Evening star., 1953-08-23
fortress America

III one SeLlSe, LIleE6 is d CeTtdILl VAuully VU
the Presidents assertion that high living stand
ards are our best defense against communism.
Those "happy families" to which the President
alluded in his remarks at the dedication of
the housing project named after Dr. Simon
Baruch presumably will be better able to resist
the appeal of the Communist idea than would
be the case with unhappy families suffering
from low living standards.
There is no validity, however in the infer
ence which may be drawn from General Eisen-
howers additional comment to the effect that
high standard of living is "a more sure de-
fense than any battleship, or any plane, or any
gun, or any bomb of whatever kind" True
enough, guns and bombs may be less effective
than high living standards against the spread
of the Communist idea at least as we know 1t
in this country. But the great threat to our
security today is not the Communist philosophy,
but the armed power of the Soviet Union. The
highest living standards in the world will not
offer the slightest degree of protection to the
happieSt of families in our new housing projects
if Just one Soviet H-bomb should be dropped
on them Guns and bombS-the newest and
best of modern weaponS-are the only defense
against this threat and the President should
have said so in unmiStakable language. For
the time is coming, and it is not far off, when
the essence of his remarks will be used, and
used effectively by powerful individuals in this
country who, for the sake of raising our stand
ard of living, are fully prepared to sacrifice
the national defense.
Before another year is out the Government
will be faced with the loss of billions of dol
lars in revenue from expiring taxes Any at
tempt to recoup that loss through imposition
of new taxes will be bitterly resisted and re-
sisted precisely on the ground that new taxes
would cut into the living standard of the
American people. What alternatives will be
proposed? The handwriting on the wall is
already alarmingly clear. Those who demand
lower taxes want to cut even deeper into the
appropriations for national defense. They will
say that we should stop throwing our money
away on unreliable allies. They will argue, in
short, for revival of the Fortress America
concept, the concept that we should pull back
from our worldwide commitments and retire
behind the walls of an America converted
into an armed camp. They will contend that
this will be cheaper in terms of dollars that II
we will only do this we can be secure and can
also continue to enjoy the comforts and the
luxuries which have come to be identified with
the American standard of living.
General Bradley, retired chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, has an article in the
current issue of the Saturday Evening Post
which exposes the utter fallacy of the notion
that there can be any security for us In the
Fortress America concept. Events may COM
bine to drive us back to Fortress America.
But we could hardly be guilty Of any greater act
of folly than to retreat voluntarily to that
position.
No one knows this better than President
Eisenhower, and no one has said so more elo-
quently than he on numerous occasions in the
past Only last June he stated 1t this way "All
free nations must stand together, or they shall
fall separately" Perhaps an armed-camp
America would be the last to fall. But fall 1t
probably would. And without the slightest
doubt, our vaunted standard of living, the ease
and the comfort we enjoy, would be speedily
wiped away once we elect to retire behind our
own barricades.
For these reasons, one can only deplore
loose talk about our standard OF living being
the best defense against communism, In all
probability, the day is coming when choice
will have to be made between high and ever
higher living standards and the security OF
the United States. The siren gospel in behalf
of the former will be preached eloquently by
influential men, Heaven help us If we listen
to them.