Right. Time for that DoP explainer (which I might also have called "Speaking One's Peace" because see what I ... is this thing on? ...)
The notion of a Department of Peace predates the Constitution: one of the more eclectic, at times eccentric, and interesting Founding Fathers, Dr. Benjamin Rush of Philadelphia, proposed one during the ferment of ideas that led to the Constitution and the form of federal government it laid out. Rush's vision was a grab-bag of elements that made more sense in its own time than it might to later scholars and interpreters. Rush's vision had significant elements of what we might call a Christian Left spin on the Great Awakening, including the injunction that each house in the United States have written over its doorway in gold letters, "The Son of Man Came Into the World, Not to Destroy Men's Lives, But to Save Them" - but also practical and detailed injunctions to abolish the death penalty and abolish militia laws as part of a demilitarization of Federal Era society.
After the early intellectual and structural tumults of building the republic, Mister Rush's Fancy went the way of Mister Rush himself - to mortality and genteel obscurity outside a few circles in the know. The idea was revived in the wake of the Great War, during the early emergence of women voters and policy-makers as a political force, then again briefly in the wake of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (that time at the instigation of a young Jennings Randolph, who remained devoted to the idea through his senatorial career.)
Not long before the POD of this history, at the political tipping point of the Vietnam War as public opinion turned against the conflict, the idea of a Peace Department came around again. Vance Hartke, the liberal Indiana senator and sometime FOG (Friend Of George), put forward in 1969 S. 953, his "Peace Act" bill, while in the House ultraliberal Republican Seymour Halpern of New York filed a companion bill. Hartke's bill had an eclectic group of cosponsors, fourteen total, among them folks like Alan Cranston and Ed Muskie, but also Robert Byrd (urged on by Jennings Randolph) and Daniel Inouye. Halpern's bill had over sixty cosponsors, who ranged from Donald Fraser to Ed Koch and some of Halpern's fellow liberal Republicans like Pete McCloskey.
In both its versions, the Peace Act gave some tangible shape to what a Department of Peace might look like. It directed a DoP to develop "plans, policies, and programs designed to foster peace." It would pull together existing independent outfits in the Executive Branch with a primary or ancillary focus on building peace within and between nations, like the Peace Corps and the Agency for International Development (USAID), along with some novel sub-departments like a "Bureau of Peace Economics" (interesting but ill-defined relative to existing programs in departments like Commerce and the Treasury.) It also pressed for a Secretary of Peace who would have an equal seat at the table on national security matters, and in the development of policy for development of impoverished regions at home and abroad. While a number of the flourishing peace-driven political organizations of the moment pushed for the bill(s), alongside Catholic and American (i.e. Rhode Island) Baptist journals and organizations, plus some trade unions, S.953 ultimately wasn't reported out of committee and, though the idea lingered on into the 92nd Congress in 1971, it had largely died on the vine by then.
But. In
our case, we have the upset victory of George Stanley McGovern in the 1972 presidential election to open the doors on the butterfly house. In that case, a refinement and haggling-out of Hartke's proposal to create a usable government department seems in order. The "practical idealists" of McGovernment see few downsides to pressure for a Peace Department as part of the new administration - the optics are great for McGovern partisans in the general public, and a tolerably constructed department, one that looks administratively viable and viable from a policy implementation point of view, might actually do some good while it's around.
So. Proto-McGovernment officials sit down with congrescritters during the Nixon-to-George transition, and sort out how the new department might plausibly take shape. There are two notable contours to that process:
- The new department will indeed pull together several previously independent entities with significant "peace work" elements under its umbrella, and
- The Department of Peace will take up policy management and advocacy for several "soft" foreign policy issues that range among human rights issues, the logistics of humanitarian aid, and the "craft of peacemaking" itself, which will allow the State Department to stick with Proper Realist Diplomacy rather than have those hippie-dippy roles shunted uncomfortably into State's portfolio. (Not that Sarge would mind if they were, but that's exactly what the career bureaucrats and FSOs, led by their champion Deputy Secretary George Ball, are worried about.)
So in the end you get a Department of Peace that's especially heavy on "departments within a department" (like, for example, the place of the Parks Department and Fish & Wildlife within the Department of the Interior.) The upper-levels structure looks more or less like this:
- A Secretary in charge of everything, but especially in charge of strategic views and goals for the department's many sub-entities, and also herding the cats of DoP's several once-independent fiefdoms
- A Deputy Secretary who manages most of the granular bureaucratic details like deconfliction of roles, personnel management, paper flows, etc.
- The Peace Corps, one of the most obvious candidates for absorption by DoP, whose Director is now at Undersecretary level for DoP
- USAID, likewise with an Undersecretary-level Director
- The Arms Control & Disarmament Agency, restored in many ways to its original broad purview - much beyond just haggling over nukes with Moscow, on to issues like nuclear and biological nonproliferation, reduction of global arms sales, superpower demilitarization of specific global regions, etc.
- Food for Peace (hi, Norman!)
- VISTA-on-steroids (most of the way to an Americorps type/scale operation after invigorating legislation in 1973)
- An Undersecretary for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs (in charge of Assistant Secretaries who run, respectively, the department's Human Rights Office for investigation and advocacy, and the humanitarian relief division)
- An Undersecretary for Peacemaking (in charge of, among divers things, a National Peacemaking Institute)
Which really is actually a whole lot of bureaucratic/policy juice under one roof.
Nearly too much to manage but, if the Secretary and Deputy Secretary divide their roles properly, and none of the agency/bureau heads gets too bolshie, it can be done.
DoP also gains an automatic seat on the National Security Council, and also a not insignificant domestic policy role, especially in an advisory capacity. Also, who runs the store matters greatly as to how the department conceives of itself, manages itself, and conducts itself. In its formative years that would be this guy
Hi.
That vision in seersucker is Donald M. Fraser, longtime Democratic representative from Minnesota. Don Fraser has some key political advantages: he was cochair with George of the McGovern-Fraser Democratic Party reform committee, he's old friends with Fritz Mondale, and both of them are longtime horses in Hubert Humphrey's DFL stable out of Minnesota. Fraser was also a notable House activist against the Vietnam War, and in every other respect the sort of guy who McGovernment's transition mandarins would look at very closely for the SecPeace job.
Don Fraser also has other advantages. Already by the early Seventies he had begun to emerge - as he would ever more so until his failed Senate run in 1978 (edged out in the primary) - as one of the principal Congressional advocates for a new sort of American foreign policy, focused much more on human rights, and not only (as with Scoop Jackson's crew) human rights problems in the Soviet bloc but very much also among jackbooted "anti-communist" regimes around the world.
Barbara Keys' recent and very interesting
Reclaiming American Virtue: The Human Rights Revolution of the 1970s, has much to say about Don Fraser's OTL role in the development of human rights advocacy as a major element of American foreign policy. Keys especially argues that the turn both by the Cold War Right and Cold War-skeptical liberals was an effort to turn the page after the traumas and sometime shame of Vietnam. Not only the Scoop Jacksons of the world but also their liberal critics saw in human rights advocacy a chance to put Vietnam in the past, to reemphasize the American capacity for moral uprightness and crusading virtue.
Of course, within a McGovern administration that gets complicated, not least because of George himself. President McGovern is one of the McGoverners least inclined to simply let go the painful accounting of America's Vietnam experience, who believes understanding and atonement are essential parts of really moving the country beyond that tragedy. Don Fraser is a McGoverner of the first order but also - like some other senior McGoverners - more inclined to turn the page and reinvigorate the United States' moral compass without reference to the sins of Southeast Asia. There's common ground with George Himself on the human rights emphasis itself, and the need to "wage peace" creatively and vigorously around the world to improve US relations with the Global South (an emergent term at the time), improve the
optics of US foreign policy, and provide an "ounce of prevention" for more bloody local conflicts that might suck in the superpowers. But there are meaningful differences of nuance and intent to consider.
In purely bureaucratic/administrative terms, Don Fraser's two most considerable strengths as the first SecPeace are that he's a capable administrator, and he has a strategic vision for peace/human rights advocacy that gives him a clear plan and a strong voice in Cabinet-level policymaking. Also as an old political associate and sometime ally of President McGovern, that's another in for DoP methods and priorities. So there's some real potential for this "department of departments" (it's a sort of anti-
Heimatsicherheitsabteilung, i.e. Homeland Security) to make a go of itself.