The Charlotte News
Wednesday, August 27, 1941
THREE EDITORIALS
Site Ed. Note: Speaking of freedom of speech, as to the letter from Mr. Taylor re Plymouth Hoe, we find it quite agreeable. His suggestion that the editors' previous note on Ms. Thompson's earlier column was "Puckish" might lead you to believe once again that we somehow peeked ahead on this day's editorials. But yet again, you would be incorrect. We didn't. And if you don't comprehend why we stress that, we can only tell you that it has nothing to do with hockey scores.
Dreams, only dreams.
As to the poem from which he quotes and is then supplemented by the editors, nothing could have been quite so prophetic of events to come. The only thing missing was the date. The letter even mentions Ninevah.
"Implication" examines the fact of the shipment of gasoline en route to Vladivostok to supply the Soviet army in its continuing tenacious fight against the Nazi horde. Until the invasion of Russia on June 22, the Vladivostok portage supplied to the Nazis oil from Mexico via Japanese marus. With that route cut off by the invasion, the Japanese responsibility to the triplice pact was to create havoc in the Pacific, a role it would eventually fulfill.
As the editorials of late in The News indicate, this role was by no means secret. The intended move south by Japan in the Pacific was no secret. But when and in what manner that move would take place was not known. The Japanese duality between the unrestrained military in the field and the head-bowed diplomatic corps had been in prominent display since the attack on the Panay in December, 1937 on the Yangtze River was followed shortly thereafter by an apology. Thus, whether the rumblings about a move in the Pacific were no more than feints or were to be considered likely was anyone's guess. That the attack on Pearl Harbor would come when it did, during the winter lull in Russia as the Nazi siege set in, in hindsight, might seem fairly predictable, as the Soviets were pinned down during this time and were thus incapable of moving east through Siberia to assist the Allies in the Pacific theater against such a prospective move by Japan--the Soviet threat to such a move always having been previously an overriding fear of Japan which had checked its hand. That check was now itself in check by the Nazis, and thus the July 2 usucapient declaration in Japan to go forth and seize the lands of another, a policy now made virtually irreversible by the failure of a quick victory of the Nazis over Russia.
Moreover, as we have previously pointed out, Secretary Morgenthau told President Roosevelt in late November that the Nazi war machine had no more than about six months of oil reserve remaining, suggesting thereby the likelihood of an imminent move somewhere by the Axis for oil, that move most likely being the Japanese to the Dutch East Indies, as the British had fairly thwarted the limited Middle East offensive available to Hitler during the Russian invasion, the springtime concerns that Hitler would move through Turkey into Syria, Iraq and Iran having not come to fruition for British resistance and lack of Nazi manpower to spare. Too much of that manpower was needed for a longer period than originally believed in the now vastly prolonged offensive on Russia, originally predicated on a three to six-week blitz.
Thus, with all of these factors borne in mind by late November, hindsight might suggest that it was even obvious what was about to happen.
But hindsight always affords predictability of the most unpredictable events, especially when the acts causing those events are unthinkably cruel, uncivilized, and criminal in their method of achievement.
The Hugh Johnson piece explores further the mess hall spitting soldier who received a ten-year sentence in the brig for insubordination. Johnson favors commutation of the sentence and criticizes inexperienced commanding officers for the handling of the matter and imposition of the sentence, as he generally echoes, if restrainedly, the sentiment expressed by the War Department of amazement at the sentence for such minor insubordination. Nevertheless, the General goes on to state the obvious: that rigid discipline is crucial to military success, especially in time of war, and that a critical part of that discipline is the willingness to follow orders without question.
We find ourselves in complete agreement with the General's column.
But we also must remind of the following possible state of affairs with regard to the gentlemen and gentle ladies with whom we disagree:
Society itself cannot ever be taken down the road of military discipline, even in time of war, lest it become no better than a totalitarian state. That very road was the one traversed by the Nazis, Fascists and Japanese feudal lords and militarists in the 1930's which led to World War II. While obviously under the conditions prevailing in 1941, certain policies were necessary in the United States to encourage labor to cooperate with national defense and measures imposed en masse had to be sought to conserve critical war supplies, gasoline and aluminum, even then American society was not placed on a mandatory war footing as if under military discipline.
We hope the country will do better than it has done for the last seven years. But change starts with the people, in the individual minds of the people. Such change does not mandate unity of purpose, something which, in truth, has never prevailed in any country in history short of enforcement by means eradicating all freedom. It has certainly never prevailed in this country, even during the height of World War II, myths to the contrary notwithstanding. There are times of relative unity following a major tragedy, but those times last usually no more than a month or two until it's back to the usual expression of varying viewpoint. Democracy is simply not pretty.
But, we suggest that something in this country has profoundly changed in that regard in the last seven years, not that we have become pretty in the meantime. The usual disunity prevails, but there is a grave reluctance to discuss matters, a dangerous reluctance, an unhealthy reluctance, one fueled by the tendency of some people to tell others to shut up and be quiet, or to shout down others or to quash their freedom of speech by ruthless methods, including outright lies to destroy the reputations and livelihoods of those who speak their opinions, a type of chilling activity reminiscent of McCarthyism, simply supplanting some other lie for the "C" word.
Change begins with a recognition that freedom means just that; it is not qualified and parsed by silly lawyers and sillier judges parsing the language of the Bill of Rights.
We stress again that the Bill of Rights is merely a statement of the freedoms which the Founders viewed as most important to stress as being insured against encroachment by the state; but it also expressly intended not to limit freedom by omission of other expressed rights in the document. The Ninth Amendment sets forth the principle: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
When the President or anyone else takes an oath to uphold that Constitution, the oath applies to all of it, not just those portions which grant certain powers to particular branches of government while ignoring the rights of the citizens who also live under that Constitution and subscribe to it either by dint of birthright or by becoming a citizen of the United States.
We hope the new President to be elected in a couple of months will bear it uppermost in mind for the next four years.
We are tired, even exhausted, as a country. Many of us are tired because we perceive that we have few rights left in a country which prides itself on liberty of thought and mind and expression, that we are regularly told to shut up and bear it, the "it" being routine intrusion to our privacy, trampling of our liberties, and the consequent chilling of expression inherent in that intrusive conduct out of fear of reprisal for uttering protest. That is not acceptable.
That browbeaten exhaustion is plain on the faces of the people in the street; it is plain in the absence of smiles among the people in any given crowd. There is little joy in this country at present. There is merely tolerance of a bad situation. The morale of the country is low. Indeed, we have scarcely ever seen it so low for so long, even in time of war in the latter 1960's and early 1970's. Then, people were stirred and despite chilling efforts, were not deterred to act on their stirring emotions and to speak out against things in their midst which were perceived as wrong. Now, it is swept under the rug; one is encouraged to simply shut up and bear it. That, we reiterate, is not acceptable.
The next President steps into an unenviable situation, one with an ongoing, unpopular five and a half year war, where the economy is slipping into steady inflation fueled primarily by unprecedented gas prices, where eight years have passed without an energy policy which breeds optimism for environmental preservation when the very fate of the land and the rest of the world depends on such a policy, when in its stead has been supplanted an unending, opportunistic, falsely-premised war against terrorism to satiate the enthusiastic hunger for armchair excitement possessed by a small minority of very vocal nationalistic individuals running about flapping their jaws ad nauseam while the rest of us are told emphatically to shut up or be arrested or ruined in the effort merely to speak a contrary opinion.
Those things we mention are all possibilities to be examined thoughtfully, we suggest. At the same time, we issue all proper disclaimers as to their application to the last seven years. It might be inappropriate to say otherwise, and we do not wish to do or say anything inappropriate.
In any event, we like the spirit of the Herblock today. We second the motion.
We congratulate the Democrats on an historic first tonight--no, not the nomination of a Harvard-educated lawyer as its Presidential nominee. There are at least two precedents, of which we can readily think, for that. But it is the first time that a former law professor, subsequently a Senator, has been nominated for President by either party. And, we think it bodes well for the country. Indeed, if memory is accurate, there have been only two occasions on which anyone was nominated by either party for the presidency who had already been a professor of higher education of any sort, in 1912 with the nomination of Woodrow Wilson and in 1992 with the nomination of Bill Clinton. Not a bad couple of precedents. (Lyndon Johnson, in his early years after college, had taught high school.)
The Vice-Presidential candidate of the Democrats is also a lawyer, though he has claimed on occasion not to have been the best of law students. In that he has our profound blessing and sympathetic understanding. But, we have evidence over time that he never stopped learning the art of law, and sometimes we know that the more bookish law students graduate and believe they never again need to crack a law book, an error pregnant with negative consequences to the law and society.
It will be refreshing, therefore, should these gentlemen win, once again to have legal knowledge within the executive branch of government.
And, both men being very articulate, we look forward to their convention speeches.
As noted before, it is the first time in the country's history that both major parties have nominated sitting Senators for the presidency, even if in the cases of each of the elections of 1960 through 1972 both candidates were either sitting Senators or former Senators. Since Watergate, the country has primarily elected governors and former governors as our presidents, all presidents save one having come from gubernatorial ranks since the election of 1976; and in that single exception, 1988, the opposing candidate was a sitting governor.
It suggests confirmation of what we have set forth, that the country, in its ultimate wisdom, is tired of the trends before it and seeks some sensible change. We are as off course as a land as the hurricane headed presently for the Gulf and New Orleans, itself emblematic of the course we have taken for eight years. We hope that Hurricane Gustav will dramatically alter its course, as surely as we hope that the next president will dramatically alter the course of this country.
Candidly, we are tired of all the wind and hot air from the gentlemen and gentle ladies on the other side of the issue--those who have wanted to stay the course.
And, as to the query, incidentally, of the supplied heading on the little piece from Winston-Salem regarding young Ms. Jackson's losing her pony to the wheels of an automobile--further confirming the wisdom of the father conveyed from an earlier letter on the page written by his daughter bemoaning the sale of her pony--, we cannot say for certain, but we can report that in the early 1960's there was an eating establishment on Reynolda Road in this burg which purported to purvey that which were ostensibly hamburgers. The establishment was called Chip's--not an awe-inspiring name as it was for a hamburger stand. But, as it turned out to be, we suspect that's where the supplied heading might have found its answer.
We admit that we ate more than a few of them, too. That probably accounts for why we whinny and neigh every now and again--not as it was ostensibly, that is, but as it turned out to be.
Framed Edition
Links-Date -- Links-Subj.