Albany, New York (UP) –
Political observers believed today that New York State’s 93 delegates to the Republican National Convention would adopt a resolution next month formally endorsing Governor Thomas E. Dewey for the presidential nomination.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana (UP) –
Governor Sam H. Jones, long a bitter opponent of the New Deal administration, has openly challenged the power of President Roosevelt to refuse to let members of Congress serve in the Armed Forces unless they first resign their posts.
The Governor refused to accept the resignation of Rep. James Domengeaux (D-LA) who had passed his pre-induction physical examination and was scheduled to be sworn into the Army within a few days.
Domengeaux, 37, and single, sent his resignation to the Governor according to Louisiana law, several weeks ago.
Governor Jones wrote the Congressman:
I know of now law of the United States that would bar you as a Congressman from serving in the Army of the United States and at the same time keep you from holding your office to which the people of your district have elected you.
Bridgeport, Connecticut (UP) –
Many a Democrat in Congress “is beginning to view his own bootstraps as a safer device for political levitation than President Roosevelt’s threadbare coattails,” Rep. Clare Luce (R-CT) told the Bridgeport Chamber of Commerce yesterday.
She said that Mr. Roosevelt has lost his vote-pulling appeal, and that in private, Democratic Congressmen and Senators “will tell you so.”
By Bertram Benedict
First of two articles.
With Governor Dewey away out in front for the Republican presidential nomination, and with the campaign likely to revolve around foreign policy, Mr. Dewey’s views on foreign policy in the past become of special interest.
Governor Dewey generally was classed as something of an isolationist prior to Pearl Harbor, but there was certainly nothing isolationist about the views on foreign policy he expressed on Sept. 5, 1943, at the meeting of the Republican Advisory Council on Post-War Policy at Mackinac Island.
On arriving to attend the meeting, he was asked about his views on foreign policy. Mr. Dewey presented reporters with copies of the foreign policy plank in the platform on which he was elected Governor of New York in 1942. Mr. Dewey was understood to have written much of that platform himself. It said:
The United States must be prepared to undertaker new obligations and responsibilities in the community of nations. We must cooperate with other nations to promote the wider international exchange of goods and services, to broaden access to raw materials, to achieve monetary and economic stability and thus discourage the growth of rampant nationalism and its spawn: economic and military aggression. As a further safeguard, we must join with other nations to secure the peace of the world, by force if necessary, against any future outbreak of international gangsterism.
De facto alliance cited*
On being interrogated Mr. Dewey then came out foe a foreign policy pretty much like that advocated in Walter Lippman’s U.S. Foreign Policy: Shield of the Republic, which had been published less than three months previously, Mr. Dewey said:
We have had a de facto military alliance with Great Britain practically ever since the War of 1812. In the two principal cases since, when war was made on Britain, we went to her defense… (That the United States and Great Britain will continue that alliance, and on a more formal basis, after this war) I should think very likely, and it would be in our interest… It would be hoped that in the working out of the peace Russia and China might be included (in that alliance).
However, prior to Pearl Harbor, Mr. Dewey seemed to wax isolationist or anti-isolationist according to circumstances.
In announcing, in December 1939, his candidacy for the 1940 Republican presidential nomination, he listed his principal advisers. At the top of the list was John Foster Dulles, who is understood now to be Mr. Dewey’s chief adviser on foreign affairs and who is even being mentioned as Secretary of State if Mr. Dewey should become President.
The statement explained that Mr. Dulles had been secretary of The Hague Peace Conference of 1907, had been attached to the American Peace Mission in Paris in 1918-19, had been a member of the Reparations Commission of the Supreme Economic Council.
Dulles’ opinion quoted
The Dewey statemen then went on to relate, obviously with approbation, that on Oct. 28, 1939, Mr. Dulles had said that he favored “some dilution or leveling off of the sovereignty principle as it prevails in the world today,” and that an orderly transition could be effected only under the leadership of the United States.
All this certainly did not sound isolationist. But in his 1940 campaign in the preferential primary of Wisconsin, heart of isolationist territory, Mr. Dewey uttered what sounded like an isolationist credo. He declared on March 30, after charging that the Roosevelt administration had turned to European affairs only because it had made a failure of domestic problems, that the United States should:
…keep its hands wholly out of the European war and out of any negotiations that may take place between the warring nations, now or at any other time… We must elect a Republican administration which will… keep completely out of the affairs of Europe.
Völkischer Beobachter (April 13, 1944)
v. mck. Lissabon, 12. April –
Nur alle vier Jahre, so meinte einmal der sarkastische irische Dichter Bernard Shaw, erfahren die Amerikaner bruchstückweise die Wahrheiten ihrer Politik, dann nämlich, wenn der Wahlkampf zum Waschen aller schmutzigen Wäsche verlockt, und wenn Münder sich auftun, die ansonsten mit Dollarnoten zugestopft sind. Amerika wählt in diesem Jahre, und bezeichnenderweise werden augenblicklich die amerikanischen Politiker von Anwandlungen des Mutes zur Wahrheit heimgesucht, sogar die Schaumschläger vom Schlage Wendell Willkies. Er hat sich kürzlich in Milwaukee während einer Wahlversammlung hingestellt und hat erklärt, Amerika habe sowohl innen- als auch außenpolitisch völlig den Faden verloren, es sei ganz einfach im internationalen Schlamm ertrunken.
Liest man die vielen Kritiken, die augenblicklich in der US-Presse zum Thema Außenpolitik geschrieben werden, verfolgt man die sichtliche Aufregung im State Department, die soeben in der kläglichen Rede Hulls deutlichen Ausdruck fand, und bringt man diese Erscheinungen in Zusammenhang mit dem Sturm der öffentlichen Meinung gegen den bisher beschrittenen außenpolitischen Weg der USA, so kann man nicht umhin, in diesem Falle Mister Willkie teilweise recht zu geben. Von einem Faden, einer Linie, einer Richtung, einer Konzeption, einem konstruktiven Plan der amerikanischen Außenpolitik kann überhaupt nicht die Rede sein, es sei denn, man entschlösse sich dazu, die systematisierte Anarchie als einziges Leitmotiv der US-Diplomatie anzusprechen – so widerspruchsvoll, irrig, dreist und dumm sind die Gedanken, die jenseits des Atlantiks zur Außenpolitik vorgebracht werden.
Würde man Roosevelt persönlich nach dem Faden seiner Außenpolitik befragen, so würde er ebenso heuchelnd wie undiplomatisch antworten: „Die vier Freiheiten der Atlantik-Charta.“ Er würde es tun, obwohl die Welt weiß, daß er diese Prinzipien immer dann verleugnet, wenn sie praktisch zur Anwendung kommen sollen, daß er sie nur dann im Munde führt, wenn er sich von ihnen eine agitatorische Wirkung verspricht. Der offizielle außenpolitische Faden ist nur zum Spinnen, aber nicht zum Wirken da.
Was bestimmt nun wirklich die amerikanische Außenpolitik? „In Washington spricht man heute mehr von den vier Elementen Gold, Öl, Luft und Wasser als von den vier Freiheiten der Atlantik-Charta,“ berichtet der Londoner Daily Express und gibt damit sehr deutlich zu verstehen, daß die idealen Prinzipien nur vorgeschoben wurden, um in ihrem Schatten realen Objekten nachzustreben. Entwickelt die amerikanische Außenpolitik jenseits der Diskrepanz zwischen ihren angeblichen und ihren tatsächlichen Zielen wenigstens bei der Verwirklichung der letzteren Systematik, Aufbau, Zielsetzung?
Auch diese Frage verneinen die ernsthaften außenpolitischen Beobachter Amerikas. Der mächtige,Life-Verleger, Henry Luce, hat treffend dazu erklärt, das State Department stelle „wahre Rekorde an Zweideutigkeit, Unbeständigkeit und Farblosigkeit“ auf. Es sei immer unsicher und richtungslos, mehr opportunistisch als politisch. Und gerade diese unverständliche außenpolitische Haltung der USA stelle die Kriegsursache dar, weil die amerikanische Diplomatie durch sie allgemeine Unsicherheit in die Welt hineingetragen habe. Luce sagte dies vor einem Jahre, als Sumner Welles noch im State Department saß und Stettinius noch keinen außenpolitischen Einfluß besaß. Inzwischen ging Hull nach Moskau und Roosevelt nach Teheran und man schwur, nunmehr einen außenpolitischen Faden gefunden zu haben. Doch mitnichten. Jetzt gerade, nachdem die politische Maschinerie von Moskau und Teheran in allen Probefällen ihre Arbeitsunfähigkeit bewiesen hat und in der ureigensten Domäne der US-Macht, in Südamerika, sich Erschütterungen vollziehen, die den einzigen, halbwegs durchkonstruierten Teil der US-Außenpolitik, den Panamerikanismus, zu vernichten drohen, begreifen immer mehr Amerikaner, daß ihr Land außenpolitisch kurslos herumschwimmt und fragen sich nach den Gründen.
„Warum haben wir keine fundierte und klare Außenpolitik? Etwa nur, weil das Übersetzungsverhältnis zwischen der politischen Wirklichkeit der Welt und den Prinzipien der Atlantik-Charta nicht herzustellen ist, oder weil bürokratischer Legalismus, verstaubter Konservatismus und opportunistischer Zynismus im State Department vorherrschen?“ forschte kürzlich die New York Herald Tribune und blieb bei der mit der Frage selbst gegebenen halben Antwort, denn die ganze kann Amerika nicht geben, ohne den eigenen Mythos zu verleugnen und den Traum vom „amerikanischen Jahrhundert“ endgültig zu torpedieren. Amerika kann bisher aus vielen Gründen keine echte, konstruktive Außenpolitik entwickeln.
Zunächst sind es geographische Gründe: Der amerikanische Westen ist pazifisch, der amerikanische Osten atlantisch orientiert, die Kernstaaten der USA denken dagegen völlig egozentrisch und daher weltpolitisch beziehungslos und isolationistisch. Hinzu kommt als weiteres politisches Spaltungsmoment der verfassungsmäßig verankerte Föderalismus, die vielen Bundesstaaten, in welchen sich je nach Lage eine bestimmte Auffassung der Außenpolitik entwickelt, und weiter die Tatsache, daß es keine amerikanische Nation gibt, sondern nur eine Ansammlung von vielen Millionen Einwanderern aus aller Welt. An einem Beispiel sei dies gezeigt: In den Zeitungen des Staates Kalifornien steht die Berichterstattung über den pazifischen Kriegsschauplatz im Vordergrund. Die Leitartikel befassen sich fast ausschließlich nur mit dem politischen Kampf um jenes Meer, weil die Menschen dort nicht an den Händeln in Europa interessiert sind wie anderseits die Bewohner des Staates Neuyork, in deren Blättern selbstverständlich die pazifischen Ereignisse an zweiter Stelle rangieren. Die Variation dieser allgemein gültigen Feststellung ergibt sich dann, wenn im, Chinesenviertel von Neuyork asiatische Probleme besprochen werden und im Polenviertel von San Franzisko der angelsächsische Verrat an Polen diskutiert wird.
Unter solchen Umständen kann sich natürlich nicht eine nationale Außenpolitik mit festumrissenen Zielen herauskristallisieren, zumal der parasitäre Vorstoß des amerikanischen Kapitalismus – die Anleihepolitik der jüdischen Großbanken, die Festsetzungsbestrebungen der Öl- und Luftfahrtkonzerne oder der Marktraub des amerikanischen Außenhandels – überall in der Welt „Interessenzonen“ schafft, deren ständige Kontrolle jede echte Diplomatie, jede aufbauende Konzeption unmöglich macht. Empfängt Mister Hull um 11 Uhr einen der Bankiers, welche Finnlands Zelluloseindustrie finanziert haben, und läßt sich Von ihm größere Zurückhaltung in der Sowjetpolitik anraten, da erscheint schon um 12 Uhr irgendeiner der Hintermänner der Pacht- und Leihgeschäfte und verlangt hundertprozentige Unterstützung der Sowjets und die Erfüllung aller ihrer Wünsche. Spricht der US-Außenminister mit den Vertretern des Clipper-Imperialismus oder mit den Sachwaltern von US-Kapitalinteressen in Südamerika, wird er auf geradezu fanatisch antienglische Gedankengänge stoßen, während Morgan, Lehmann und die anderen UNRRA- und Bankjuden, deren Interessen mit den englischen verflochten sind, umgekehrter Ansicht sein werden. Diejenigen, die mit dem chinesischen Bankier Soong Tschungking-China finanziell aufbliesen, werden glühende Anhänger der Verschiebung des amerikanischen außenpolitischen Schwergewichts nach dem Pazifik, die Geschäftemacher von Algier aber, die seit Monaten von den de Gaulles, Girauds und Badoglios irgendwelche „Nachkriegskonzessionen“ einhandeln und im Übrigen mit Rußland-geschäften „in der Dekade des sowjetischen Aufbaues“ spekulieren, gehören selbstverständlich zu den fanatischen Anhängern des „Europe first.“
Diese auseinanderstrebenden Meinungen beeinflussen alle die amerikanische Außenpolitik. Ihr bleibt darum nichts anderes übrig, als ganz allgemein überall der politischen Anarchie Vorschub zu leisten, um ebenso allgemein dem amerikanischen Wirtschaftsimperialismus das Weltfeld aufzubereiten. Dabei wirkt sie aber in erster Linie als Wegbereiterin des Bolschewismus. Aus der Ufer- und Hemmungslosigkeit ihres Strebens wächst aber nichts Reifes. „Die amerikanische Außenpolitik flattert wie eine zerfetzte Zielscheibe des kritischen Spottes im Winde der Ereignisse hin und her,“ sagt die Neuyorker Intellektuellen-Zeitschrift Nation. Sie hat also nicht, wie Willkie meint, den Faden verloren, sondern hat einen solchen nie besessen, weil sie ihn nicht besitzen kann.
Wir brauchen bei dieser Betrachtung nicht einmal Roosevelts verhängnisvollen persönlichen Einfluß auf die amerikanische Außenpolitik genauer zu untersuchen, weil wir wissen, daß sie stets im Höchstfälle nur eine Serie von Improvisationen des gerade im Amt befindlichen Präsidenten gewesen ist. Daß allerdings der gegenwärtige Lenker des amerikanischen Staates dem Kriege nachlief und das von Hause aus außenpolitisch konzeptionslose Amerika in einen Kampf trieb, beidem nur neue Gedanken und aufbauende Auffassungen entscheiden werden, ist, jenseits der Ursachen beurteilt, die schlimmste Hypothek, die auf der amerikanischen Außenpolitik lastet. Und nicht nur auf ihr, sondern auf Amerikas Leben überhaupt.
Sumner Welles, einst einer der entscheidenden Männer der US-Außenpolitik, die noch heute in mancher Beziehung den Stempel seines Wirkens trägt, bringt augenblicklich den Mut auf, sie ebenso sachlich wie hemmungslos zu kritisieren und sich nachträglich ein politisches Armutszeugnis auszustellen. In seinem letzten Aufsatz zu diesem Thema erklärt er, die ganze interalliierte Zusammenarbeit stünde nur auf dem Papier, in der Praxis dominiere aber die Sowjetunion vollständig innerhalb der Koalition, weil sie ihre Politik „mit Blut“ schreibe. Dies ist in amerikanischem Munde ein besonders interessantes Argument, das wiederum die Außenpolitik Roosevelts in richtiger Beleuchtung zeigt und außerdem ihre Ohnmacht erklärt. Kingsbury-Smith, der Leibjournalist Cordell Hulls, interpretiert die amerikanische Außenpolitik als ein „System von Nützlichkeitserwägungen.“ Ihr Sinn sei, „unter möglichst geringen Kosten an amerikanischen Leben den Krieg zu gewinnen.“ Sumner Welles führt gerade auf diese Blutsparsamkeit die Hörigkeit der US-Diplomatie gegenüber der unter Opferung von Hekatomben ihrer Menschen stur auf das gesteckte Ziel marschierenden Sowjetunion zurück. Und er bestätigt damit die auch außenpolitisch gültige uralte Regel, wonach ohne Einsatz des Lebens das Leben nicht gewonnen werden kann.
Je deutlicher die hoffnungslose Verfahrenheit der amerikanischen Außenpolitik wird, umso klarer tritt die Zielsetzung des Bolschewismus in Erscheinung, mit ihr aber zugleich die Sinngebung der geistigen und politischen Abwehr derjenigen Völker, die der zum außenpolitischen Leitmotiv der Alliierten erhobenen Anarchie die neue Ordnung entgegenzuhalten haben.
The Pittsburgh Press (April 13, 1944)
By Florence Fisher Parry
The reaction of our Pittsburgh Progressive Republicans to the withdrawal of Wendell Willkie from the presidential race has been interesting and depressing.
“Sinister politics,” they say. “The Republican Party has cooked its goose.” Some even vow that they won’t go to the polls in November.
“We deserve defeat,” others say darkly. Still others come out with the old chestnut that they’d vote for anyone if it meant the defeat of the party now in power.
All in all, the reaction is unhealthy and shows a definite distrust of our political leaders in both parties. One man put it this way:
Politics is, and always has been, a dirty business, a glorified racket, an open exploitation of the buyable man. It’s a game that can’t be played clean. If you’re clean, you lose. And besides, you just clog the machinery of the party that is out to elect you. If people knew how great a part politics, pure party politics, is playing in this war, we’d have an internal revolution. For whether it’s the backslapping local candidate touring his county to get constituents or whether it’s the statesman in high places, it’s a duty, calculating compromise. It’s a shell game. It’s rotten.
Now you and I know many men and women, too, in politics. They’ve been elected to high places and discharge their duties honorably and well. But who is to deny that in order to be elected they have all had to knuckle down to the game, learn its ropes, play them or let their henchmen play them.
Politics! Politics! Say the word, and even as you utter it, it has a sinister sound. It is synonymous with dark and dirty ways. It is a word that invites no trust whatever. It functions everywhere.
They can be found
Yet here and there we come upon honest, selfless, crystal-hearted men and women who set out to be public servants in the most exalted sense, who enter politics in an almost fanatical belief that by their entry into this dirty field they can contribute something that will help to clean it up. They seek office, not for what it can do for themselves, but for what it can do for others. They ask no recompense, no reward, no recognition even for their services. Field worker or candidate, it is one to them. They want only to help keep politics clean.
Why can we not see it, then, that it is among these few and precious citizens that we draw at least our delegates when great issues and great choices are before the country?
We are facing now a great Republican convention. We are choosing our delegates. In their hands will rest the selection of a candidate for the President of the United States. We will have to rely upon their own personal integrity and judgment.
Let us choose them carefully. Let us be sure they are unbuyable men. We have such men. I have in mind one now. An honest man. A selfless citizen. Ralph E. Flinn. A man without an ax to grind, who asks, and will accept, no personal reward for serving his country’s interests.
And there are many such – men who somehow remain untarnished and uncorrupted. Good men. Clean men. I was about to say, innocent men, and would, except that the word is loosely used. And it seems to me that in these times it is well to look for virtue rather than virtuosity in those whom we would choose to represent us.
Slickness, sleight of hand and cynicism in our representatives have been our undoing and have brought our country to its present plight. We have placed too much value upon smartness and sophistication and far too little upon simplicity and homely virtues.
Born at wrong time
I fear that had Abraham Lincoln been born in this present instead of his own generation, he would have been overlooked. We would have mistrusted his simplicity.
And by the same token, it may be that had this faulty but genuine Wendell Willkie been born a little earlier in our history, he would not have been wasted.
Yes, it is true. Some are born great; some achieve greatness and some miss it by the hair’s breadth of a generation or two in timing.
We will not be saved by subtlety or sagacity or shrewdness. We will not be saved by sophistication or cynicism. Outsmarting is not enough. Caution and compromise are not enough. Strategy and statesmanship are not enough.
The emphasis has been away from goodness and has been placed on political finesse instead. The accent is on tact instead of truth.
What we need now is A GOOD MAN; and when I say good, I mean just plain “good;” a man of virtue, a rock of granite upon which the waves could beat with savagery or seduction yet would remain the same strong breakwater against the tides of human greed.
Strength is shown among rank-and-file
By Thomas L. Stokes, Scripps-Howard staff writer
Washington –
Outstanding in the Nebraska presidential primary was the “write-in” for Governor Thomas E. Dewey of New York, another contribution to the “Draft Dewey” movement which began to pick up real momentum with his Wisconsin victory a week ago over Wendell Willkie.
Governor Dewey was not entered in the Nebraska primary, nor has he even announced he is a candidate for the nomination. Despite that, nearly half as many voters voluntarily wrote in his name as voted for LtCdr. Harold E. Stassen, who was regularly entered and for whom an active campaign was conducted.
This spontaneous outburst of Dewey sentiment among rank-and-file voters in Nebraska, which swept up literally overnight, suggests that the “write-in” technique may develop as a unique adjunct in other primaries.
Willkie poor third
Mr. Willkie’s name was still on the ballot, but he trailed a poor third.
Stassen managers were encouraged, however, by his popular vote, topping the field, and by the fact that six delegates were apparently elected on the “Stassen” slate, which agreed in advance to support at the Chicago convention the winner of the preferential primary.
Five other delegates seemingly were elected on the “Griswold” slate, entered on behalf of Governor Dwight Griswold, presumably to support the Governor. The latter refused, however, to be a “favorite son” candidate.
Four other delegates apparently elected were unpledged and, since the preferential primary is not binding, Cdr. Stassen’s victory was not conclusive, although the public opinion represented must be considered. Returns from 1,632 of Nebraska’s 2,031 precincts gave:
| Stassen | 47,677 |
| Dewey | 21,288 |
| Willkie | 8,160 |
Governor Griswold, who was overwhelmingly renominated for a third term, undoubtedly will have much influence with the delegation. Either Governor Dewey or Mr. Willkie was acceptable to him and now, with the withdrawal of Mr. Willkie, he can be counted in the Dewey camp. He is regarded as an aspirant for the vice-presidential nomination and has kept himself in a bargaining position.
Governor Dewey has strong organization support in Nebraska, the writer learned on a recent visit there, and the “write-in” vote indicated strong rank-and-file sentiment.
MacArthur backing
Interesting in the Illinois primary was the large popular vote rolled up by Gen. Douglas MacArthur in a field in which no other recognized presidential candidate was entered. This, coming on top of the general’s popular vote in Wisconsin last week, will be capitalized in the MacArthur campaign. Thus far the general has attracted no support from practical politicians of standing except Senator Vandenberg. The politicians are fighting shy of the general.
Returns from 8,221 of Illinois’ 8,728 precincts gave Gen. MacArthur 501,481 votes, as compared to 977,225 polled by Governor Dewey in 1940 when his name was unopposed in the presidential preferential primary. Gen. MacArthur’s only opposition was from Riley Bender, a former pugilist and political newcomer who campaigned with the slogan “Go on a bender with Bender,” without significant results.
Both the Nebraska and Illinois primaries indicated lassitude among the voters, in Nebraska, the turnout was the smallest in 30 years and in Illinois the smallest in more than 20 years.
Seattle, Washington (UP) –
Governor John W. Bricker told 4,000 persons at a Republican rally last night that he was confident of a GOP victory in November, which he called the party’s “last chance” to retrieve freedom and preserve “two-party government in America.”
He said:
We have two great obstacles in the way of victory – the vast propaganda bureau in Washington and the tremendous federal payroll. We will have to spot the Democrats the votes of three and a half million government jobholders, plus the votes they can influence, plus the Solid South, but still, I am confident because of the strength of a revitalized Republican Party.
Washington (UP) –
Gen. Douglas MacArthur has written Rep. A. L. Miller (R-NE) that the United States “must not inadvertently slip into the same condition internally as the one which we fight externally,” it was revealed today.
Gen. MacArthur voiced the warning in a letter to Mr. Miller which was made public by the legislator. In it, the Southwest Pacific Allied commander also declared:
Like Abraham Lincoln, I am a firm believer in the people and if given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring before them the real facts.
Gen. MacArthur did not elaborate in his letter – dated Feb. 11 – on what he meant by the condition “which we fight externally.” Presumably, however, it referred to military rule and dictatorship in Axis countries.
In another letter, Gen. MacArthur referred to the “sinister drama of our present chaos and confusion.” He also agreed with the “complete wisdom and statesmanship” of comments by Mr. Miller – comments which included an assertion that:
There is a tremendous groundswell in this country against the New Deal… They have crucified themselves on the cross of too many unnecessary rules and regulations.
Speaks of a draft
The exchange of correspondence with Mr. Miller began when the Nebraskan, in a letter dated Sept. 18, told Gen. MacArthur he “should not be a candidate for President but should permit the people to draft you.” Gen. Miller expressed the opinion that “you will carry every state in the Union and this includes the Solid South.”
He also told Gen. MacArthur that if he was a presential candidate, President Roosevelt “will probably not even a candidate” because the New Deal, including Mr. Roosevelt, is “scared to death” of the MacArthur-for-President movement.
A sobering thought
In another letter to Gen. MacArthur dated Jan. 27, Mr. Miller said that he felt Gen. MacArthur’s response to his first letter indicated the general was “interested in some of the political, economic and domestic developments in this country.”
Mr. Miller said he had traveled during the Christmas holidays through Texas, California and Nebraska, and declared he had found “a mass movement by the citizens who are displaced with the many domestic mistakes now being made by the administration.”
Gen. MacArthur’s Feb. 11 reply said Mr. Miller’s second description of internal affairs was a “sobering one” and added that:
We must not inadvertently slip into the same condition internally as the one we fight externally.
Columbia, South Carolina (UP) –
Governor Olin D. Johnston today called a special session of the South Carolina Legislature to amend primary laws so that the Democratic Party in the state can maintain white supremacy.
Governor Johnston said the General Assembly would be asked to repeal present laws pertaining to state primaries in an effort to circumvent the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that Negroes can vote in state primaries.
The Governor said he firmly believed “in the ability of our people to keep our white Democratic primaries pure.”
Washington (UP) –
Information to facilitate voting in 11 state primaries during June and the first half of July by Army personnel has been made available at all military installations, the War Department announced today.
Primaries will be held during this period in Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Washington.
Ten states will make available state absentee ballots covering federal, state and local offices.
By Bertram Benedict
Second of two articles.
Thomas E. Dewey as President might find the Soviet Union coy about cooperating with him, because of a speech Mr. Dewey made in New York City on Jan. 20, 1940.
He said the Roosevelt foreign policy was largely acceptable because “broadly” it had followed the Republican foreign policy as carried out by Secretaries of State Hughes, Kellogg, and Stimson. But there had been one “most unfortunate departure.”
This was the diplomatic recognition of Soviet Russia, where “a godless government had raised up to a state creed the sterile doctrine of atheism.” The Communist government had seized and maintained power by murder and assassination. He said:
It is a perversion of government, abhorrent to the conscience of mankind.
The Roosevelt administration, in recognizing the Soviet government in 1933, had been “gullible.” We needed no partnership with Russia, no more “fuzzy-minded departures” from the established course of our foreign policy.
For revised Lend-Lease bill
This Dewey pronouncement for an isolationist policy vis-à-vis the Soviet Union seemed to be paralleled by Mr. Dewey’s original attitude on Lend-Lease aid to Britain.
After the administration bill to that end had been introduced in Congress, Mr. Dewey told reporters in Philadelphia, on Jan. 15, 1941, that it would “bring an end to free government in the United States and abolish Congress, for all practical purposes.”
But Mr. Dewey changed his mind fast. On the following Feb. 12, in a speech in Washington, he followed the example of Wendell L. Willkie in supporting Lend-Lease, and offered what sounded like a collaborationist credo:
I believe our party stands for all-out aid to the heroic people of Great Britain, because we believe with all our hearts and all our souls in rendering all possible aid to free men resisting tyrants who would enslave them.
Mr. Dewey explained that the original Lend-Lease bill had been unwise, but that the measure had been made less objectionable. It was true that in passing the Lend-Lease bill on Feb. 6 the House had added certain amendments which tightened Congressional supervision over Lend-Lease operations. The Republican representatives had voted more than 5–1 against the bill even as amended, so in supporting it, Mr. Dewey was opposing them.
Cooperation sentiment grows
As the months rolled on, Mr. Dewey progressed farther and farther from the keep-away-from-Europe philosophy he had expounded in his primary campaign in Wisconsin during March 1940.
In May 1942, he called for cooperation by the United States in post-war planning, and remarked that we could not hide behind the boundaries of geography. In the same month, he asked for the rejection of Rep. Hamilton Fish, outstanding isolationist, in the Republican primaries in New York.
In June 20, 1943, at Columbus, Ohio, he said the Republican Party must take responsibility for a post-war program of international cooperation. He endorsed the anti-isolationist resolution of the Republican National Committee at Chicago in April 1943, the resolutions of the Mackinac Conference of Republicans on post-war policy in the following September, and the Fulbright Resolution passed by the House in the same month.
Mr. Dewey’s most recent statement on foreign policy was ion Tuesday of last week. He said the United States must work with the British to keep the doors of Palestine opened permanently to Jewish immigration. He denounced by name Gerald L. K. Smith as a would-be “polluter of the stream of American life.” And he called for “a system of international cooperation.”
Two million ‘needed to assure election’
By Fred W. Perkins, Pittsburgh Press staff writer
Washington –
The most definite statement so far of the CIO’s main political aim in this year’s election is presented in the current publication of the United Automobile Workers, whose president, R. J. Thomas, is a member of the CIO Political Action Committee.
This main aim is to assure reelection of President Roosevelt, or the triumph of another “progressive Democrat.” This hardly will be a surprise to politicians, but the fact has never been officially stated up to now.
The “secret” comes out in an explanation of why “CIO Political Action Committees must round up a minimum of two to three million votes to assure a close but certain margin of victory.”
Cites 1940 vote
This is why, according to the UAW analysis:
The President had 27 million votes in 1940 as against about 23 million for Willkie. Roughly seven million men in the Armed Forces might vote for the President or a progressive Democrat, according to Gallup Poll estimates. The deduction of the soldier vote would have the following effect: Democratic 20 million as against Republican 20 million.
If only a few workers who have moved to new communities and states for war jobs vote, the Democratic vote would be further reduced. The vote totals might then be Democratic 18 million as against Republican 19½ million. That’s why an additional two to three million new votes must be found to guarantee election of a progressive candidate.
Unless the CIO Political Action Committees can scare up this many additional votes, the prospects for a Democratic victory are not bright.
Soldier vote bill criticized
The union’s figures are based on its contention that “at this point, Congress has virtually disfranchised the soldier and sailor.” That is disputed by advocates of the soldier vote bill which Congress enacted, with the President withholding his signature.
The big auto workers’ union, said to be the largest in the world, urges its members to continue efforts to assure voting in the armed services, and also to:
Get workers who have moved to new cities to register and vote. There are from five to 10 million votes involved here.
Induce people who never voted before to register and vote. In 1940, from 10 to 20 million eligible voters stayed away from the polls.
Farm bloc rapped
A reason for the importance of the armed service vote, according to the UAW paper, is that:
Thanks to the lobbying effect of the misnamed farm bloc, a large percentage of draftees are from the metropolitan centers. Far more enlisted men come from the cities than from the rural areas, and cities are normally more Democratic than the rural areas.
The CIO Political Action Committee has been under attack from two Democratic Congressmen, both of whom are described by the CIO unionists as Southern “poll taxers.” Rep. Martin Dies (D-TX), in a report of his investigating committee, criticized the CIO Committee as being subject to Communistic influence.
Wants inquiry reopened
Rep. Howard W. Smith (D-VA) has a request pending before Attorney General Biddle for a reopening of an inquiry into his charge that the CIO Committee has violated the War Labor Disputes Act prohibition of union financial contributions in connection with national elections.
Rep. Smith today said that he had turned over to Attorney General Biddle files which he contends warrant a grand jury investigation.
Biddle criticized
Mr. Biddle informed Mr. Smith last week that the investigation of the committee which Mr. Smith had requested had shown no violation of the section of the Smith-Connally anti-strike law which prohibits political contributions by labor organizations.
Mr. Smith criticized Mr. Biddle’s failure to send an investigator to his office to examine “evidence” which he had on file.
Senator Guy M. Gillette (D-IA), declaring that the Hatch Act limiting campaign expenditures had “a hole in it big enough to drive a team of horses through,” asked for immediate hearings on his bill limiting personal contributions to $10,000 a year.
Door left wide open
He said the present $5,000-a-year limit on contributions to national committees left the door wide open to individual donations to state and county organizations.
Another provision of the Hatch Act, limiting total presidential campaign expenditures to $3 million for each party, Senator Gillette found “wholly ineffective.”
Senator Gillette said he heard that legislation to “patch the holes” in the Hatch Act would drive political contributions under cover, adding:
If we don’t pass something this presidential year, the Hatch Act regarding political contributions will be a dead letter.
The Pittsburgh Press (April 14, 1944)
Observers believe he’s ‘available’
By Thomas L. Stokes, Scripps-Howard staff writer
Washington –
Gen. Douglas MacArthur has been put in a position where he might properly be expected to explain – to the people, and perhaps to the administration – exactly where he stands in the developing political campaign, whether he is a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination.
For, whether he intended it or not, he has been projected directly into political controversy by his correspondence with Rep. A. L. Miller (R-NE), which the Congressman made public.
Makes self available?
Although there have been intimations that the general was a receptive candidate for the nomination, this was the first message from him to come to light bearing upon politics and political issues in the United States.
His two letters:
Left the definite impression that he was making himself available for a possible convention draft, by his failure to disavow the suggestion by Mr. Miller in a letter which went into details as to how the general should conduct himself and what he should say if drafted by the convention.
Stamped him as a critic of the Roosevelt administration by his comments on the Congressman’s vitriolic attack upon the New Deal.
In reference to Mr. Millet’s suggestion that he become a candidate and the Congressman’s prediction that he would sweep the country, the general replied, “I do not anticipate in any way your flattering prediction, but I do unreservedly agree with the complete wisdom and statesmanship of your comments.” He did not thrust the offer aside.
Surprises Washington
The whole tone of his letters was patently political.
The revelation of the letters, which Mr. Miller said he released on his own responsibility, was a surprise here because the general hitherto has kept discreetly quiet about the talk of him as a candidate.
His friends have insisted that he did not want to become involved in political controversy in any way, that he would remain in his military role and remain silent, though they have not diminished on this account their campaign to draft him.
The Congressman timed release of the letters – the first of which was written Oct. 2 last year; the second, Feb. 11 – to follow the popular vote rolled up for the general in the Wisconsin and Illinois primaries, which, it is obvious, will be exploited in the campaign.
Ran behind Dewey
The general ran behind New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey in the delegate vote in Wisconsin, where he won three delegates, and his popular vote in Illinois was about half that rolled up by Governor Dewey in the 1940 Illinois preferential primary.
Mr. Miller scoffed at reports that the general might be brought him for “consultation.”
He said:
President Roosevelt and his palace guard are scared to death of the general right at this time. A lot of lesser lights have been brought home for consultation but not MacArthur. They want to keep him as far away from the voters as possible.
MacArthur is the idol of the country. The palace guard has another idol.
Mr. Miller said he had met Gen. MacArthur in this country and in Europe on two occasions but that they were not intimate friends.
He said:
I’m for him because I believe a military man of his stature in the White House would shorten the war – and that’s what we all want.
Organization Republican leaders, for the most part, have been hopping on the Dewey bandwagon.
Vandenberg silent
Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg (R-MI) is the only prominent Republican identified with the MacArthur movement. The Senator was apparently displeased with publication of the letters. He declined comment. Asked if he had received any letters, he retorted: “Ha! Ha! Good afternoon!”
The general has been a political enigma. He has refused to make public statements removing himself from the race when offered the opportunity by visiting interviewers, and left them with the impression the bee was buzzing around him.
Some of his friends have insisted that he didn’t want to make any statement because he didn’t want to give the slightest recognition to politics. Others have the impression he would accept a convention draft.
Maybe he will clear it all up now.
Washington (UP) –
The texts of Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s letters to Rep. A. L. Miller (R-NE) follow:
Dear Congressman Miller:
I thank you so sincerely for your fine letter of September 18 with its cordial expressions of real friendship. I do not anticipate in any way your flattering predictions but I do unreservedly agree with the complete wisdom and statesmanship of your comments.
I knew your state well in the days of used-to-be. I have enjoyed many a delightful hunting excursion there and shall always remember with so much gratefulness the wholehearted hospitality and warm comradeship extended to me on such occasions. Those days seem singularly carefree and happy compared to the sinister drama of our present chaos and confusion.
Most cordially,
DOUGLAS MacARTHUR
Dear Congressman Miller:
I appreciate very much your scholarly letter of January 27. Your description of conditions in the United States is a sobering one indeed and is calculated to arouse the thoughtful consideration of every true patriot. We must not inadvertently slip into the same condition internally as the one which we dight externally. Like Abraham Lincoln I am a firm believer in the people and if given the truth they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring before them the real facts.
Out here we are doing what we can with what we have, I will be glad, however, when more substantial forces are placed at my disposition.
With cordial regard and best wishes,
DOUGLAS MacARTHUR
Portland, Oregon (UP) –
Ohio Governor John W. Bricker, bringing to a climax the Oregon phase of his campaign for the Republican nomination for the Presidency, last night blasted any eastern hopes for conversion to peacetime industry once Germany is beaten while the West would shoulder the war against Japan.
He said at a dinner rally here:
It has been suggested that as soon as the Germans are beaten, the East Coast can convert its war plants to the production of peacetime goods, leaving the West Coast to finish off the Japs.
I say that is dangerous and wishful thinking which will prolong the Japanese war. The defeat is the Japs is not the sole responsibility of any one geographic section of the country. It is the responsibility of 130 million Americans.
And we ought to have the full support of our Allies as well.
Boston, Massachusetts (UP) –
Former Massachusetts Governor Joseph B. Ely, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, charged last night that mistakes of the “Communist-CIO-New Deal combination” have prolonged the war and cost the lives of American soldiers.
Mr. Ely told a Jeffersonian Democrats’ meeting:
The morale of the German people is sustained by the faults and inadequacies of the Roosevelt administration which will be the cause of sacrificing our sons, brothers, husbands and sweethearts.
Urging defeat of a fourth term, Mr. Ely asked:
Who are the fourth-term proponents? There is Earl Browder, the Communist; Sidney Hillman, the CIO revolutionary, and David Niles and John McCormack of the palace guard. What a strange conglomeration of bedfellows are lying down to sleep in the bed of Thomas Jefferson.
Mr. Ely will head an anti-Roosevelt slate on the April 25 Massachusetts presidential primaries.
Gen. MacArthur is the victim of careless letter-writing and of a friend who made public two of the general’s answers to fan mail. That seems to be the net of the incident caused by Rep. A. L. Miller’s publication of his correspondence with the general last fall and two months ago.
Why the freshman Nebraska Congressman, a leader in the Draft-MacArthur-for-President movement, should thus embarrass the general is not clear.
Since the general did not publicly request withdrawal of his name from primaries in which he was entered without authorization, he is in the position of an inactive though receptive candidate. But he has not publicly admitted that much, as has LtCdr. Harold E. Stassen.
Presumably the general’s unwillingness to fight for the nomination, or to participate in public debate, results from his feeling that a man cannot conduct a military campaign and a personal political campaign at the same time. Certainly Gen. MacArthur’s friends and backers – of all people – should respect this.
The private MacArthur statements in the letters are of three kinds:
First, in his October reply to Mr. Miller’s September statement that he could get the presidential nomination and carry every state, the general said: “I do not anticipate in any way your flattering predictions.”
Second, in the same letter, the general told Mr. Miller, “I do unreservedly agree with the complete wisdom and statesmanship of your comments.” This was an apparent reference to Mr. Miller’s assertion that “unless this New Deal can be stopped this time, our American way of life is forever doomed.”
When Mr. Miller in January deplored “this monarchy which is being established in America.” Gen. MacArthur replied to his “scholarly letter” that “we must not inadvertently slip into the same condition internally as the one which we fight externally.”
This, of course, was an extreme partisan implication, as unworthy of the general as Vice President Wallace’s loose “Fascist” name-calling is unworthy of him.
Third, when Mr. Miller criticized the allocation of war supplies to the Pacific, the general replied: “Out here we are doing what we can with what we have. I will be glad, however, when more substantial forces are placed at my disposal.” Like all commanders, Gen. MacArthur naturally would like stronger forces. But that is a decision for the General Staff to make in line with global strategy, not a subject for a subordinate commander to discuss with a civilian.
It is regrettable that Gen. MacArthur wrote these letters, even if they might have been written in confidence. The Allies need great generals, and Gen. MacArthur is one of them. To permit a political indiscretion to detract from his military prestige is seriously unfortunate.
The Pittsburgh Press (April 15, 1944)
Governor attacks Roosevelt ‘liberalism’
Albany, New York (UP) –
Governor Thomas E. Dewey, making his second report to the people, said last night that the “cobwebs” of past Democratic regimes in New York State had been wiped out, and that the present state government is “infused with new blood and new energy, filled with a spirit of teamwork between the legislative and executive branches.”
While devoting most of his address to a review of accomplishments by his administration during the last year, Governor Dewey indirectly attacked the Roosevelt administration.
Roosevelt ‘liberalism’ attacked
He criticized:
…that type of personal government which talks fine phrases of liberalism while seeking to impose its will and whims upon the people through centralized bureaucracies issuing from directives from a distance.
Governor Dewey, the leading possibility for the 1944 Republican presidential nomination, said his state administration was attempting to “establish and maintain a genuinely competent and progressive government.”
He continued:
Three immediate and fundamental purposes have guided our work to strength the state government. First, to win the war; second, to prepare for a rapid and smooth readjustment to peaceful pursuits, once complete victory is won; third, to preserve and develop that freedom at home for which your men are fighting abroad.
Workable soldier ballot
Anti-discrimination legislation, drastic revision of the Workmen’s Compensation Administration, new health bills, streamlining of various departments and bureaus, veterans’ legislation and greater aid to the New York farmer were other accomplishments cited by Governor Dewey.
He continued:
Your state administration also took the lead in proposing a simple, workable formula for soldier voting. This soldier ballot will… give every man and woman in the armed services by the simple act of signing his name once, a valid note for every candidate from President to the local officers in his hometown.
Formula for freedom
Governor Dewey said the day would come:
…when free men everywhere, regardless of race, color or creed, can live in freedom, can work at occupations of their own choosing, can raise their children in the traditions of their parents, can worship God in the manner of their own choosing.
He said:
We can, and we must, keep out own society clean of those within who would lead us into paths of narrow or bigoted selfishness.
Minneapolis, Minnesota (UP) –
The Farmer-Labor Party, once spoken of as the “core of revolution in the Midwest,” met in state convention today to vote itself out of existence so its remnants can merge with Minnesota Democrats to reelect President Roosevelt.
Both the Farmer-Labor Party and the state Democratic Party opened simultaneous conventions in different hotels for the purpose of joining forces under a new hyphenated organization to be known as the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party.
Permanent convention officers were named and the nearly 400 delegates began caucusing for district committeemen. The Democrats expect to complete merger arrangements today.
Elmer Benson of Appleton, former U.S. Senator and last Farmer-Labor governor, pleaded for fusion of the two groups and attacked former Governor Harold E. Stassen and Senator Joseph H. Ball as “plain American Fascists.”
He said:
The Stassen-Ball crowd was largely responsible for the defeat of Wendell Willkie in Wisconsin. That means they are tied up with the Hoover-McCormick crowd, that they are agents of the capitalistic group that wants to destroy our present national administration. These people are plain American Fascists.
New York (UP) –
Senator Joseph H. Ball (R-MN) reiterated his support of LtCdr. Harold E. Stassen for the 1944 Republican presidential nomination last night and asserted that President Roosevelt and Congress “are not longer working as a team to solve the serious problems facing our country.”
Before the New York Young Republican Club, Senator Ball criticized the asserted lack of teamwork and said:
There is controversy, and often deadlock, on almost every major issue outside the actual prosecution of the war, on which there is unity.
Mr. Ball also criticized the administration for “the present jungle of overlapping bureaus and agencies.”
He said:
I have been on the Truman Investigating Committee for three years and it is a continual miracle to mw how American industry and labor continue to produce the huge volume of war materiel they are producing in the face of bureaucratic red tape and confusing and contradictory regulations emanating from Washington.
Urging the nation to ace speedily in “working out a just peace and the machinery to maintain it,” Senator Ball said:
Let our Republican Party and our nominee for President stand unequivocally for an international organization with the authority and the power to shape the peace now and to maintain it in the future.
With each passing week those fourth-termers who hope to make a campaign issue of an imaginary isolationism look sillier and sillier.
Last week, the Wisconsin primary exploded the myth that Midwest Republicans oppose world cooperation. For the international collaborationist Thomas E. Dewey won without running, and the superstater Harold E. Stassen placed second over Gen. MacArthur and Wendell L. Willkie. Now the Nebraska primary – with Mr. Stassen winning easily and an unexpectedly large write-in vote for Mfr. Dewey – underlines the obvious.
This week, the American Federation of Labor urged American participation in world organization for peace and security. The AFL post-war reconstruction committee reported:
The conflicts of today have proved that we can no longer rely on our favored geographical position to maintain our national safety.
It approved an international police force or any necessary means to prevent war, and modification of trade barriers to facilitate exchange of good and services between all nations. It opposed expansionism and imperialism, as well as isolationism, and rejected attempts by any nation to force unilateral solutions to territorial and other problems affecting peace. It stressed the need for international organization to handle health and welfare problems, and to control epidemics and drug traffic.
Of course, the fourth-termers have had no chance of fooling the people with a fake crusade against GOP isolationism since the Mackinac Declaration, and the Republican votes for the Fulbright and Connally resolutions.
All but an insignificant number of Democrats and Republicans support the bipartisan Congressional commitment to a democratic international; organization. The real issue is whether President Roosevelt can deliver on the American mandate and the Allied pledges, or whether European powers will put another league front on the old balance-of-power system.
About the only bright part of this picture is that there is no party division here on the need for effective and democratic world organization. This American unity in foreign policy is a source of great national strength and of world hope in this crisis. For fourth-termers, or any other group, to insist on seeing disunity where unity exists is exceedingly shortsighted partisanship.