Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1944-04-08

eUC. lou CANNOT SaHuel ufaiton.
believe in the people, and also be-
neve that the people are weak II
the noodle.
If the people (even the Repubr-
can people of Wisconsin, didn't vote
for internationalism that was either
because they had thought it over
and didn't want it, or because a
poor case was made out for it. The
theory might be offered that an in
ferior case was, in point of fact
made out for internationalism in
Wisconsin.
1t was not a good case. 1t was
all about how there ought to be an
international council to settle every
thing, some big meeting room some
where; how no country ought to be
allowed to do anything without the
consent of Bolivia and Luxembourg;
how we all have to agree on every
border The appeal was never stated
in Observation-Disclosures terms. 1t was
an appeal for votes for Utopia. But
Utopia is not an issue in the next
election.
Approach Lacked Reality.
The people were asked to approve
our joining some sort of elegant and
stately international club. They
could not focus clearly on this club,
which is not surprising, because no
one else can, either.
The voters know perfectly well
that Russia is not going to let an
international club decide the ques-
ton of her western borders, just as
they know in their hearts that we
would not accept an international
decision if it we're matter of re-
storing a once-stolen Maine and
New Hampshire to ourselves. They
sensed that this approach lacked
reality.
Their sense of reality was further
offended by the old League of Ma
lions plea that we must help to save
the world from collapse; that, if we
do not join in, like good fellows,
world affairs will go to ruin. Many
of these high-minded arguments be-
long to the fight for the last peace.
A world of a reborn Britain and a
Red Army is not going to collapse if
we stay out. Our own affairs might
collapse. But that is a different
story. And it was not told.
Put Case on Rarefied Level.
The fact that Mr.. Willkie could
rebuff Russia's border claims while
presenting "the case for interna-
tionalisrn" shows that he presented
the case on an extremely rarefied
and unreal level.
Few will die for that kind of in
ternationalism, or even vote for it,
because nobody really knows what
it is, except for the feeling that it
lacks edges. Mr.. WILKES case was
a fine moral case. Morality is the
handspring of action in this warm
and generous man. But morality as
a substitute for action is something
else again.
Mr.. Willkie did not give the voters
a foreign policy. He asked them to
endorse his morality Actually, he
could have made "the case for in
ternationalisrn" on the score of pure,
raw American national interest.
He could have beat the brains out
of those isolationists who are quite
willing to sacrifice the American ma
tional interest rather than come to
an agreement with Russia; in pur-
suit Of which endeavor they have
against their own principles made
the Atlantic Charter, rather than
American well-being, the issue of
the moment. But if we break with
Russia, we shall have neither a
charter, nor friend. Then where's
our "internationalism"?
Must Make Friends Abroad.
To show how the Wisconsin cam
paign got off center, we have only
to realize that both Mr.. Willkie and
the isolationists, from quite different
motives, made a big thing during
the primary of enforcing the Allan
tic Charter against Russia.
Actually, if you add the Stassen
vote to the Willkie vote, interna-
tionalism didn't do so badly in Wis
consin; the total is on the heels of
the Dewey vote. That shows our
hunger for an internationalist solu-
ton. But, oh, how we need to be
tougher with ourselves! How we