Evening star., 1952-05-11
Not q Popularity Contest

Senator Ellender may be right when he says
he thinks most people will like Tafts position
better than Eisenhower's."
The Louisiana legislator was talking about
the conflicting views of the two presidential
hopefulS concerning prospective cuts in the
foreign aid bill. Senator Taft says we can safely
cut $1.9 billion from foreign aid funds And
that, OF course, is popular position for him to
take. But this is not popularity contest For
what is really at stake has nothing to do with
whether most people like one position better
than the other. The ultimate stake in this
matter is the security of the United States, and
we had better not forget it.
General Eisenhower has said that some re-
duction in the $7.9 billion request can safely be
made. He has not said, and is hardly in a
position to say at precisely what point the safety
margin would be passed. He has stated that
the billion dollar cut proposed by the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee would be "heavily
and seriously felt in the West European under
taking, but he implied that this much of a
reduction might be absorbed without fatal
damage. But "any cut materially greater than
this" he wrote Senator Connally, would create
such difficulties that drastic revision of the
whole program might we'll be indicated and
might therefore endanger the proposed military
buildup now visualized and which consider
essential in the interest of United States
security"
He added to this his stated belief that the
goal of the whole NATO program is security
and peace, and that the attainment of this goal
will become more expensive 'if it is unneces-
sarIy postponed, dragged out and delayed"
General Eisenhower's contention is re-
inforced by his own f1rst-hand experience with
the project, and with the pointed observation
that reductions in defense support at this time
would have "a peculiarly adverse effect" since
available production facilities in Europe could
not be put to use for lack of critical fraction
OF their raw materials and other requirements.
Senator Taft, in his turn, merely says this:
IT want to reduce the expenditure by billion
dollars more than the congressional committee
wants to. 1t will in no way endanger the security
of this country
Perhaps that is popular-just as it has
always been popular to oppose things that are
painful and costly To mention just one exam
pie, it was popular to oppose Selective service
on the eve of Pearl Harbor Those who opposed
1t were confident that the country was in no
danger, and probably they were just as sincere
as Senator Taft is now. But they were wrong,
and they were proved to be wrong.
The basic question now is essentially the
same. Whose Judgment is to be trusted? Are
we to accept Senator Taft's dogmatic and un-
supported assurance that his cut would in no
way endanger the security of this country? Or
are we to believe General Eisenhower, who on
the basis of his own expert knowledge, and with
the backing of our highest defense officials, says
it would seriously endanger our security?
Senator Taft, in The Stars opinion, urges
us to take the easy and popular-but dangerous
course. General Eisenhower reminds us that
security in this world is not to be had for the
asking There is price to be paid and it is
to his credit that he accepts the possible political
penalties that may follow his insistence that
we must be willing to pay it.