I. The Present Crisis

There is overwhelming evidence that the primary menace to this Republic is not the Soviet military threat, but internal subversion through control of foreign policy and related arm aments programs. World War II demonstrated that domestic policy, particularly in the economic field, can be determined by federal expenditures generated by a great emergency. Revo lutionaries learned that a postwar external crisis would pro vide continued justification for the taxing and spending levels and the stifling economic controls by which they hoped to de stroy the American free enterprise system. Earl Browder, who headed the American Communist Party for fifteen years, declared in 1950 that socialism had progressed farther in the United States than in Great Britain, which was ruled by a socialist government from 1945 to 1951.1 Most of the 33,927,549 Americans who voted for Eisenhower in 1952 undoubtedly hoped to stem the tide of collectivism in this coun try. There was no basic disagreement between the Republican and Democratic candidates on foreign policy. Republican cam paign orators concentrated their attacks on the communist in filtration of the government, the drift to national socialism, centralization of power in Washington, corruption in public 1. Earl Browder, Keynes, Foster and Marx (1950).

2 THE TWENTY-YEAR REVOLUTION office, the "bloated bureaucracy," profligate spending, exces sive taxation, etc. They promised to halt the march of statism, and on that issue they won a landslide victory. The hopes of the people have been frustrated. There has been no change in our foreign and military policies, which account for seven eighths of the federal budget. The state department still is dominated by holdovers from the Marshall and Acheson regimes, which betrayed China to communism and involved the United States in a disastrous lost war in Korea. The Eisenhower administration's foreign and military policies are indistinguish able from those which produced the present crisis except that even greater global commitments have been made. The Communists and their Marxist cousins, the Socialists, have worked for revolution since the advent of the New Deal twenty-one years ago by infiltrating government offices, labor unions, schools and colleges, churches, radio and television, the movies, the publishing business. They have advanced their program not only by policy subversion, but by thought perver sion on a national scale. The Communist cause has been aided and abetted by a vast penumbra of fellow travelers, witting, un witting and witless dupes, false liberals and left "intellectuals,"

sometimes called the not-so-very-intelligentsia; by world..savers who would bankrupt America to aid foreign countries; by pro moters of world government or federation schemes, who would submerge American sovereignty in some supra-national author ity or subvert the Constitution by treaty lawmaking through the United Nations; and by generals and admirals in the Penta gon who exaggerate the Soviet military menace to support their demands for stupendous appropriations for armaments. This book will attempt to show what has happened to America in twenty years of revolution, what perils confront us and what we should do to avert them. The menace of this creeping revolution was perceived and expressed with extraordinary clarity by General of the Army Douglas MacArthur in a speech at Jackson, Mississippi, .on March 22, 1952. "It becomes increasingly clear," he said, "that the pattern of American fiscal policy is being brought into conTHE PRESENT CRISIS 3 sonance with the Karl Marx. communist theory that through a division of the existing wealth mankind will be brought to a universal standard of life-a degree of mediocrity to which the Communists and their fellow travelers seek to reduce the peo ple of this great nation.

"Whether it be by accident or design, such policy, formu lated with reckless indifference to the preservation of consti tutionalliberty and our free enterprise economy, coupled with rapid centralization of power in the hands of a few, is lead ing us toward a communist state with as dreadful certainty as though the leaders of the Kremlin themselves were charting our course." In another speech, General MacArthur declared: "Talk of imminent threat to our national security through the applica tion of external force is pure nonsense.... Indeed, it is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an in cessant propaganda of fear. While such an economy may pro duce a sense of seeming prosperity for the moment, it rests on an illusionary foundation of complete unreliability and renders among our political leaders almost a greater fear of peace than is their fear of war."

The implications of these charges, made by the nation's most distinguished military leader, are shocking. Lest it be 'suspected that General MacArthur was motivated solely by resentment against President Truman, who removed him from command ,in the Far East, the following quotation shows that his view of the use of the cold war to promote revolutionary objectives is acknowledged by a leading Marxist theoretician. In an essay appearing in the Nation of New York, on December 16,1950, Richard H. Crossman, Labor Party member of the British Par liament and assistant editor of the socialist New Statesman and Nation, declared: "We are coming to realize in Britain that the cold war is not merely an unfortunate mishap caused by mistakes of diplo macy on both sides or a struggle between rival imperialisms.

4 THE TWENTY-YEAR REVOLUTION Essentially, it is a struggle of ideas, in which free enterprise is not the protagonist on the western side but the chief obstacle to our victory. Every American action which has been success ful in resisting communism has been carried out in defiance of the principles which actuate American business. Marshall aid became a magnificent if involuntary precedent for international cooperation because the Americans who ran it applied to Eu ropean recovery methods of social planning which are anathe ma to most business men; and if our military defenses are to be adequately strengthened this will only be done by once again. violating every principle of competitive free enterprise and capi talist economics. "The cold war in fact is not only a menace but a creative force. If the Fair Dealer and the Socialist understand their job, the cold war will enable us to reconstruct the noncommunist world in a way that would have been totally impossible had the Russians been willing to work with us peacefully in 1945.

Russian collaboration at that time would certainly have pre cipitated a world slump and removed any possibility of the American aid which has provided so many of the physical re sources for the British socialist experiment." The writings of the late dictator Stalin make it clear that Soviet strategy contemplates the use of military force to over throw the American stronghold of capitalism only after a "revo lutionary crisis" has developed in this country. Meanwhile the Kremlin hopes to develop world revolution by communist sub versive activity in the noncommunist countries, and by apply ing pressure all around the 25,000 mile periphery of the Soviet Union, thereby inducing the United States to dissipate its re sources and spend itself into bankruptcy. In Problems of Lenin ism, of which millions of copies have been distributed through out the Soviet Union, Stalin said the "victorious proletariat"

of Russia should raise revolts against the capitalists of other countries and even come out with armed force "in the event of necessity." The primary emphasis is on revolutionary activity, and armed force is to be used in a final struggle with the United States only THE PRESENT CRISIS 5 if this becomes necessary. Addressing the American commis sion of the executive committee of the Communist Interna tional, on May 6,1929, Stalin declared, "When a revolutionary crisis develops in America, that will be the beginning of the end of world capitalism· as a whole." Stalin referred to the "sharpening antagonism between Amer ica. a.nd Hngla.nd, the struggle for ma.rkets a.nd ra.w ma.teria.ls and, finally, the colossal growth of armaments" as portents of an approaching crisis of world capitalism. The world-wide de pression of the early 1930's did not develop into a revolutionary crisis, but Stalin's words seem to reflect the present world situa tion more than that of 1929. At all events, he called for com munist revolutionary activity, not a military attack, to hasten the crisis of capitalism. "I think, comrades, that the American Communist Party is one of those few Communist Parties in the world upon which history has laid tasks of a decisive character from the point of view of the world revolutionary movement,"

Stalin said. In his radio report to the nation on the budget and taxes, last May 19th, President Eisenhower acknowledged that the United States faces "more than merely a military threat." "It has been coldly calculated by the Soviet leaders-by their military threat, they have hoped to force upon America and the free world an unbearable security burden leading to eco nomic disaster," the President declared. "They have plainly said that free people cannot preserve their way of life and at the same time provide enormous military establishments ..Com munist guns, in this sense, have been aiming at an economic target no less than a military target. . . . Prolonged inflation could be as destructive of a truly free economy as could a chemi cal attack against an army in the field. If, in today's continuing danger, we ever were to strain our capacity until rigid govern mental controls indefinitely or permanently continued, became mandatory, where then would our freedom be?"

Having recognized the gravity of the fiscal peril, what did the President propose to do about it? Elected on repeated pledges 6 THE TWENTY-YEAR REVOLUTION to reduce spending and taxes-and in one speech he used the word "now"2-Eisenhower proposed expenditures of 74.1 bil lion dollars in the 1954 fiscal year and declared that present conditions would permit no reduction in taxes. He proposed to spend thirty billion dollars more than Truman spent in fiscal year 1951, during all of which the United States was at war in Korea. He recommended an outlay of six billion dollars more than the total spent by President Franklin Roosevelt in the first eight years of his administration. The extent to which foreign and military policies dominate the taxing and.spending program was recognized by President Eisenhower when he attributed eighty-eight per cent of the total budget to the cost of wars and war preparations. The President announced this fact, however, as a challenge to those who would reduce taxing and spending. The same percentage of the budget was devoted to the same purpose in 1952, when Eisenhower was campaigning for the presidency on a promise to reduce tax ing and spending substantially.

The President proposed to spend 43.2 billion dollars in the 1954 fiscal year for national defense. Although the admirals and generals dutifully assured Congress that such an enormous outlay was required by the military situation, they contradicted their own testimony. General Alfred M. Gruenther, new su preme commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces, declared in Paris on May 18, 1953, that he did not fore see a third world war. General Matthew B. Ridgway, retiring commander of the NATO forces and new Army Chief of Staff, questioned by members of the House Foreign Affairs Commit tee on May 18, acknowledged that Russian divisions, airplanes, and tanks numbered about the same as they did in 1947. The President's State Secretary, John Foster Dulles, had told a press conference at the United Nations on March 9 that the death of Stalin ushered in a new "Eisenhower era" of universal brotherhood and peace. "A new era begins, one in which the guiding spirit is liberty, not enslavement, and when human re2. Madison Square Garden, October 30, 1952.

THE PRESENT CRISIS 7 lations will be those of fraternity, not one-man domination," said Dulles. "Then, in the words of our Charter preamble, the nations, large and small, may come to enjoy equal rights and dignity and peace." As recently as March, 1950, General Omar N. Bradley, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Senate appropria tions subcommittee that 13 billion dollars was enough for the national defense budget of the next fiscal year. This was before the Korean war but after President Truman had announced the first atomic explosion in the Soviet Union. Bradley emphasized that the strength of the country depended upon its industrial capacity, and said this should not be destroyed by excessive spending. "So, if we came here and recommended to you a 30 or 40 billion dollar budget for defense, I think we would be do ing a disservice and that maybe you should get a new chairman of the joint chiefs of staff if I were the one who did that," Brad ley said. The 13 billion dollar budget defended by Bradley in 1950 had been prepared in 1949, when General Eisenhower acted as unofficial chairman of the joint chiefs. Having declared in 1950 that any chairman who recommended a 40 billion dol lar defense budget should be fired, Bradley, as chairman, helped prepare the 43.2 billion dollar defense budget recommended by Eisenhower in 1953.

Just before the first session of the 83rd Congress adjourned, Eisenhower confirmed the worst fears of American conserva tives regarding his spending policies by requesting an increase in the statutory debt ceiling from 275 billion to 290 billion dol lars. This measure, passed by the house with little opposition from the Republicans, was rejected by the Senate Finance Committee, thanks largely to the sanity and courage of Sena tor Harry F. Byrd (D., Va.). The annual interest cost of the federal debt is nearing 7 billion dollars, which is almost as much as the total cost of the government in the early years of the Roosevelt administration. In its issue of August 14, the authoritative U. S. News and World Report commented ominously: "You can be sure of this: 8 THE TWENTY-YEAR REVOLUTION An Eisenhower administration will embrace most of the New Deal; will involve little shift away from big government. Big spending will go on. Debt will grow not decline. Taxes will stay high.... Foreign policy will follow the Truman Acheson line. . . . What Eisenhower is going for is a government sup ported economy. Government will undertake to assure con tinuing prosperity. There's to be no ditching of the New Deal, no strong shift away from the developing trend toward state capitalism. . . ."

The success already achieved by this encroaching revolution is probably not realized by many Americans. In a period of "seeming prosperity," even when it rests upon an "illusionary" foundation of armaments spending, as General MacArthurob served, the people don't worry much about taxes, debt and in flation-until it is too late. According to the September, 1953, monthly economic letter of the National City Bank, business activity was being well sustained by high levels of employment, incomes, retail trade and construction. Yet the danger signals were plainly visible. According to studies made by the Tax Foundation-a highly respected research organization headed by Roswell Magill, former Undersecretary of the Treasury-a married man with two children whose income before taxes was $2,000 in 1939 would have to make $4,200 now to be exactly as well off. Other income increases required to maintain the 1939 standard of living are shown in the following table: 1939 $5,000 $8,000 $15,000 $25,000 $100,000 1952 $11,641 $19,760 $44,384 $96,447 $1,005,381 According to the Tax Foundation, a family making $86.54 a week pays $1,494 a year in direct and indirect taxes. This is more than one-third of the family's total income. Here are the taxes paid: THE PRESENT CRISIS 9 Federal income tax $ 446 State and local income tax. . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Sales and excise taxes . . . . . . . •. . . . . . . 378 "Hidden" taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354 Cost of social insurance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Direct and indirect property taxes. . . . . . 144 Estate, gift and inheritance taxes. . . . . . . 4 Total. $1,494 Colin Clark, distinguished Australian economist who has studied the problem of taxation and inflation in France, Britain, Germany, Italy, the Scandinavian countries, Japan, and the United States, has concluded that "25 per cent of the national income is about the limit for taxation in any non-totalitarian community in times of peace." According to the Tax Founda tion, federal, state and local taxes in the United States were 31.2 per cent of the national income in the calendar year 1952.

The national income and tax figures for the calendar years 1950-1952 are shown in the following table: 1950 1951 1952 MILLIONS National Income $239,170 $277,554 $290,400 Tax receipts, Total 67,747 84,565 90,500 Federal 50,311 65,684 70,500 State and Local 17,436 18,881 20,000 Tax receipts as percent of national income (total) 28.3 30.5 31.2 Federal 21.0 23.7 24.3 State and Local 7.3 6.8 6.9 According to Clark, "it is very widely understood that if a government incurs very heavy expenditures, and these are not covered by taxation, and the government runs at a deficit, the automatic result will be an inflationarytrend. It is not so gen erally understood that if a government incurs very heavy ex penditures, and these are covered by taxation, so that the bud get is balanced, the trend-while it may be deflationary for a 10 THE TWENTY-YEAR REVOLUTION time-will in the long run be toward inflation if the rate of tax ation is too high to be borne.

"The 'long run' in this case is probably a period of two or three years, though this may depend on the nature of the emer gency; in wartime it may be longer."3 But President Eisenhower appears to be a prisoner of revo lutionary forces which are beyond his power of resistance if not comprehension. His training and experience in military command and staff procedures certainly did not qualify him to contend with·the transcendent political problems now con fronting him, problems which would challenge the statesman ship of a Lincoln. The President's innocence in political and governmental affairs was demonstrated in his campaign year, when he airily announced that government expenditures ought to be reduced by 40 billion dollars a year. His major appointments portended a continuation of the for eign and military policies of the Roosevelt and Truman admin istrations. These were the most significant: 1. State Secretary Dulles. Like Eisenhower himself, Dulles had been an advocate of the New Deal-Fair Deal foreign pol icy and could not attack it too vigorously without knocking himself out. He had served the State Department as an adviser and representative at international conferences from 1945 to 1952. Moreover, Secretary Dulles, who was given responsibil ity for the elimination of communist influences from the State Department, had been a colleague, a patron, and a dupe of the traitor Alger Hiss. As chairman of the board of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, he selected Hiss, who had resigned from the State Department under fire from Congress, as president of the organization at a salary of $20,000 a year.

When a Detroit lawyer wrote to Dulles, offering to produce evidence that Hiss had a "provable communist record," Dulles contemptuously rejected the offer. 2. Harold Stassen, foreign operations administrator. Stassen 3. "The Danger Point in Taxes," Harper's (December, 1950).

THE PRESENT CRISIS 11 had distinguished himself in 1947 by out-Wallacing Henry Wal lace. Whereas Wallace had proposed to give a quart of milk a day to every Hottentot, Stassen advocated a ten-year give-away program of 10 per cent of our total production of goods and food. At the current production rate, this would amount to more than 20 billion dollars a year, or more than 200 billion dollars for a decade. Stassen also manifested his capacity for global statesmanship at San Francisco on April 14, 1945, when he was a member of the American delegation to the United Na tions Charter conference.·With no irony intended, he proposed that the late President Roosevelt be acclaimed posthumously as "President emeritus of the United Nations world." 3. James B. Conant, High Commissioner to Germany. Dr. Conant, former president of Harvard University and a zealous New Dealer, had supported the communist-inspired Morgen thau plan to destroy Germany's industry and thereby facilitate Soviet domination of all Europe.

4. General Walter Bedell Smith, Undersecretary of State for policymaking. Smith, a protege of General George C. Marshall, was Secretary of the General Staff when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. When decoded Japanese messages heralding im mediate war reached the War Department on the night of De cember 6, Smith, a colonel, was urged by two other colonels to notify General Marshall at once. He refused and was repri manded by an army board of inquiry, which found that action by the War Department would have been sufficient to alert the Hawaiian command on the afternoon (Hawaii time) before the Japanese attack on the morning of December 7.4 5. Walter S. Robertson, Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern affairs. Robertson was a member of the notorious China mission headed by General Marshall from the end of 1945 until January, 1947, which was inspired by Communists and im measurably aided the communist conquest of China, accord ing to a report of the Senate Internal SecuritySubcommittee.

Robertson was in charge of the Peiping executive headquarters 4. George Morgenstern, Pearl Harbor.

12 THE TWENTY-YEAR REVOLUTION of the Marshall mission, which sought to integrate eighteen Chinese Communist divisions into Chiang Kai-shek's army.5 If he saw anything wrong with this plan -at the time, he neither resigned nor expressed any opposition to it. 6. Henry A. Byroade, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern, South Asian, and African affairs. Byroade, a West Pointer and a temporary brigadier general during the war, is another Marshall protege. He was operations officer at the Pei ping executive headquarters of the Marshall China mission. He became Assistant Secretary for the crucial Middle East, a major center of Soviet interest, under Dean Acheson's regime in the State Department. 7. Charles E. (Chip) Bohlen, ambassador to Moscow. Boh len, a career foreign service officer, is a graduate of the New Deal appeasement school of diplomacy. He faithfully served President Roosevelt at Teheran and Yalta and President Tru man at Potsdam; and when the Senate Foreign Relations Com mittee questioned him he refused to repudiate the wartime sellouts to Stalin.

8. Winthrop W. Aldrich, former board chairman of the Chase National Bank, ambassador to Great Britain. Aldrich, an honorary Knight of the British Empire, and one of the fore most Anglophiles in the United States, received his appoint ment as a reward for heavy financial support of the Eisenhower candidacy. Addressing the English Speaking Union in London on April 1, 1953, he humbly apologized because the United States did not plunge into both world wars at the beginning. He expressed profound regret that Britain was "left standing heroically alone," and promised that the United States will be in the next war when it starts. 9. Henry Cabot Lodge, chief of the United States delegation to the United Nations. Lodge, aNew Deal internationalist Re publican, was defeated in the 1952 election. Shortly after tak ing up his .duties at the U.N. he made a speech in French on the U.N. radio, declaring that French soldiers in Indochina and Americans in Korea were fighting for the same purpose. Hun5. United States Relations with China, Department of State (1949).

THE PRESENT CRISIS 13 dreds of ,millions of Asians must have regarded -this as confir mation of the communist charge that "American imperialists" were fighting to colonize Korea. It is known throughout Asia, as well as in France, that the French in Indochina are fighting not for altruistic reasons but to retain French colonial interests there. President Eisenhower's appointment of General Ridgway as Army Chief of Staff confirmed his continued reliance upon the ground warfare concept of the North Atlantic Treaty Organ ization (NATO) to deter or resist Soviet aggression. General Ridgway had succeeded General Eisenhower as NATO Com mander in Chief. The most appalling aspect of the NATO program is that it contemplates a land invasion of Russia in the event of war. This strategy was clearly expressed by General Bradley, for years the Pentagon's leading spokesman on defense policy, in a speech at Boston on February 4, 1949. General Bradley pro posed "a strategy that can defend our shores, aid our allies, and preserve a foothold from which to strike the aggressor in his homeland." While the enemy -is flooding -neighboring states, he said, "we must commit ourselves unreservedly to the preserva tion of a springboard for an eventual climactic ground attack."

He added: "However crippling air attack can be, I am con vinced beyond any reasonable doubt that should this nation be forced into still another conflict, we shall once more be forced to gain the inevitable victory over our dead bodies-those of our soldiers on the ground." Clearly he was talking about preserving a "springboard" in western Europe for an invasion of Russia. He was talking about gaining "the inevitable victory" over the dead bodies of our soldiers in the "homeland" of the Soviet Union. Napoleon tried that with an army the world had deemed invincible, and left the bodies of his soldiers on the frozen Russian steppes. Hitler tried it with 220 divisions, and failed to take Moscow. B. H. Liddell-Hart, distinguished English military analyst" once wrote that "over 2,000 years of experience tells us that the only thing 14 THE TWENTY-YEAR REVOLUTION harder than getting a new idea into the military mind is to get an old one out." Apparently General Bradley has a military mind.

NATO has some 25 so-called active divisions, some of which are understrength and poorly equipped, and 25 reserve divi sions, some of which would require several months for com mitment to battle. In the absence of a German national army, the creation of which would alienate the French and wreck NATO, French divisions must constitute the backbone of any western European defense force. The following excerpt from an interview with Major General J. F. C. Fuller, published in the U. S. News and World Report of November 7, 1952, shows what this renowned British authority on modern warfare thinks about the French: Q. "Isn't France strong enough to become a bulwark for the West?" A. "Absolutely not. At this time, France is an actualliabil ity. A truly prudent commander, with advanced forces in Ger many, would have to earmark several divisions to protect his lines of communication through France. There is too much danger of communist disruption and sabotage."

Q."Can France become strong within a reasonable time?" A. "I am pessimistic about that. It's been about 100 years, away back in the Crimean war, since France had genuine mili tary vitality. Ever since 1870 the French have been slipping in terms of stability and power." Italy, the southern anchor of NATO, in 1953 voted 35 per cent communist, which is a measure of its military potential in case of war with Russia. The Communists actually increased their percentage of the popular vote from 31.3 in 1948 to 35.3 in 1953, despite billions of dollars of American aid under the Marshall and mutual security plans. This, then, is the crisis in which we find ourselves. We are governed by an administration that, like its predecessors, is committed to a program of astronomical taxing and spending THE PRESENT CRISIS 15 and to the military and foreign policies which purport to justify that program. How did we get this administration?

In the last four presidential elections the people have had no opportunity to pass judgment on these vital issues. Lincoln was indubitably right when he said you cannot fool all the people all the time. The American people have not been de ceived.They have been robbed. They have been effectivelydis franchised on an issue of such magnitude that other questions are relatively insignificant. Eastern seaboard· internationalists, heedless of George Washington's advice against interweaving our destiny with Europe to which they are bound by financial, cultural, emotional, and social ties, have eliminated foreign policy from the last four national elections by controlling the nominating conventions of both major parties. Control of the Democratic conventions by the internationalists was assured in each election year by the presence of an internationalist Demo crat in the White House. Control of the Republican Party, which is predominantly non-interventionist west of the Alle gheny mountains, was achieved with the aid of the Democrats by means of Trojan Horse tactics.

While there has been some half-hearted shadow boxing about foreign relations in the last four presidential campaigns, no candidate of either major party has challenged the basic inter nationalist contention that the defense of the United States is dependent upon European nations which are too weak or too indifferent to defend themselves, and that to retain the friend ship of our European "allies" we must support them, economic ally, militarily, and in crises by going to war. In 1940, the internationalists captured the Republican nomi nation with Wendell Willkie, a former registered Democrat who had been active in New York's Tammany hall. In 1952, the same forces captured the Republican nomination with Dwight D. Eisenhower, who had been a Democratic precinct worker as a youth in Kansas and was a self-declared Republican only since January, 1952. The Republican conventions of 1944 and 1948 presented 16 THE TWENTY-YEAR REVOLUTION no problem for the internationalists, since there was no strong opposition within the party in those years to the nomination of Governor Thomas E. Dewey of New York. Dewey, a former non-interventionist, had been converted early in the war not only to internationalism but to New Dealism as well, and could be relied upon to conduct a harmless "me, too" campaign.

The pre-convention campaigns for Willkie and Eisenhower and the candidates themselves were remarkably similar. Both candidates were political amateurs who had never sought pub lic office. Little was known about Willkie's views on public questions except that he strongly favored intervention in the European war, as did Roosevelt. Little was known about Eisen hower's views except that he eagerly supported the Roosevelt Truman foreign policy. Neither candidate was thought to have strong convictions or great intellectual power, but each was credited with glamor and personal magnetism. To create the illusion of rock-ribbed Republicanism, Willkie was billed as a Hoosier and Eisenhower as a Kansan, although both men lived and voted in New York. The same Republican faction of eastern internationalists engineered the drive for both nominations. The .same finan cial interests,centered in Wall Street, contributed money to the Willkie and Eisenhower campaigns. The same newspa pers, magazines, advertising agencies, columnists, Broadway and Hollywood actors, Park Avenue and cafe society lead ers, and "liberal" propaganda groups whooped it up for both candidates.

The doctrine that knavery is the best defense against a knave is ascribed by Plutarch to the philosopher Zeno. This was the principle on which Roosevelt and Willkie conducted their cam paign. With audacious contempt for the intelligence of the peo ple, these two merry charlatans, who completely understood and secretly admired each other, competed for the pro-war vote by promising more and more aid to Britain, and for the antiwar vote by accusing each other of a purpose to lead the country into war. Each candidate reiterated that he could be trusted to THE PRESENT CRISIS 17 keep the country out of the conflict, while his opponent could not. After the election, Roosevelt told Miss Perkins: "You know, he is a very fine fellow. He has lots of talent. I want to use him somehow."6 Willkie promptly repudiated his "campaign ora tory" and was happy to be used as an instrument of Roosevelt's war interventionplans.

Eisenhower had never been regarded as a Republican until the eastern internationalists began looking around for a candi date who could be depended upon, if elected, to continue the Roosevelt-Truman foreign policy. Although he is a native of Texas, his parents moved to Abilene, Kansas, when he was a year old. Before going away to West Point, he took part in local politics as a Democrat. A speech he made in support of Demo cratic candidates is extant and was printed during the 1952 campaign. In Washington before and during the war his closest friends were New Dealers and White House cronies such as Harry Hopkins, Steve Early, and George E. Allen. His closest political adviser is his brother Milton, a former official of the Department of Agriculture, whose views were highly esteemed by Professor Rexford Guy Tugwell, one of the revolutionary men in the New Deal. President Truman certainly had no doubt that Eisenhower was a Democrat. Eisenhower himself relates in his book Crusade in Europe that while they were riding in an automobile during the Potsdam conference in 1945, the President suddenly turned to him and said: "General, there is nothing that you may want that I won't try to help you get. That definitely and specifically includes the presidency in 1948."

In 1948, Eisenhower was favored for the Democratic nomi nation instead of President Truman by Americans for Demo cratic Action, the party's extreme left wing. The ADA and the CIO-PAC collaborated in the production and distribution of a million pamphlets calling for the nomination and election of Eisenhower as a Democrat. As late as January, 1952, after 6. Frances Perkins, The Roosevelt I Knew.

18 THE TWENTY-YEAR REVOLUTION Eisenhower had proclaimed himself a Republican, Truman wistfully averred that he had always believed the general was a Democrat. The campaign to capture the 1952 nomination for Eisen hower was launched at a meeting of Wall Street bankers and New York Republican leaders in the board room of the Chase National Bank on August 28, 1950. Aldrich rushed back from a vacation trip and called the meeting after Governor Dewey had declared that he would not be a candidate for re-election in the following November. Present at the meeting, besides Al drich and other New York bankers, were Herbert Brownell, Dewey's 1948 campaign manager; Thomas J. Curran, New York County Republican chairman; Carl Hallauer, a member of the Republican state committee; Norman Gould, of Seneca Falls, an upstate Republican leader, and Frank E. Gannett, of Rochester, owner of an upstate newspaper chain. Gannett was supporting the candidacy of Joe R. Hanley, lieutenant gover nor, for governor. Aldrich and others present told Gannett that it was "imperative" to draft Dewey for the governorship race.

They urged him to withdraw his support from Hanley, and bluntly warned him that Hanley, if nominated, could expect no financial support from Wall Street. Details of this meeting were published by the New York Times on August 31, 1950, and were confirmed by one of the Republican leaders present in a letter to this writer. Aldrich's purpose in "drafting" Dewey for re-election as gov ernor was made clear a few weeks later when Dewey, on Octo ber 15, declared himself out of the 1952 presidential race and announced his support of General Eisenhower for the Republi can nomination. The bankers were looking forward to 1952 and were taking no chances on losing control of the New York delegation, which has 96 votes in the Republican national con vention. Accordingly they induced Dewey to run for re-elec tion. Gannett refused to withdraw his support from the unfortunate Hanley, but Dewey himself took care of that detail. On THE PRESENT CRISIS 19 September 5, 1950, Hanley wrote an anguished letter to W.

Kingsland Macy, Suffolk county Republican chairman, declar ing that he had agreed, at Dewey's behest, to withdraw from the governorship race and run for the Senate instead. Hanley said he had received "certain unalterable and unquestionably definite propositions" from Dewey, whereby he would be able to "clean up my financial obligations within 90 days." He said he had "an iron-clad, unbreakable agreement" whereby he would receive a good state job if defeated for the Senate. Fi nally, he declared that he was "humiliated, disappointed and heartsick," but was obliged to accept Dewey's proposition. The New York Times reported that Hanley owed $30,000 to Gannett and Macy. Representative Walter A. Lynch, the Democratic candidate for governor, charged that $70,000 was involved. Lynch accused Dewey of committing a "nefarious crime" by giving the 74-year-old Hanley "a real third degree treatment in the pay-off suite of the Roosevelt hotel." He said Dewey put the old man through mental "torture" from. 10:00 P.M. to 4:00 A.M.

A provision of the New York penal code made it a felony, punishable by two years in prison, for any person "who, while holding public office ... corruptly uses or promises to use, di rectly or indirectly, any official authority or influence . . . in order to secure any nomination ... or makes, tenders, or offers to procure, or cause any nomination or appointment for any public officeor place." After Hanley's defeat, Dewey gave him a job as counsel to the New York state veterans' bureau at $16,000 a year. Truman and other Democrats favored Eisenhower for the Republican nomination because of their confidence tnat he would continue the New Deal-Fair Deal foreign policy and their fear that Senator Taft would liquidate it. Democratic leaders openly urged members of their party to go into the Republican primaries and vote for Eisenhower, particularly in New Hampshire and New Jersey, and thousands of them did so. In Texas the Democrats swarmed into the Republican 20 THE TWENTY-YEAR REVOLUTION primary conventions, took over the proceedings and elected members of their own party as Republicans for Eisenhower.

In some districts the Republicans, who favored Taft's nomi nation, called separate conventions and elected members of their party as Taft Republicans. In disputes over delegates from Texas, Georgia, and Louisi ana, the Eisenhower managers raised a fake moral issue which was resolved by unseating more than 50 Taft delegates and replacing them with Eisenhower supporters. On the eve of the national convention, which met in Chicago on July 7, Dewey induced 23 of 25 Republican governors attending a confer ence in Houston to sign a manifesto calling on the convention not to permit contested delegations to vote in delegate con tests. It was essential, the manifesto declared, for the nominee to enter the campaign with "clean hands." When he arrived in Chicago, the New York governor, whose own hands bore the stains of the Hanley deal, ordered his supporters to picket Taft's headquarters bearing placards inscribed with the words of the Eighth Commandment: "Thou Shalt Not Steal."

The pro-Eisenhower New York Times reported that a large number of New York delegates threatened to defy Dewey's leadership and support Taft. How Dewey suppressed that re bellion was told by the Alsop brothers, in the pro-Eisenhower New York Herald-Tribune. They said Dewey reminded the delegation at its first Chicago meeting that he would be gover nor for two and a half more years and that he had a "long memory." They reported that in private talks Dewey was some what blunter in threatening the dissident delegates with the loss of their livelihood. "That way he held New York as an almost monolithic solid front against Senator Taft," said the Alsops. Meanwhile New York banks, connected with the country's great corporations by financial ties and interlocking director ates, exerted their powerful influence on the large uncommitted delegations for Eisenhower. They did it more subtly, but no less effectively, than in 1940 when they captured the Republi can convention for Willkie. Having made enormous profits out of foreign aid and armaments orders, the bankers and corporaTHE PRESENT CRISIS 21 tion bosses understood each other perfectly. The Wall Street in fluence was most fruitful in the Pennsylvania delegation, which gave Eisenhower 53 of its 70 votes, and in that of Michigan, with 46 votes of which Eisenhower received 35. Eisenhower had set himself up as a "no deal" candidate and had been mak ing pietistical speeches about public "morality." It transpired, however, that some high powered deals were made. Arthur Summerfield, Michigan's national committeeman and the larg est Chevrolet dealer in the world, was rewarded for his de livery of the bulk of the Michigan delegation by appointment as Eisenhower's campaign manager and later as his Postmaster General. Charles E. Wilson, president of the General Motors Corporation, which had strong influence in the Michigan dele gation, became Secretary of Defense. Aldrich, the front man for Wall Street, was in Chicago pulling wires for Eisenhower, and his labors paid off with an appointment as ambassador to Great Britain.

The Eisenhower high command made a deal early in the convention with Senator Richard Nixon of California which turned out to be the decisive factor in Eisenhower's nomination. California's 70 delegates were instructed for Governor Earl Warren, but Eisenhower could win the nomination without them if he could take 50 odd Texas, Louisiana, and Georgia delegates away from Taft. Nixon was promised the vice presi dential nomination if California would vote to unseat the Taft delegates and replace them with Eisenhower supporters. Nix on's agreement to swing the California delegation to Eisen hower in the dispute over the southern delegates was not a violation of his pledge to Warren, for California still gave War ren its 70 votes. However, the deal accomplished Eisenhower's nomination and cooked Warren's goose. Although the national committee and the credentials com mittee' which seated the Taft delegates, had heard the evidence and the full convention had not, the convention overruled the decisions of those two regularly constituted party organs and gave Eisenhower 14 of Georgia's 17 delegates, 13 of Louisi ana's 15, and 33 of Texas' 38. All of this was done in professed 22 THE TWENTY-YEAR REVOLUTION observance of the Biblical injunction: "Thou Shalt Not Steal!"

When the roll of states was called, Eisenhower received 614 votes, 10 more than he needed for the nomination. Stolen or not, the delegates he took from Taft put him over. Arthur Krock, Washington correspondent of the New York Times, reported from Chicago on July 9: "The observation has been made here that a majority of these delegates vastly prefer Taft to Eisenhower as their national candidate, and this is prob ably true." Such minority control of the Republican nominating con ventions has deprived the American people of the opportunity to redirect the course of the United States government. Presi dent Eisenhower, elected on the promise of "a change at Wash ington," is continuing policies and programs which the people opposed at the polls and which, if not arrested, will destroy America.