Interview with Hallock Hoffman

Introduction by Richard Farson

It is a special pleasure for me to be able to introduce Hallock Hoffman to the group of ILF Fellows. Hallock and I have been friends for forty years or more, probably more, and I count him as one of the important people in my life. I hope he will give us much of his background in this interview, but I can tell you that after college he became a flight instructor, and when WWII broke out, was given a commission in the Army Air Corps, spending the war teaching flying and ferrying planes to the European theatre.

I first knew of him when he was Robert Hutchin's right hand man at the Ford Foundation's Fund for the Republic, which morphed into the famous Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions in Santa Barbara. He also co-founded the Fielding Institute, one of the most important graduate schools in psychology and the social sciences, based mainly on distance education. Along the way he was chairman of the Pacifica Foundation, the parent of two of the leading public broadcasting stations.

I'm proud to say that he is not only an ILF Fellow, but Chair of the Board of Trustees of WBSI. His life is rich with experiences that are plainly relevant to the issues we now face internationally. There is much for us to inquire about. Welcome, Hallock.

With the USA now engaged in a controversial nation building effort in Iraq, politicians and the press are almost daily comparing it to the famous Marshall Plan that rebuilt Europe after the devastation of WWII, so I can't help but start with a question about how you compare the two. You are in a unique position to make such a comparison because it was your father, Paul G. Hoffman, who was asked by the president to leave his post as CEO of the Studebaker Corporation to head the Marshall Plan. Can you tell us what you remember about the way your father responded to that challenge, and how it is similar or different from the challenge we face now?

Participant
Hallock: I look forward to your leadership in this space. I recall with such pleasure your contributions when we were first pioneering with this medium.

Participant
Welcome, Hallock! I look forward to a most interesting interview!

Hallock Hoffman
Richard, your question is legitimate (after all I had the experiences you listed) BUT my memory isn't what it used to be. So my answer will be less detailed than is really required to answer your question.

I think the main difference between the Marshall Plan and the Bush talk is that the Marshall Plan was adopted in detail by the Congress. It was started two years AFTER World War II was over, when the condition of our former enemies were clear, the needs were carefully assessed, and the helping process was completely bi-lateral: each of the countries receiving aid were matching the costs in various ingenious ways and participation equally in making the plan work for their counties. The Marshall plan did not decide who was to govern the countries it helped; it cooperated with them in developing the best arrangements for their part in the program.

The Marshall Plan was clearly approved by both Democrats and Republicans. It continued its bi-partisan support through the administration of my father and at least two of the following administrators.

An obvious difference was the character of my father versus the character of the current leaders of the Iraq war. First, he was totally honest, hid nothing from the Congress or the press, and was well liked by all the people he dealt with--both recipients of aid and the heads of governments including the US. The whole operation was friendly and inclusive, and my father visited personally every recipient country--several many times. He was also an experienced manager: he inherited the Presidency of the Studebaker Corporation after it was put into bankruptcy by the previous managers, he brought it out of bankruptcy and made it a profitable corporation; then, during the war, he founded the CED (Committee for Economic Development) aimed at getting the country's business leaders ready for the end of the War. By then, over 2,000 corporations had joined the CED and were planning for peace. As a consequence, the transition to peace time was quick and decent.

All these former positions gave him a head start on tbe Marshall Plan, and probably had much to do with its success. I would therefore suggest that one of the differences between the 1948 Marshall Plan and the presently suggested plan is in the preparedness and experience of the leaders.

I could go on: he was my father and I loved and admired him a lot. But I hope what I've written (too long, no doubt) was what your question brought immediately to mind.

Participant
Very responsive, Hallock. I had forgotten that the Marshall Plan didn't start immediately after the war, but two years later. I remember Harlan Cleveland doing some planning for the post war situation in Italy, and I thought he had actually done some of that before the war was over. Maybe I confused what he was doing with activities of the Marshall Plan. Under the Marshall Plan the various countries had to come up with 10% of the cost. You've certainly listed some important differences from our situation in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm sure others will ask questions, but my next one has to do with the McCarthy era. As I recall, having been a University of Chicago graduate student at the time, Robert Hutchins' reason for leaving the presidency of the university was because he was under fire from trustees and others influenced by McCarthy, who thought him a dangerous liberal, opposed to loyalty oaths, etc. My impression was that the job he went to as Associate Director of the Ford Foundation was created to give him a place to land, but even they became uneasy defending him, and set him adrift with $40,000,000, you, and the Fund for the Republic. Do I have that right? My question really is, do you see any relationship between those times and these?

Participant
Hello, Hallock.I appreciated your reflections on the Marshall Plan -- certainly a relevant piece of history in the light of current events. As you undoubtedly know, there are frequent calls for new Marshall Plans -- even one for the world. Are you familiar with some of these suggestions, and what do you think of them?

Hallock Hoffman
Richard, You will know better than I about the issues facing Robert Hutchins at Chicago during the McCarthy days. I'm not surprised to learn that he was harassed. My close connections with him came when he was appointed to the Ford Foundation as assistant director. I believe that was because of the demand by my father, who was then to become the head of the Foundation, that Hutchins be hired also: Dad wouldn't take the job without Hutchins. He wasn't Henry Ford's choice; I don't know whether my father was also seeking to protect Hutchins from McCarthy; that was never mentioned in my presence. I very much doubt that he was about to be fired by the University of Chicago Trustees--which you suggest by saying that the Ford Foundation appointment was to keep him from being "set adrift."

I might say that Bob was always regarded as a "dangerous liberal" by some influential people around the University, but many others thought he was just right for that job, and he did raise lots of money for the university ($90 million, as I remember) and was highly regarded by the intellectual community.

One slight error: when my father left the Ford Foundation, Henry Ford's opposition to the integration of Ford dealers in the south was part of the reason. It was also part of the reason for Ford's discomfort with Hutchins. The Ford board set up the Fund for the Republic in part as a way to get rid of Hutchins, and in part because they had to; one of the charter provisions of the Ford Foundation required it to devote some of its resources to civil liberties and civil rights. Once it had created the Fund for the Republic, they felt they had done their duty: never come calling again, they said.

And the amount of money was, unhappily not $40, but $15 million.

Hallock Hoffman
Walt, thanks for the question. I wish I knew the answer. I am not familiar with the details of the present proposals for a new Marshall Plan. I am not pleased by the general effort to equate new proposals to the original Marshall Plan, because the conditions are so different, and the intentions of the proposers, at least those in the US government, is counter to the original idea.

The main point, I think, is that the new proposals seem directed toward a political end as well as providing an excuse to devote some funding to social goials. To the degree the new proposals intend non-political reconstruction of the damage caused by the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, I would applaud them. But my feeling--not a result of careful investigation--is that those who are proposing the new Marshall Plan have little understanding of the culture they are seeking to assist, and they mainly determine to help Iraq by taking as a model the US.

Participant
It is eye-opening to read your history of the events that I was describing. My recollection is certainly flawed hadn't even remembered that it was your father who brought Hutchins to the Ford Foundation. At the time Hutchins left the university I recall hearing that the board was not all that happy with his fundraising, or maybe it was because his reputation as a liberal in the McCarthy era would have crippled any future fundraising efforts. Ninety million in twenty years doesn't seem like much now, when a single university capital campaign runs in the billions, but I guess it was quite respectable then. I was paid $120 a month as Carl Rogers' research assistant, but only had to pay $21/mo. for my room over the center of Bohemian life there, the Red Door Book Shop. I think you first told me about Hutchins' famous remark, "There is nothing to be known about fundraising".

Where is the Fund for the Republic when we need it?!

Participant
As I recall (probably again flawed) you and Hutchins took the remaining ten million in the Fund for the Republic, and bought the hilltop mansion in Santa Barbara, invited a table full of the best minds in the world, and set up the distinguished Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions. I'm sure you are full of anecdotes about that famous place, but while we are on fundraising, I would be interested in the source of funds for that radically conceived institution. Were there only two major donors--the Ford Foundation and Chester Carlson, of Xerox? Is there a story to the Carlson gift? I know the consequences were disastrous. Care to tell us about them?

Hallock Hoffman
Richard, you flatter me. Bob Hutchins persuaded the Board of Directors to set up the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions all by himself. Of course the staff, including I, ware with him, and there were many influential members of that staff. The money remaining in the Ford grant, which was only about $5 million, was then the Center's funding until it was about used up; then Chester Carlson came along and provided a sizable gift. Further fund raising efforts were divided among the newly created Center magazine, and the addition of "Founding Members" who provided about half the budget for the next few years. The special feature of that fund raising was the Center itself. We were running a rather publicly relevant discussion; each morning at 11 am our staff met with one or another person of national reputation to discuss issues that were of national or even international interest. The publicity that accompanied the discussions was in the main not provided by us, but attached to the persons interviewed. The appeal of being a member of an outfit that attracted the kind of discussants we had, and the ability that Founding Members (they had contributed at least $1,000) to sit at the table with us in that discussion, was I think the greatest pull for contributions.

I don't understand your statement, "I know the consequences were disastrous." What did you mean?

Participant
My understanding of the substantial Carlson gift was that it led to the idea of taking that opportunity to reorganize the Center staff, with the bulk of the intellectuals, who had considered themselves to be on life appointments, being dismissed. And I thought that was the beginning of the end of what I have always regarded as one of the most important think tanks ever.Do you see it differently?

Participant
I've always been interested in, but never have known, what made you into a conscientious objector. Do you think that you were one when you were a pilot in the Army Air Corps all during WWII, but didn't know how to express it?

Hallock Hoffman
Richard, I had never heard that the Carlson gift had generated the reorganization of the Center. Since I was one of those organized out (but not one of the intellectuals, of course) I feel I would have been let in on such news.

The reorganization was, as Bob explained it to me, the way the Center was avoiding closing down completely. It was a way to get rid of several Participants who were not contributing much, and making the group around the table much smaller and tighter. I did not think the group retained was unacceptable. They were all outstanding contributors to the discussion with substantial education and experience to guide them.

Hutchins way or choosing who should remain was to ask Harvey Wheeler to join him; the two then chose the third, who joined in choosing the fourth; and the group went on choosing and enlarging until it could longer agree on who else to retain.

The group "around the table" went from about 20 to eight, and that probably enabled the Center to endure for four or five more years.

By the way, it seems to me this conference has turned into a discussion of my past. Aren't there any questions whose discussion I might participate in?(Maybe I don't want to know the answer!)

Participant
Sorry, Hallock, but this interview is all about you. And you still have a question from me to answer.

You sound as if you think Hutchins did the right thing in the right way. Boy, was I off on that. But if dialogue is the currency of the Center, wouldn't the idea of requiring a unanimous vote eliminate the most divergent minds? Or was that group gifted enough to avoid being caught in what would characterize most such selections--homogeneity.

I have another question. Having been for years right at the top of America's intellectual life, working at a think tank that is often credited for stimulating Johnson's war on poverty, among other achievements, and having founded a graduate school in psychology, what do you now think is worth doing?

Hallock Hoffman
Dear Richard, the group Hutchins generated that elected itself in the way I described were indeed representative of the various opinions and policies on which the Center depended. I don't recall all of them, but they included Hutchins, of course, Harvey Wheeler, John Cogley, Harry Ashmore--hardly homogenous except in their devotion to discussion as a way to advance thought and policy.

Your question about what I think is worth doing is difficult. Obvious answers are promoting good education, being an active citizen, and making an effort to keep up with both the events and thoughts happening in the world. If I look at my present daily life, that seems to be what I am trying to do. I often wish I were more effective, of course, but as I have grown old, I find I have few expectations and little criticisms of what I see of the world. I guess this is just acknowledging what I think is now apparent: none of us understands much, almost nothing fundamental changes much, and human beings actually cannot escape their culture, parenting, and early life experiences.

Participant
Low expectations, little criticism of what you see, and resignation to the idea that there is no escape from culture, parenting and life experiences seem to me an interesting conclusion for one who has devoted his entire life to the betterment of humankind. Can you share with us some of the experiences or reasoning that led you to that way of thinking?

Participant
Dear Hallock, With your long experience with "think tanks", what approach has been most productive in your view? Is there more we could do in WBSI to "make a better world" ?

Hallock Hoffman
Richard, it may merely be that the experiences you refer to have become less convincing. When I look back over my life, I take great joy and satisfaction in my astonishing good fortune. If ever anyone's life should have taught her (one thing I learned was to use the feminine pronoun--it's more inclusive)to believe in the goodness of the world, it was mine.

But as I was saying, I did become more and more convinced of the relative ineffectiveness, or maybe powerlessness, of efforts seeking to change cultures. I certainly acknowledge that "science" -- that is, increases in knowledge -- does effect the way things are. But one of the obvious lessons of science is that the consequences of increased knowledge are hardly ever successfully predicted.

Our improvements in knowledge and practice, by which I mean to include the improvements in governance as well as those in the growth of food and the improvements in distribution, and the comfort available to many people in the more "advanced" countries, and the availability of education (depending on how you define it) and the notions about legitimate punishment(though we refuse of admit the ineffectiveness of punishment as a method of teaching but we do somewhat fewer executions while at the same time we put more and more people in jail for the use of drugs, etc. etc.)--well, you see the kind of thoughts that bring me to my present opinions.

One other element is the convincing increase in information about how human brains function. We now know that we can make small changes in behavior by various means, but we can't really change the basic brain structure that is determined significantly by inheritance. And we can also know that if we succeed in making changes in the way the brain functions, the consequences will be unpredictable, and probably distressing. Example: the current debate on whether the choice of research projects should be chosen by the researchers, or should be reviewed before being permitted to start, since many increases in knowledge have the potential to hurt us. (We should put the Bush administration in charge of research? Oh, dear.)

And then there are events, like the recent election in California. What has impressed and appalled my most, I guess, is how few people seem actually capable of what I think of as reasoning. Granted, the choice offered was narrow and difficult. But I tried to show some friends that the recall could have serious consequences for how government functions, and perhaps on the electoral process itself. No one seemed to think this thought was worth attending to, because--they said--it was too complex. They wanted a simple choice, and the media pretty well gave them one.

Well, enough. You can see the flaws in my reasoning and the absence of well grounded propositions, but this is some kind of explanation for what I feel. I'd be very grateful to be corrected.

Hallock Hoffman
Dear Doug, Such a good question. But I have no quick answer. Of course I think one of the ways to improve WBSI is to get it enough money to keep it from spending so much time trying to survive. I think the administration of WBSI is powerful and to the point. Discussion seems to be the best way to get people to think about what they see and feel and plan. Of course WBSI has the advantage of Richard Farson -- a tower of thinking as well as a skilled administrator who knows what is important and what isn't. It is Richard who sets out each topic and gives us what we need to get started thinking and sharing. I can't think of any way to improve that.

I guess one improvement I'd like to see is a bigger group of Participants. The "members" of the ILF are a mighty varied and skilled and intellectually able group. About 10% of them ever participates. I wish I could think of a way to get more members involved in the discussions, but it's you and those whose entries have appeared in our recent discussions, period.

One way I think the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions maintained its high level of participation was to have money. We set out to find 10 or 15 people who had thinking skills and a variety of experiences that enabled them to question the guest experts we invited, and the people we invited almost always were happy to come--partly because we could pay their expenses, partly because of the remarkable reputation the Center got, mostly by Bob Hutchins' skill at knowing what would make supportive news.

And of course it was mainly Bob who figured out what we should be talking about. I was said to be in change of "the political process." I did do a lot of exploring and finding people who had something useful to say in our getting understanding of it. And of course, our built-in group of outside experts--people who met regularly with us as a group to figure out how to approach our topics, kept us sharp and open in our inquiries. (My "expert", the one I worked with in setting up the political part of the program, was Eugene Burdick. He was a spectacular political scientist as well as an instructive popular novelist. He is an example of the outside advisers on which we relied.) But it was Bob who had the final decision on whom to invite, and he was almost always right.

I don't think I have answered your question. But what I said about money is right on. WBSI's dependence on generous people like you needs to be expanded to many others who support these remarkable ongoing discussions at WBSI.

Participant
Hallock, I've recently come across pieces that say our society has become so complex and the speed of change so quick, that we no longer have the luxury of thinking things through in detail. By the time we've thunk our thoughts, the situation has changed so much that a lot of what we've thought is no longer pertinent or valid. These writers suggest that we are in a situation in which we have to react more intuitively or instinctually to things. They further suggest that this trend toward more complexity and increased tempo is not likely to change in the near future.

Any thoughts on this?

Participant
Hi you fabulous fellows: Lynne O'Shea, aka Willowy Redhead, coming in from Chicago -- where the Cubs blew it, blew it, in the eight inning. Last time we were on top was 1945, before my time. So I'll not be able to comment on Marshall Plan, but even with Daniel Pearl and Rumsfeld having "authored" the Bush Plan (de-stabilize them, before they de-stabilize us), I'm having trouble SEEING a plan. Now, this doesn't surprise me. Because in earlier "chat" in WBSI/SMSS days, Charles Hampton-Turner told us (1) our governmental types operate at a #4 level of IQ, given total of seven levels: (2) other nation-state leaders operate at #6 level; (3) some, but certainly not all, of our corporate titans operate at #5 level; so....(4) there are no, repeat NO foreign policy discussions between our governmental guys and other governmental guys. And, those of us in corporate world, -- those of us in the middle, just scratch our heads

Richard Farson
Hallock has submitted to this interview for twice as long a period as I had orginally promised him, and I want to thank him for his generous and illuminating participation. As always, Hallock, your modesty cannot mask the richness of your experience, nor the flashes of wisdom that benefit all of us. We are indeed grateful.