Evening star., 1938-01-09
The Argument Against the Rssolutions

The Argument Against the Rssolutions
TO ADOPT the referendum proposal revoutonze
historic and constitutional treatment of the chief
functions of foreign relations 1t would be brandnew
experiment. 1t would take away the warmakng
shared by a) those encharged with conducting
eign policy the basis Of full and constant stream of
information and CD the representatives of the people in Con-
1t would transfer this to l30000000 people
farmers factory workers. BARRIERS hunters bus drivers
clubs etc.
Our present system of deciding and peace has
worked entirely satisfactorily There is change
it, All Of Presidents have been extremely
ommend They have done only strongly pressed
by popular opinion Whenever they have finally
war to Congress- they have been almost
port by Congress and the people Congressman entirely
capable OF representing the sentiment Of their constituents
this and other question. The country has been
rushed into by its elected representatives against the
wishes OF its people To change the system
pletey unnecessary From the standpoint of promoting peace
according to Secretary Hull it is actually unwise unpac
tcabe According to President Roosevelt
sastent with the representative form of government
The referendum would under conditions Of modern
warfare destroy existing plan national defense and
render any plan of defense effective Already its mere
discussion must seriously affect influence in world
affairs The plan ignores the vast compexiy Of
ternational relations It Is like inviting citizen
to take seat at the Presidents conference with secre
tary of State in time of emergency only st the
final sitting, after the long nterconnected
administrative steps.
1t has been argued that modern Of communication
make people well informed foreign affairs and capable
of deciding this question But we disagree The
spirit Of isolation ingraned in American Mr. Aver
age Citizen shows little interest in foreign Moreover
referendum would be extremely cumbersome and slow.
Why Not Vote Everything.
referendum desirable in the of q war decision
not equally desirable general machinery applicable to
multitude Of national problems of all times? Congress
incapable Of representing the people this
is not equally incapable representing at ALL If the
people the who for they also
who pay for other national policy logic
require them to be directly consulted every
sion.
Advocates Of the referendum plan would exempt there
from warke action by the United States
attacked and invaded They we cannot be
successfully attacked except by INVASION and that
then satisfactorily defend ourselves This
to be fantastic ignores the and speed modern
naval and attack and the agiy centers
and organization. How would they define attack"
The referendum proponents ignore the that
today initiated waged terminated entirely
formal declaration by either party recognition
state Of by neutral governments American ships
topedoed by pirate" submarines while peaceful
errand abroad would the referendum advocates Con-
gress free hand?
Prompt Action Essential to Defense.
One of the chief successful defense prompt
ton against agsressor We know beyond doubt
that attack planned against yet under the refer
endum plan would be forced to await the attack or the
the referendum before proceeding defend
selves present system slow enough compared
to the military machines Of certain other nations The ref
erendum plan would slow down still more and let tho
enemy get the Jump while the peaceat-anyprics
theorists practical politicians lecturers bartenders and bar
bers molding decision.
of our chief defenses . century has been dplo
matte policy backed by the implication Of force This the
Monroe Doctrine which foreign powers from seeking
q foothold Western Hemisphere This vital doctrine
of has been effective only because OF the implied
determination to enforce it. In its original form the Ludlow
resolution makes allowance for this important feature OF
national defense policy. -s
Equally important in national defense is the Navy
This is beyond question by any Yet the referendum
resolution would hasng the long Of preparation upon
which defense policy based It would cut the
appropriations for our Navy would destroy
the initiative and spirit Of personnel 1t h fundamentally
antagonisuc to present defense system.
A Weakness in Time Of Need
To resort to war referendum at time Of exrns
sency when the responsible administrative leaders wsse recon-
mending would greatly weaken the country It would
throw confusing and demorazng political
campaign terrific sobering sense Of responsibility
which the President would be destroyed At such
time he would consider the base political strata
of appeal The people would be subjected more
the pleas local partisan fac
tons at moment when-above all otherssuch considerations
should play no part in the countrys decision.
Even If the people voted for the record Of large
minority opposed thereto of divided sentiment would weaken
the country in the face of it, enemies Today though
We not at facing decision Of the troubled
condition Of the world and tbs beleerent attitude Of certain
nations makes it imperative that before the world the
example great democracy united determined to protect
not only IT. immediate Shores but IT. nbsrtss and rghts
atEoad.
4