The Catholic times. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1951-current, 1959-10-09
What Did
'KReally See?
JOSEPH BREIG

@MMM%@% y
Khrushchev was shown something of the body of
America. How much of its soul he perceived is another
question.
The Soviet premier is not easy to analyze. He
talks about God, for instance, as if he recognized Gods
existence; but he suggests that he is an atheist.
He was similarly paradoxical in Hollywood
which, with its sublime genius for doing the empty
headed thing, presented the cancan as its contribution
to khrushchevs education about America.
A dance by Fred Astaire, Gene Kelly or Marge
and Cover Champion would have been truly repre-
sentative of America. AS it was, Hollywood demeaned
America.
khrushehev promptly condemned The ean-esn as
immoral. But if there weren't any God, morality
wouldn't exist. You can't deny God and call anything
immoral.
Khrushchev blamed Capitalism" for degrading
girls with dances like the can-can. and said his govern
ment has a right to protect people against that kind
of thing.
Here are his words to Walter Reuther, president
of the United Auto Workers, and other top labor lead
"As head Of the working class will protect work.
ers from capitalist propaganda. lie then referred 10
fhe ean-eanl. This is what YOU call INSTRUMENTATION
for girls 10 show their backsides. To US it's porne-
sraphy. lis capitalism that makes the girls that way"
Such was Khrushchevs lame answer to Reuthers
question: "You advocate more trade. How come you
oppose a free flow of ideas by jamming radio broad.
casts"
Khrushchev was evading the question by using
the can-can as a diversionary tactic. All the same, It
did appear that the dance had offended ~him-morally.
Or was he merely Selling, astutely, upon a chance
to try to put Americans on the defensive?
Khrushchev kept talking as if America could be
defined and contained in the word capitalism :" In
Washington and New York, he got away with it for the
most part.
Why? My guess is that some of the people he met
In those cities are as basically materialistic in their
thinking as Marx was.
YET, THE FACT is that today the Soviet Union
is thoroughly capltalistic, whereas the US. isn't.
In the Soviet, all capital is in the hands of a hand
full of bureaucrats, giving them deSpotlc economic pow
er over the people. That's capitalism with a capital c.
America has become what Chesterton called dis
trihuiist." Most of the capital is in the hands OF the
millions, not the few. Thus the people WELD economic
IS we'll as political authority.
America approaches more and more to the ideal
of every man a king
A minority of Americans have never become
reconciled to that. Members of this minority, because
their thinking is in the past, could not challenge
Khrushchev's tauntS about Capitalism"
Indeed, Khrushchey handily won arguments with
this kind of American.
1T WAS ANOTHER story when he tried to debate
with the labor leaders. His replies were pltiable when
thew asked him why no workers flee into the Soviet
orbit, whereas millions flee from it; why Soviet tanks
were sent into Hungary. and why unions in Soviet
Russia are mere rubber stamps for the Kremlin.
Khrushehev likewise had no adequate answers
10 fhe talk in which Henry Cabot Lodge, US. ans
bassador TO The UN, reminded him that America is .
nation under God" that its attitude TO the world is
that of Lincoln-"with malice toward none, with char
iy for all, with firmness in the right rs God gives W
in The Declaration of independence, in The prophet
Mieah's injunction ITO do Justly, 10 love mercy. and TO
walk hunhIy with God, " and III chrisfs commandment
that we love our ~neighhor.
If Khrushchev cannot understand those truths,
he has learned little about America.