After serving with the Marines during World War II, Gardner joined the Carnegie Corporation of New York, and eventually became president of that, and concurrently, of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. During the Johnson Administration, he served as Secretary of H. E. W. for two and a half years until he resigned in protest of Johnson's Vietnam policy.

ONE of the root causes of Gardner's severe criticism of our political system stems from the frustration he experienced while working in the Johnson Administration. "I assumed what I guess most people assumed," said Gardner, "that in positions of power you can influence the course of events. You accept a cabinet post, and influence goes with it. Which is true, but not very much influence to change the system. A lot of influence to work within concepts that are going at the time, very little chance to reshape. The chance to reshape comes from outside. I think you will find that more and more people like Ralph Nader and Common Cause, who are functioning from these interstitial positions are better able to define the kinds of changes that are needed. It depends on your temperament whether you want to be inside facing the frustration, but closer to the levers of power, or be outside and free of the institutional restraints which hinder effective reform."

At the Urban Coalition, Gardner set up a small lobbying operation called the Urban Coalition Action Council. Because the Urban Coalition is a tax-exempt organization, the $200,000 needed each year to run the Action Council had to be borrowed from individuals and corporations as non-deductible tax money, money which is extremely difficult to obtain. As the council grew funding fell away, and Gardner repeatedly had to call on friends for emergency funds. After his experience with the Action Council, Gardner realized that for his present, broader venture, he was going to need a little money from a lot of people. Late last spring, he set out to raise $500,000 in seed money for Common Cause. By the time that $250,000 had been spent, membership dues became sufficient to keep Common Cause going, and Gardner hasn't gone back for the other half. Thus unlike commercial lobbying efforts, Common Cause is not dependent on a few large contributors, and therefore cannot be influenced by powerful individuals who foot the bills.

EARLY last fall, Gardner sent out to a select mailing list a letter that began: "I would like to ask you to join me in forming a new, independent, nonparistan organization to help in rebuilding this nation. It will be known as Common Cause. It will not be a third party but a third force in American life, deriving its strength from a common desire to solve the Nation's problems and revitalize its institutions of government." The issues Gardner set forth are establishing a fixed date for total withdrawal from Vietnam, and giving the problems of poverty and race in the United States top priority in a list which called for new solutions in housing, employment, education, health, consumer protection, environmental protection, family planning, law enforcement, and the administration of justice.

Response to Common Cause has been overwhelming, indicating that at least a part of the public recognizes a need for a reordering of national priorities. Gardner initially believed that it would take two years to establish a membership of 100,000; instead it has taken six months. Membership is now well over the 150,000 mark and increasing at the rate of 1000 per day.

INEVITABLY the question arises whether it is more important to defeatsome of the Yahoos in Congress, and replace them with perceptive public officials, or to put pressure on the officials we've got. Gardner believes that the system as it now stands chews up the good new people fed to it. "If you could increase by 10 percent or even 15 to 20 percent the number of first-rate people in Congress," he said, "it would be spectacular." But he believes that even if this were accomplished and the best possible presidential candidate were elected, nothing would change: "There would still be the oil lobby, the congressional-military-industrial complex. There would still be the absence conflict-of-interest in every state legislature. What are a few good people to do if you move them into the system unless there's some group out there to back them up."

The success of Common Cause to date testifies to a widespread phenomenon, one that surfaced in New Hampshire and Chicago in 1968, and again with the antiwar movement during the past three years. Clearly people are weary of the old politics. But the political system is simply not responsive to this desire for reform-the power and the privilege and the decision making were designed by the men who hold the key positions in the system, and they resist change.

What citizen movements lack is not power, but an effective means of channelling that power. Common Cause provides a new means of reform, distinct from the frustration of mass demonstrations, which cannot so easily be ignored by the men in power.