Detroit evening times. (Detroit, Mich) 1921-1958, 1941-01-08
BY HUGH S. JOHNSON

AVA asks angrily why the
policy" laid down in the Presi-
dents annual message should be
debated. He says that it has
been passed upon by the people
not merely in the elections but
in the nominations and that il
either Mr.. Willkie or Mr.. Roose-
welt had not endorsed il neither
would have been nominated.
"When the voters went to the
polls they knew that the winner
OF the election would declare the
policy the President has now de-
clared."
No issue was presented. Both
candidates agreed on aid by
methods short of war" but since
this was not defined. no policy
was considered.
MIR. WILLKIE. TO the aston
WI ishment and d smay OF
many of his supporters. didn't
explore the subject or give the
people a chance to hear debate
on any part of the greatest
of American questions.
Since there was no issue on
any policy there is no popular
mandate.
-L.ippmann- cannot fairly
contend that Mr.. Roosevelt mem
toned in the campaign any new
American crusade to insure. not
merely to us but TO the whole
world. freedom Of the press and
religion, social security and per-
petual peace. II is League OF
Nations stuff which this country
once overwhelmingly rejected in
a great and solemn refer
endum."
Mr.. Roosevelt campaigned In
the presence of the neutrality
and Johnson acts.
LIE MADE no mention Of any
II change or any evasion Of
any of these such as is contained
in the "lease-lend" plan. nor did
he indicate, as he did Monday
any policy about what kind OF
peace America will accept
Unless America is at war she
can't either accept or reject
peace terms.
Candidate Roosevelt adv o.
Gated methods only short OF
war and promised never TO send
troops abroad The phrase short
of war" was dropped out in the
message and we are now said 10
be committed TO full support"
Who consulted us? Not the
Congress. Not the people. Not
the election.
Furthermore, any professional
soldier knows that the policies
advocated in the message never
can be achieved without war
and an expeditionary force.
IF MR.. ROOSEVELT had made
i during the campaign any
such warlike utterance as his
annual message. he would have
lost millions of votes-if not the
election.
Notwithstanding Mr. Lipp-
mann, If Mr.. Willkie had done
so he would never have been
nominated. Mr. RooSevelts con-
duct was good politics. but it
doesn't justify saying that, be-
cause these policies have been
voted upon. if they are to be
debated now II proves that de-
mocracy doesn't work.
The truth is that If they are
not debated now 1t proves that
democracy has been whipped
through hysterical fear into to-
talitarian silence and acquiesence
or beguiled into believing such
abSurdities as Mr.. Lippmann's
assertion of an issue debated
and closed with mandate.
THERE has also been too little
L clarifying debate on the slo-
ganeering assertion that Britain
is fighting our war" Says
New York Times dispatch from
London. paraphrasing the Brit
ish reaction to the message:
THE United States say over
and over again that Britain
must he aided every possible
way because Britain Is essential
to United States defense. The
United States Is hiring us to-
fight its battles as we once
hired the Hessians but we
are not getting our pay"-mean-
ing thereby that the United
States isn't insuring delivery of
munitions by putting its navy
into the armed Atlantic convoy
service.
THAT argument is unans&er-
l. able if we are always re-
Numbering" as the - British
opinion cannily. II not chuck
lingly, continues, that the
United States has said that the
only reason it is helping us at
all is because we are fighting
for the United States
BY too much sloganeering and
too little debate we are mum
bling. fumbling and stumbling"
into war.
Step by step, argument by
argument. blunder by blunder. it
is 1917 all over again. complete
with inspired "idealistic' leader
ship. 49, American hysteria and
loaOt1o Of natiOnS