Page:Minority of One September 1961.pdf/6

Scoreboard of an Alternative

The Anatomy of a Peace Effort

The lead article in the July, 1961 issue of THE MINORITY OF ONE was entitled "Memo to the Peace Movement: For an American Alternative." In it was presented an analysis of the monolithic system by which American foreign policies are determined. The means were traced by which our powers-that-be circumvent democracy and put truly vital issues outside the domain of legitimate public controversy. The existence of an effective Paper-and-Air-Wave Curtain (that keeps the mainstream of the American public in utter ignorance of even the possibility of alternatives to the bellicose international orientation of the American Government) was alleged. It was further alleged that the American press and broadcasting industry limit public discussion to the narrow range of whatever policies emanate from Washington and to advocacies still further to the right. Presenting the activities of the various small peace groups as primarily movements registering their moral protest rather than attempting to alter the dangerous trend of events, the "Memo" concluded that no peace activity in America stands a chance of becoming an historic factor until the Paper-and-Air-Wave Curtain is punctured. The suggestion was made that the various American peace movements launch a campaign of protest of the monolithic nature of the American press and broadcasting industry. It was further advocated that a big national daily newspaper which would counter- act the insulating effectiveness of the mass media be established. The "Memo" ended with a concrete appeal to a number of prominent individuals in the peace movement and to various groups to call a national conference, specifically to plan an assault on the Paper-and- Air-Wave Curtain.

The August issue of TMO as well as the present one feature some of the responses. These letters are no more than a sampling of the hundreds of responses that started pouring in as soon as the July issue was released. Hundreds of encouraging messages have reached us by mail, cable, and telephone. Their common denominator is the conviction that a plan has been presented which, if executed, might make the essential difference. Among the messages there were some from spokesmen for various peace organizations; most, however, came from private individuals. The sincerity of these messages was often manifested by offers of help and support. Housewives offered to seek employment in order to donate their earnings for the projected daily. People in various in- come brackets wished to go on record pledging a percentage of their earnings to the alternative- newspaper. Many individuals, qualified to render skilled journalistic services, offered them without pay or in return for minimum subsistence wages. These included seasoned newspapermen, editors, photo-journalists, accountants, typists and others. An interesting sidelight is thrown upon the frustration of American journalism as a profession. The messages we received from individuals employed by the press sounded apologetic. They expressed unhappiness for, as they put it, "having to" participate in a lie-industry which disgusts them. They welcomed as a personal salvation an opportunity to apply their knowledge to honest journalism. Among these individuals were reporters and writers whose readers would be shocked to learn that the distorting information and the reactionary opinions they read are often written by people who know better and regret "having to" meet publishers" "qualifications."

Another interesting sidelight is that many expressions of support came from rank-and-file members of organizations where no such enthusiasm was forthcoming from the organizations themselves. This demonstrates that at times the bureaucracy of liberal groups becomes so engrossed in self-serving projects as to be less sensitive to the actual needs of peace than are their rank-and-file members.

There are a number of organizations who are still weighing their position on the outlined alternative plan. It would therefore be premature to review the affirmative responses.

Not all responses, however, were affirmative. Those which were not, or those which were theoretically affirmative but in practical terms unconstructive, deserve scrutiny and rebuttal; and their authors should be called upon to re-consider their position.

With one conspicuous exception, virtually all the correspondents, whether individuals or spokesmen for organizations, agreed with the analysis as offered in "For an American Alternative." All except one conceded the existence of a Paper-and-Air-Wave Curtain in this country and conceived of it as the principal obstacle to reversing American global policies onto a peaceful course.

The sole dissenting voice in this regard deserves close attention. It came from the Executive Director of the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy (see "From Readers' Letters," August, 1961 issue of TMO). After emphasizing the personal nature of his response, Dr. Jack not only expressed doubts of the existence of a Paper-and-Air-Wave Curtain, but also unequivocally opposed cooperation with certain, unspecified but alluded-to American peace groups. This position is hardly a surprise. The recent history of certain American peace organizations amply testifies to a sense of values in which a "legitimate public image" takes precedence over their actual pursuit of peace. The degree to which certain liberal groups in America have assimilated the philosophy, once identified as "McCarthyism" (but which did not disappear with McCarthy), is a sad development indeed. Such groups feel that in order to avert damaging campaigns against them, they must make significant concessions to the political tastes of the crusaders of intolerance. This becomes their conjectured insurance policy for organizational survival. Whether they prosper, in the sense of gaining members and financial support, may depend on the attitude of the extreme right towards them rather than on the sincerity of their social purposes. They rationalize that it is necessary for them to make "a few" political compromises to save a "part" of their program. It is utterly unacceptable to them to open themselves to stigmatizing accusations of disloyalty from those who comb the country perpetually searching for forces and individuals to be wrapped in a political taboo.

Adapting themselves to the tastes of the fascist crusaders, the semi-liberal American movements in effect give to the extreme right the power to limit arbitrarily the political range between the American Right and Left. They bring about a social reality in which the McCarthy forces become the co-authors of the "liberal" programs. Were these forces to establish the advocacy of dropping nuclear bombs upon one country or another as the minimal expression of American "patriotism," the adapt- able "liberal" groups would possibly believe themselves compelled to support this "patriotic minimum." Through default of political integrity they bring about a reality in which the can be maneuvered into virtually any position prescribed by the crusaders of intolerance. The extent of their criticism and dissension depends less on their own analysis than on the forces they allegedly oppose.

Such political self-vindication and apologetics lead to internal purges. A man's identification with a specific program no longer suffices for acceptance of his support. What the Eastland-Walter-Hoover forces think of him becomes more important. If they depict him as "un-American," he becomes a liability to the organization no matter how sincerely he may be dedicated to its professed cause. Thus in effect the Eastlands run not only their own inquisitorial committees and vigilante agencies, but also the "liberal" groups.

That the forces of intolerance put up with any degree of dissension and opposition is hardly a concession on their part. On the contrary, as long as they succeed in depriving the "liberal" groups of intellectual independence and political integrity, they view them as an important extension of their own political crusades. Because, in effect, such groups become the absorbers and the neutralizers of potentially militant and radical opposition. They render the opposition controllable. They then fulfill a diversionist role not unlike the "radicalism" of the Moral Rearmament and the Atlantic Union "internationalists." They mislead thousands of concerned individuals and bring them back full circle to support NATO-type bellicosity. I this function these "liberal" groups reach elements who would never have directly followed the lead of war-mongers more candid or aware.

The single but important letter which without embarrassment admitted to "having hesitations to cooperate even for peace," is a part of this psychology. It will not be far-fetched to construe this confession as a preference not to serve peace rather than to serve it by cooperating with "undesirables."

While such groups may indeed be serving their institutional well-being, this kind of "success" is predicated on compromise of the very postulates on which they have emerged on the public scene. It would be naive to expect the war-mongers to sanction any truly effective peace activity.

Obviously, this analysis is not intended for flattery. It is highly possible that it will antagonize those of whom it speaks. Others who will accuse me of lack of diplomacy in this presentation will be perfectly right. There are, however, times and problems in which reality should not be distorted for considerations of public relations. Unless the political apologists within the liberal camp are ready for a revolutionary reversal of their motivational processes, their refusal to support the proposed alternative would be the only true service they could render to it. What is needed is not more emphasis on public relations, but an almost heroic self- search and an almost brutal honesty. The factors that could inspire the mental revolution are present: all that is needed is that these people attempt to assess honestly their present contribution to war prevention. If the facing of this issue does not awaken them, then false courtesy on our part certainly will not.

The responses of certain groups and individuals, who theoretically took an affirmative attitude towards our analysis can be categorized in two main groups: the "Yes-it's-true-but-we-can-do-nothing-about-it" category, and the "Yes-it's-true-and-the-plan-is-categorically-needed-but-