The potters herald. [volume] (East Liverpool, Ohio) 1899-1982, 1943-09-30

There probably is no denying that
the fight against drafting fathers has
some political appeal.
1t must have something and that's
about all it could have.
OF course the whole project sponsor
ed by Senator Wheeler has gone into
eclipse and discussion now is more or
less in the nature of post mortem
examination.
However, the whole subject of parti-
san political use of war issues is still
a live subject and one that bears talk
ing about.
Why, with the world boiling in a
grisly stew that must make or break
human freedom, are political leaders
willing to gamble on the outcome by
making partisan issues out of the
matter of running the war so that vic
tory can be brought surely and with
relative speed?
Why is there not great rising
against such political quackery?
olle can almost mark W1In certainty
these proposals that are put forward
for partisan purposes by marking the
men who sponsored them.
Most of our political figures have
records in which there are marks that
tell of character and characteristics.
Regrettably we find characteristics
about as often as we find character.
The characteristics of those who put
politics first and who either put vic
tory second or in complete jeopardy
are so we'll known as to need no point
ing.
Why are not proposals that jeOp-
ardise smothered so quickly by an
avalanche of righteous opposition that
the world would know how small is
the minority of quibbling and quib-
blers? Why?
Perhaps so many think the war is
about over that they can now afford
to fool around. Or perhaps they simply
do not see.
But to return to the question of the
immunity of fathers
If the question is simply one of
fatherhood, then why are there now
fathers in the army?
Gen. Macarthur is father and so
are any number of officers of high
rank, as well as in the junior ranks
and of privates.
There are fathers in every branch
of the Service-lOts and lots of them.
And the quibblings about pre-Pearl
hood are almost equally far fetched.
1t may be true that few became
faherS for the sole reason of keeping
out of the war, but that can be true
only of few. For, let us remember,
biological processes are not governed
entirely by Pearl Harbors.
If some became fathers to escape
in war, it is equally sure
that as many, and probably more, be-
came fathers in the face of war, for
the sake of assurance of pOSterity.
Senator Wheeler seems not to have
thought about that nobler phase of the
question.
No partisan of the proposal to keep
fathers out of the draft has yet made
IA clear statement of why fatherhood
should exempt men from their respon-
Sibility to help fight the nations war.
None has explained why fatherhood
per Sc is a passport to exemption.
And it must be that good many
fathers resent bitterly the implication
that their parenthood should be made
to set them apart from their fellows.
If dependency is the issue, then let
it be stated that way and fairly met
But let there be an end to the claim
that fatherhood as such should exempt
men from sharing the fates of tlaSe
whom fatherhoOd has not come.
There are many reasons for father
hood and many for the failure to be
fathers.
But this is every mans war and it
IS the business of every man and
woman to play Il part where his or
her services are most valuable. The
issue seems to be cooked
lnd about ready to lay away, but
here will be other phony issues. Watch
hem and mark them for what they