Evening star., 1942-05-26

years dominated the thinking and
writings Of liberals, the authors de-
clare that "the liberal mind simply
refuses to count the cost of its
moral superiority in terms Of lives
lost and treasure wasted because of
Its stubborn refusal to make ade-
quate military preparations for a
military issue in advance Of the
precipitation OF the conflict. Here,
II anywhere, Is exemplif1ed the firm
conviction Of pragmatic liberalism
that failure is not failure If it is
motivated by pragmatic attitudes
free from any enervating preoccu-
patton with traditional prejudices."
As . conspicuous Illustration Of
the foregoing. the writer's declare:
If not In September, 1899. or
the months following, surely in
May. 1910, when the Germans had
overrun Holland, even a liberal
having access to military inteni-
gence might have been expected to
understand the implications of Ger
man militarism for the future OF
Europe and Asia Yet the New
York Times for May Is, 1910,
printed report Of press confer
ence In which President Roosevelt
rejected with scorn the idea OF a
two-ocean navy:
Symbol Seen.
"Mr. Roosevelt brushed aside as
utterly stupid suggestions that de-
velopments In the European
struggle and their implications in
the Pacific strengthened the argyll
ments for q two-ocean American
navy. ""' Such conception Of the
Nations floating defenses was just
plain dumb, he added .
"Since upon admitted principles
Of strategy the advantages Of
two-ocean navy are self evident. it
Is surely as a symbol that Mr..
Roosevelt mathematics the idea
the surrender Of a number Of
darling liberal illusions, a symbol Of
the failure Of the New Deals
foreign policy to provide the
security essential to the consumma-
ton OF its domestic purposes. The
true liberal upon the very eve Of
Pearl Harbor, remained stubbornly
convinced that war Is not really
life' and felt reasonably secure 10
long as he could hear the voice Of
some great symbol OF democracy
visiting the unspeakable tortures
of moral humiliation upon inter-
national evildoers.
During the years in which the
President and the Secretary Of State
were indefatigable in denouncing
the treaty breakers and aggressors,
American liberalism at home was
growing disillusioned with soft
pragmatism and social idealsm.
Candor and respect for the pledged
word was still held up as indispen-
sable to the proper conduct Of inter-
national relations. but in domestic
policy q canny sense Of expediency,
always on the point Of passing over
into the Machiavellian, was the
order Of the day. Historical acci-
dent, rather than conscious plan,
thus created for the New Deal
dilemma in the discrepant systems
Of value which underlay its foreign
and domestic policies.
Paradox Collapses.
THE abusrdity Of expecting to
maintain peace by adherence to
principles Of international justice
embodied in legal formulae and i'm
plemented in written compacts,
while at home, with equal insistence,
the cry is raised for the rule Of ex-
pediency and government by men
rather than by documents, could re-
main unrecognized only until the
denouement of Pearl Harbor con-
fronted the American people with
the reality of nationalist aggression.
Domestic Machiavellianism linked
with international ideansm is par
adox which no political legerdemain
can perpetuate. The moral capaci-
ties Of human nature In the national
and international sphere are, after
all, homogeneous, and it must re-
main q mystery why the letter Of
the Constitution may be regarded as