Conservatism Needed to Save Society

RUSSELL KIRK, author of The Conservative Mind, in the liberal Roman Catholic weekly Commonweal:

UNTIL this century, nearly every American statesman desired to be thought a conservative: Calhoun did, and so did Lincoln. [In this century] the American, vaguely discontented with the shape of society, took for his model liberalism: he imagined that it was some sort of the-middle-way policy, happily splitting the difference between individualism and collectivism. Thus amorphous in its beginning, twentieth-century American liberalism has become almost impossible to describe, embracing a curiour congeries of people. The word "liberal," in such circumstances, has lost any real meaning. The liberal's distorted myth of private self-sufficiency in all things has been exploded; his complacent expectation of unchecked progress has been overwhelmed by social disorder and private discontent; his confidence in Rationality has been shattered beyond repair. To what, then, does he cling nowadays? To the feeble hope, ordinarily, of some sort of brummagem Utopia of creature-comforts, characterized by equality of condition, uniformity of life and thought, pervasive state regulation and the obliteration of traditional morality.

The twentieth-century liberal has come to care less and less about variety, individuality, moral improvement. Whatever remains of nineteenth-century liberalism is rapidly sinking into an uninspired collectivism, which at best could bring to society only a dreary monotony. And I do not think that even this poor best could be realized. Although we might find it possible to extirpate heroism, we could scarcely succeed in extirpating villainy. The liberal imagination has run out; and what is best in our society will have to be saved by the advocates of some older and more stalwart system of thought.

It is not a new political party that I am recommending, or any neat program of positive legislation. The bulk of both our national political parties is conservative, and this is all to the good. One of the principles of conservatism is the protection of private property and honest industry. I hope that we Americans will conserve "free enterprise" and "economic stability." But we will conserve these things only if we set our sights higher and conserve something larger, a society of variety and tradition and veneration. The liberals cannot do that work for us. I do not know whether the conservatives can; but it is time they began to try.

DEMOCRATS ARE SURE IKE WILL RUN AGAIN

Fair-Dealing Columnist DORIS FLEESON:

UNTIL the polls close Nov. 6, 1956, Democratic strategy will be directed toward separating in the public mind President Eisenhower, the popular military leader, from President Eisenhower, the civil and political leader. The former they will let alone. They hope, through remorseless analysis as issues and occasions arise, to show that the limitations of the latter disqualify him for a second term. Their strategy implies that they expect him to run again. Sincere Democrats believe that the President is the major and almost indeed the only political asset of the Republican Party.

They have no illusions about their task. They think Eisenhower has had a very long honeymoon, with his good qualities magnified and advertised, his shortcomings widely excused. Their argument is that the Presidency is not a popularity contest. If it were, they think Eisenhower well might win it no matter what the opposition proved. They insist that the people can and will accept what they call a calm, honest and realistic presentation of the Eisenhower philosophy and character. "And if the people won't," said one veteran politician, "we've already lost in 1956."

DISARMAMENT PRODUCES WAR INSTEAD OF PEACE

X. A. VOIGT, British political analyst and onetime editor, in a letter to the London DAILY TELEGRAPH:

DISARMAMENT and the abolition of atomic weapons can be so popular and plausible a cause that no Government could afford to miss it. Its underlying fallacies may be summarised as follows: Armaments are relative, not absolute. If Powers A and B reduce their armaments by, say, 10 per cent, their relative strengths, other things being equal, would remain the same. There would be no gain in terms of security. No limitation of armaments, whether at existing level or at an agreed lower level, is practicable, because the ratios between the Powers are inconstant. If A and B agree to limit their armaments, the real ratio will be changed if, for example, A invents new weapons or if B concludes an alliance. There is still a lingering belief in total disarmament, as distinct from a reduction of armaments. Total disarmament would exclude the United States from intervention in Europe and Asia. The free countries of the Old World would be overwhelmed by the Sino-Russian millions.

The abolition of atomic and hydrogen bombs might precipitate a third world war and give the Communist Coalition an advantage in manpower which is otherwise largely cancelled, or at least rendered exceedingly doubtful, by their existence. Precedents would seem to show that the reduction of armaments is conducive to war rather than to peace. The only disarmament conference that ever achieved substantial results was the Washington Conference in 1921. The naval armaments of the Powers taking part were limited according to certain ratios and a large area of the Pacific Ocean was "demilitarised." The result was to place China at the mercy of Japan.

It is probable that, except for the temporary limitation of her naval armaments. Japan would have been unable to wage her war of conquest in China during the early thirties and would not have been able to ally herself with Germany. It is even conceivable that China would not have fallen under Communist domination if Britain and the United States had not chosen in Washington to abandon their strategic ascendancy in the Pacific.

FREE PRESS NEEDED FOR SPANISH FREEDOM

Madrid's official Roman Catholic weekly ECCLESIA, the only publication in Spain that escapes government censorship, attacking the new restrictive press law proposed by Franco's Chief Censor GABRIEL ARIAS SALGADO:

PUBLIC opinion is an attribute of every normal society. Its enforcement from above would violate human rights and the dignity of the newspaper man. If it did not exist among the people, its lack would be an even graver defect, as the Pope himself said.

If authentic public opinion must enjoy freedom in order to express itself, the press, which is the medium that reflects it, must share the identical rights. Interpretation and explanation of government activities, imposed or manufactured, through official agencies are not public opinion but fiction. Public opinion serves the common good not only when it approves but also when it criticizes government activities. Those who rule are neither infallible nor without fault. And the same may be said for public opinion.

Free discussion does not undermine authority. It both aids the ruling class when it praises its deeds and prevents injustice and error. Censorship as an exceptional measure is one of the prerogatives of the state, provided it is not arbitrary. But the so-called "directives" by which newspapers are obliged to present as their own the opinions of the ruling class violate the rights of man.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.