Evening star., 1947-10-27
Communists and Civil Riqhts

It is not an easy thing to find rational
middle ground between the conflicting
claims of extremists who have been
whipped into sort of oratorical fury by
the House investigation of communism in
Hollywood
At one extreme is Senator Pepper of
Florida. Referring to the current investi-
cation, he says that ''the great danger to
American democracy from these witch
hunts and loyalty purges" lies in the fact
that they attempt to produce safe and
even pusillanimous conformity to stereo-
type of mediocrity dictated by some self
constituted censor
At the other extreme stands Representa-
tive Rankin of Mississippi, who answers
Senator Pepper with the assertion that
the guarantee of civil liberties does not
give the right to any one to plot to over
throw our Government or attempt to
spread communism or any other ism to
our destruction"
Neither Of these gentlemen is entirely
right, nor are they entirely wrong. And
the basic difficulty is that their arguments
proceed from premises which do not exist
in fact.
If the House investigation were designed
to press American thought into the mold
of ''pusillanimous conformity" of which
Senator Pepper speaks, or even If it could
reasonably be expected to have that effect,
regardless of intent, then the Florida SEN
ator would deserve to be taken very seri-
ously. But he is wrong in his premise, for
the aim of the House committee is to ex-
pose such Communist influence as there
may be in Hollywood. This ought to be
exposed, and if the job is to be done some
agency has to do it. The argument is
made that the indirect effect of exposure
is to intimidate and coerce producers to
make pictures which conform to the think
ing of the committee This is very far
fetched assumption, but even if it were
true it is not in itself valid argument
against the exposure of Communist activi-
ties. When popular President lashes out
at the newspapers there is a possibility
that some publishers may be intimidated
But that is no reason why the press should
not be criticized. The same thing applies
to Congress, to the courts, to the church
and to any other instrument which func-
tionS in our democracy. We need to re-
member that the Bill of Rights erects its
safeguards against legislative restraints on
basic liberties, not against incidental pres
sures which grow out of the give-and-take
of our democratic system. We need to be
guided by some rule of reason. thing
like the Hollywood investigation might be
carried to point of real abuse But those
who are of the liberal persuasion ought
not to shout themselves hoarse merely be-
cause possibility of abuse is present.
Mr.. Rankin is equally wrong in his prem
Use. OF course the guarantee of civil
liberties does not give any one the right
to plot the overthrow of our Government
in the popular sense of that expression.
But this guarantee does give people the
right to attempt, by peaceful means, to
spread communism or any other ism. That
is the basic reason for the existence of the
Bill of Rights-to enable minorities to
preach doctrines that are unpalatable to
the majority, and it will be sorry day
for this country If that right is ever
suppressed.
All that any one has right to ask is that
when Communists, for example, set out to
preach their doctrine, they be identified for
what they are. They are entitled to the
protection of the Bill OF Rights in attempt
ing to spread their political philosophy,
but they are not entitled to invoke the
Bill of Rights as shield to mask their
true identity and their real purpose.
The excited cries of partisans to the con-
trary, this is the real heart of the issue
which confronts us in this country today.
If we handle the problem with the common
sense which is one of the richest inher-
itances of the American people our civil
liberties will not be in danger.