The Washington herald., 1921-01-02
Nonpartisanship in International Affairs.


"The President has to do with many
nonpartisan things. Except on very mar
row group of questions Republicans and
Democrats can talk together and this par
ticularly is true of the international situa-
tion."-William J. Bryan.
1t is most unfortunate that Republicans
and Democrats in Congress do not take
this position as stated by Mr.. Bryan. Dur
ing the war they did. They had one mind
as to national affairs where these concerned
international relations.
There should be the same agreement in
peace. There is no other country where
change of party brings change in interna-
tional policy. Parties elsewhere have only
distinctive domestic policies.
There is a saying in this country that
"partisanship stops at the boundary line"
But it does not. Repeatedly in our history
a change in administration has brought a.
radical change in international policy, as it
will March 4 and as it did on March 4, 1912.
The referendum forced into the last
election as to the league of nations cove
nant thrust question of international policy
into the hot-bed of partisan politics 1t did
not belong there. 1t could not be settled
there.
A part of each party held that the issue
was league and no league. Mr.. Wilson so
far as he could, had made it the covenant
without or with reservations. The Repub-
lican leaders made it for and against the
Wilson league"
In the end the voters were so mussed
up as to this issue, that with comparatively
few exceptions, they voted with little re-
gard to it. So the referendum decided moth
ing, though the campaign itself developed
an overwhelming sentiment for the league,
but only with reservations as to the
covenant.
The one thing conclusively proved was
that matters of international policy do not
belong in general election. 1t is parti-
san; they are not, and they cannot get i'm
partial, clear thinking, honest expression
of opinion.
In the Senate which is the final court
of decision on international questions, the
vote must be nonpartisan as two-thirds of
the members must agree. In this Senate
thirtytwo Republicans voted for the COW
enant with reservations and twenty-five
Democrats joined with them
The change of but FIVE votes would
have brought ratification In the next Sen
ate there must be still more pronounced
agreement to bring definite result. This
fixes what some day must become definite
national policy; that no mere change in
Executive or party shall change what has
become the American policy in interna-
tional affairs.
This by no manner means that our in
ternstional policy can never be altered or
modified. 1t only means that throwing all
partisanship aside, Republicans and Demo-
Gratis in the Senate will make these modi6-
cations without party bias or seeking party
advantage, but solely with regard to Ameri-
cas- interests and obligations.
1t means that the Senate is the sole
forum for such decisions and through it's
debates, public opinion, regardless of party
lines, must me informed and formed. The
Senate is representative and if not swayed
by mere party prejudice its debates reach
a convincing level
Correctly or otherwise, the debates on
the covenant were not convincing either
for or against, for reservations or against
them. They were tinged with bitterness
and personal accusations on both sides.
The people became convinced that
much of the motive was the personality of
the President, which had no right place in
the discussion and only improperly could
influence votes.
Constant harping during the campaign
on the Wilson league" did not help this
condition; it did not aid in future harmony
and was very distasteful to a majority of
the voters who do not want international
policy lowered to that plane.
But the election is over. So FAR as
possible the slate should be wiped clean.
There can no longer be any excuse for in
jecting Mr.. Wilson into the decision as to
the league, and the vast majority of the
voters are not in temper to patiently en-
dure this if attempted by any one on either
side of the Senate chamber.