Evening star., 1943-12-09
Southern Senators

because ne SeloOm deals In per-
sonalitieS, the language employed
by Senator Byrd of Virginia in his
reply to the attack made on him by
Senator Guffey of Pennsylvania has
attracted wide attention. On the
surface Of this is a case of pent-up
Indignation bursting through the
restraints imposed by a normally
equable temperament But it is also
symptomatic Of an irritating malady
which has taken hold of our political
system, and which is capable of
causing great deal Of trouble.
Angered by the Senates action on
the soldier vote bill, which left the
handling of this matter to the
States, Senator Guffey told news
papermen that Northern Repub-
licans under Joe Pew "a Pennsyl-
vania political figure) and Southern
Democrats under the leadership of
Harry Byrd had conspired to de-
prive the armed services of the right
to vote. This, Senator Guffey con-
tinued. was IAN unpatriotic and un-
holy alliance"
Senator Byrd replied that this
was a deliberate" misstatement
and a "gratuitous insult" to the
Democratic and Republican Sena-
tors who voted for the plan which
Senator Guffey opposed. He went
on to denounce Senator Guffey in
scornful terms, and he was joined
in his repudiation of the charge by
other Senators from the South.
The record shows that Senator
Byrd was right. Actually, less than
one-third Of the Senators voting on
the issue were Southern Demo-
Gratis and Northern Republicans.
Therefore, 1t was highly misleading,
to say the least, to charge that this
"unholy alliance" decided the result.
But the aspect of this fare-up
which Is the real cause for concern
has nothing to do with the question
OF who was right and who was
wrong in this particular dispute.
The thing that should give all of us
pause Is the fact-as demonstrated
by this incident that mature
thought on vital public issues has
been so largely displaced by such
shoddy substitutes as name-calling
and "sloganeering.'
How does it happen that the
terms Southern Senator" or
Southern Democrat" have acquired
a certain opprobrious connotation?
If a Democrat from Illinois votes
against a liberal" measure it is
counted as just another adverse
vote. But let Democrat from Wiz
ginia or Mississippi vote against the
same measure and it becomes a
sinister Illustration of the demo-
cratic processes by a reactionary
Southern Democrat who owes his
seat in Congress to the poll tax.
This is arrant nonsense, of course.
A little reflection would explode the
fiction that a member of Congress
IS good or bad, depending upon
whether he comes from the South or
some other section of the country.
But reflection calls for thought, and
there are some people who shrink
from thinking for themselves. They
would rather be guided by the labels
which propaganda pins on men and
issues, and in too many instances
these propaganda labels are coined
by individuals whose real interest
does not rise above narrowly per-
sonal or factional levels.
To very large extent the South
ern Democrat" is the creation of
the liberals" in the Democratic
party and the political extremists
who have gathered around them.
1t is they - not the Republicans
who have given the term its cur
rency and its popular significance.
They hoped by this technique to
compel support for their programs
or to discredit those who opposed
them. Their real accomplishment,
however, has been to split the Demo-
cratic party by alternating some of
its ablest and most distinguished
and to shake the con-
fidence of a good many thoughtless
people in the integrity of what is,
after all, the democratic system. It
is high time that they turned their