Evening star., 1944-04-24

what he has to say.
On this occasion 1t is likely Mr
Dewey viii again make clear his
position on foreign as well as do
mestic policy. The fact, Of course
is that practically every one who
follows the record has known for
nearly year Mr.. Dewey's views on
postwar international cooperation,
which is the particular thing it is
desired he should reiterate.
There is no reason for Dewey
embarrassment in the situation, and
those who have talked with him
report him entirely unembarrassed.
So far as the charge that in 1910
he LEANED toward" isolationism is
concerned, it must be recalled that
In those days that was the general
trend in both parties.
What Record Shows.
Certainly, it can be shown that
neither Mr.. Roosevelt nor Mr.. Will
kie were preaching international CO.
operation during that campaign.
On the contrary, they were both
taking an extremely nationalistic
point Of view, insisting that this
Nation, regardless of lease-lend,
would remain neutral-and insisting
on this at a time when the inevi-
liability of our entrance ought to
have been apparent. After the elec-
tion both MIR. Roosevelt and Mr..
Willkie became much more pro-
British than before, but 1t was only
after Pearl Harbor that they be-
came really global minded.
The same thing is true of MFR.
Dewey. Since we entered the war,
step by step. he has moved away
from his Isolation trend" until to-
day he has caught up with the
Messrs. Roosevelt and Willkie, is
outspoken for precisely the same
kind of postwar international CO.
operation for which they stand, and
has been even more specific in his
insistence on permanent British
American alliance as the basic es-
sential for permanent peace.
If he is open to the charge that
political expediency affected his
views in 1910, so are they-and so
are a good many Others, Democrats
as well as Republicans. The truth
is both parties have swung away
from the marrow isolationisrn" in
which they were stepped in the last
campaign.
Today Republicans as well as
Democrats are thoroughly commit
ted to full American participation in
o collective international organiza-
tion after the fighting stops. Almost
without exception, every man seri-
ously spoken of in connection with
the presidential nomination has de-
clared himself in accord. The one
exception Is Gen. Macarthur, whose
views are not known and whose
chances Of becoming the Republican
candidate are not great.
1t does seem that the two parties
occupy almost identical positions on
this question at this time: That with
Mr.. Roosevelt and Mr.. Dewey as
opposing candidates there would be
little room to raise the issue. The
record shows that in the last 20
years there has been not much to
choose between the Democrats and
the Republicans SO far as interna-
tional cooperation is concerned.
It Is true that after the defeat o!
the Versailles treaty in the Senate
in which certain Democrats as.
sisted, the Republicans swung to.
ward the isolationist side and away
from leaders like Taft, Hughes, Root
and Hoover, who were pro-league
But, in 1924, the Democrats aban.
doned their stand for internationa
cooperation, and renewed it only
after the 1910 election.
Convention of 1924.
Few who were present at the
Democratic convention of 1924 in
New York will ever forget the mov-
ing and impassioned plea of the
late Newton D. Baker for his party
to keep faith. In one of the greatest
speeches ever made in such a gath
ering, Mr.. Baker urged the adoption
Of League of Nations plank in