, voters, and officials.
DON BELL REPORTS & CLOSER-UP are privately circulated Newsletters accenting the Christian American point of view. Complete service: $24 per year. Extra copies: 10 cents each. Please address all orders to: DON BELL REPORTS, P.O. Box 2223, Palm Beach, Florida 33480