For example, the Birch Society appears to advocate the denial of constitutional rights by force and openly seeks to substitute some other form of society for existing democratic forms; to it democracy is “merely a deceptive phrase, a weapon of demagoguery, and a perpetual fraud.” Three of the best known radical right groups are predicated on secrecy: the Birch Society keeps its members secret; Hargis, head of the Christian Crusade, has announced plans for a secret fraternity with Greek letters; and the Minutemen which conduct guerilla warfare maneuvers also keeps its members secret. Then, too, Birch operates on a monolithic or totalitarian system within the organization and other radical right groups may also so operate. These organizations have succeeded in promoting disaffection and, as in the case of General Walker, outright rebellion in the Army. There would thus appear to be adequate grounds for holding a hearing on one or more of these organizations to determine whether they should be listed.
It might therefore be advisable for the Attorney General to announce at this time that he is going to investigate one or more of these organizations with a view to determining whether charges will be filed and hearings held on the questions of listing one or more of these organizations. The mere act of indicating that an investigation will be made will certainly bring home to many people something they have never considered—the subversive character of these organizations and their similarity to the listed groups on the left. To make this announcement before the hearings of the Armed Services Committee on the muzzling of General Walker might well be an additional way to take the offensive against Senator Thurmond and the radical right.
It is not known the extent to which the Federal Bureau of Investigation has planted undercover agents inside the radical right movement as it has inside the Communist Party and its allied organizations. If it has already done so, the information would be readily available upon which to draw up charges for a hearing against one or more of the radical right groups. If the Bureau has not as yet infiltrated these organizations, a longer time will of course be necessary to obtain the information for the charges, although much of the needed information for the charges is available through public sources.
In any event, the announcement of the investigation would have an immediate salutary effect and the later announcement of the hearing or hearings might have an even greater one. It is not unlikely that these groups will refuse information and otherwise act towards the Attorney General’s procedures just exactly as the Communists have acted in the past. Nothing could better reveal to the public the true nature of these groups than defiant resistance to their government.
3. The flow of big money to the radical right should be damned to the extent possible.
The growing power of radical right propagandists and groups is directly related to their expanind ability to secure large sums of money. As funds are a source of power to the radical right, action to dam up these funds may be the quickest way to turn the tide now running in their favor.
Benson’s National Education Program, Schwarz’ Christian Anti-Communist Crusade, Hargis’ Christian Crusade and William Volker Fund, Inc. are among the radical right groups which are reported to have federal tax exemptions. It would appear highly doubtful, to say the least, that any or all these groups properly qualifies for a federal tax exemption. Prompt revocation in a few cases might scare off a substantial part of the big money now flowing into these tax exempt organizations.*
* An additional suggestion in this regard might be considered. This would be the feasibility of including in the publicly available files of these tax-exempt organizations, their annual receipts and expenditures reports which can now be obtained only with great difficulty. Appropriately organized files available to the public would tend to create a little self-enforcement.
It might therefore be advisable for the Attorney General to announce at this time that he is going to investigate one or more of these organizations with a view to determining whether charges will be filed and hearings held on the questions of listing one or more of these organizations. The mere act of indicating that an investigation will be made will certainly bring home to many people something they have never considered—the subversive character of these organizations and their similarity to the listed groups on the left. To make this announcement before the hearings of the Armed Services Committee on the muzzling of General Walker might well be an additional way to take the offensive against Senator Thurmond and the radical right.
It is not known the extent to which the Federal Bureau of Investigation has planted undercover agents inside the radical right movement as it has inside the Communist Party and its allied organizations. If it has already done so, the information would be readily available upon which to draw up charges for a hearing against one or more of the radical right groups. If the Bureau has not as yet infiltrated these organizations, a longer time will of course be necessary to obtain the information for the charges, although much of the needed information for the charges is available through public sources.
In any event, the announcement of the investigation would have an immediate salutary effect and the later announcement of the hearing or hearings might have an even greater one. It is not unlikely that these groups will refuse information and otherwise act towards the Attorney General’s procedures just exactly as the Communists have acted in the past. Nothing could better reveal to the public the true nature of these groups than defiant resistance to their government.
3. The flow of big money to the radical right should be damned to the extent possible.
The growing power of radical right propagandists and groups is directly related to their expanind ability to secure large sums of money. As funds are a source of power to the radical right, action to dam up these funds may be the quickest way to turn the tide now running in their favor.
Benson’s National Education Program, Schwarz’ Christian Anti-Communist Crusade, Hargis’ Christian Crusade and William Volker Fund, Inc. are among the radical right groups which are reported to have federal tax exemptions. It would appear highly doubtful, to say the least, that any or all these groups properly qualifies for a federal tax exemption. Prompt revocation in a few cases might scare off a substantial part of the big money now flowing into these tax exempt organizations.*
* An additional suggestion in this regard might be considered. This would be the feasibility of including in the publicly available files of these tax-exempt organizations, their annual receipts and expenditures reports which can now be obtained only with great difficulty. Appropriately organized files available to the public would tend to create a little self-enforcement.
Then, too, corporate funds are used to put radical right views on the air for political rather than business reasons; propaganda is peddled far and wide under the guise of advertising. H. L. Hunt openly urges big business not to rely on contributions to finance the radical right but to use their advertising funds. The Internal Revenue Service sometime ago banned certain propaganda ads by electrical utilities as deductible expenses. Consideration might be given to the question whether the broadcast and rebroadcast of Schwarz’ Christian Anti-Communist Crusade rallies and similar rallies and propaganda of other groups is not in the same category.
A related question is that of free radio and television time for the radical right. Hargis Christian Crusade has its messages reproduced by 70 radio stations across the country as public service features, and Mutual Broadcasting System apparently gave him a special rate for network broadcasts. In Washington, D.C. radio station WEAM currently offers the “Know Your Enemy” program at 8:25 pm., six days a week as a public service; in program No. 97 of this series the commentator advised listeners that Gus Hall of the Communist Party had evoked a plan for staffing the Kennedy Administration with his followers and that the plan was being carried out with success. Certainly the Federal Communications Commission might consider examining the extent of the practice of giving free time to the radical right and could take measures to encourage stations to assign comparable time for an opposing point of view on a free basis. Incidentally, in the area of commercial (not free) broadcasting, there is now pending before the FCC, Cincinnati Station WLW’s conduct in selling time to Life Line but refusing to sell time for the UAW program, “Eye Opener.”
In addition to possible misuse of federal tax exemptions and the misuse of corporate funds for propaganda advertising, it seems not unlikely that corporation funds are flowing into the radical right in other and covert ways. The President of Schick Razor Company, for example, has made it clear that “Dr. Schwarz will not lack for money while I’m around.” And, finally, there is the big question whether Schwarz, Hargis, etc. are themselves complying with the tax laws.
Adequate information on the financing of the radical right can only come from the inside of these organizations. As already indicated, it is not known whether the Federal Bureau of Investigation has undercover agents inside these organizations in the same manner and to the same degree as the Bureau has inside the Communist Party and other left-wing groups. Similarly, it is not known what the Treasury Department has done in the way of undercover operations to get at tax violations in the financing of these organizations. Likewise, it is not known whether the Federal Communications Commission has ever assembled information on the degree to which the radical right is getting free time without comparable expression of the opposing point of view. Certainly, there is sufficient public information indicating possible tax violations in this area and possible violations of FCC policies to justify the most complete check on these various means of financing the radical right.
4. The Administration should take steps to end the Minutemen.
Free speech is the essence of democracy, but armed bands are not the exercise of free speech. There is no warrant for permitting groups to organize into military cadres for the purpose of taking the law into their own hands.
A related question is that of free radio and television time for the radical right. Hargis Christian Crusade has its messages reproduced by 70 radio stations across the country as public service features, and Mutual Broadcasting System apparently gave him a special rate for network broadcasts. In Washington, D.C. radio station WEAM currently offers the “Know Your Enemy” program at 8:25 pm., six days a week as a public service; in program No. 97 of this series the commentator advised listeners that Gus Hall of the Communist Party had evoked a plan for staffing the Kennedy Administration with his followers and that the plan was being carried out with success. Certainly the Federal Communications Commission might consider examining the extent of the practice of giving free time to the radical right and could take measures to encourage stations to assign comparable time for an opposing point of view on a free basis. Incidentally, in the area of commercial (not free) broadcasting, there is now pending before the FCC, Cincinnati Station WLW’s conduct in selling time to Life Line but refusing to sell time for the UAW program, “Eye Opener.”
In addition to possible misuse of federal tax exemptions and the misuse of corporate funds for propaganda advertising, it seems not unlikely that corporation funds are flowing into the radical right in other and covert ways. The President of Schick Razor Company, for example, has made it clear that “Dr. Schwarz will not lack for money while I’m around.” And, finally, there is the big question whether Schwarz, Hargis, etc. are themselves complying with the tax laws.
Adequate information on the financing of the radical right can only come from the inside of these organizations. As already indicated, it is not known whether the Federal Bureau of Investigation has undercover agents inside these organizations in the same manner and to the same degree as the Bureau has inside the Communist Party and other left-wing groups. Similarly, it is not known what the Treasury Department has done in the way of undercover operations to get at tax violations in the financing of these organizations. Likewise, it is not known whether the Federal Communications Commission has ever assembled information on the degree to which the radical right is getting free time without comparable expression of the opposing point of view. Certainly, there is sufficient public information indicating possible tax violations in this area and possible violations of FCC policies to justify the most complete check on these various means of financing the radical right.
4. The Administration should take steps to end the Minutemen.
Free speech is the essence of democracy, but armed bands are not the exercise of free speech. There is no warrant for permitting groups to organize into military cadres for the purpose of taking the law into their own hands.
It is not known whether the Minutemen will grow or whether they will fade out of the picture. They do, however, represent a dangerous precedent in our democracy. Consideration should be given to the question whether they are presently violating any federal laws and, if not, to the Federal Government calling a conference of States where the Minutemen exist to see what action could be taken under state laws. There is, of course, the additional possibility, as indicated earlier, that the Minutemen might fall within the terms of the Attorney General’s list of subversive organizations.
5. The domestic Communist problem should be put in proper perspective for the American people, thus exposing the basic fallacy of the radical right.
The radical right feeds on charges of treason, traitors and treachery. It has its roots in a very real sense in the belief of the American people that domestic Communism has succeeded in betraying America and threatens its very survival. Putting the domestic Communist problem in proper perspective would do much to expose the basic fallacy of the radical right.
The Administration has inherited an extremely difficult problem and posture in this area. Executive and legislative speech writers have automatically maximized the domestic Communist menace ever since World War II. The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Mr. Hoover, although he made an admirable recent statement concerning the radical right, exaggerates the domestic Communist menace at every turn and this contributes to the public’s frame of mind upon which the radical right feeds. Assistant Attorney General J. Walter Yeagley, who continues in charge of internal security matters, has always maximized the domestic Communist menace. There is grave danger that the upcoming legal battle between the Department of Justice and the Communist Party over registration (particularly if there are additional indictments of individuals) will itself fan these same flames.
Each Administration since World War II has mazimized the Communist problems. It will therefore be no easy task for the Administration to turn the corner and take a different attitude. But action along this line is necessary to contain and in the long-run to roll back the radical right. Without minimizing the Communist Party strength or potential in the thirties and forties, it has no capacity today to endanger our national security or defeat our national policies. There is no need for a further effort to dramatize the domestic Communist issue; the need now is to rein in those who have created the unreasoned fear of the domestic Communist movement in the minds of the American people and slowly to develop a more rational attitude toward the strength of this movement. Without forbidding dissenting officials from expressing a contrary viewpoint (and thus evoking charges of muzzling Hoover, etc.), an effort to take a more realistic view of domestic Communism by the leaders of the Administration would probably cause most of the Administration officials to fall into line and even some legislators might be affected thereby. Fifteen years of overstating a problem cannot be reversed overnight, but thoughtful handling can reduce tensions and misconceptions in this area, too.
It would be the easier course to look the other way and say that the radical right will disappear when we solve our problems at home and abroad. But the radical right may, if it is not contained, make it more difficult, if not impossible, to solve our problems at home and abroad.
5. The domestic Communist problem should be put in proper perspective for the American people, thus exposing the basic fallacy of the radical right.
The radical right feeds on charges of treason, traitors and treachery. It has its roots in a very real sense in the belief of the American people that domestic Communism has succeeded in betraying America and threatens its very survival. Putting the domestic Communist problem in proper perspective would do much to expose the basic fallacy of the radical right.
The Administration has inherited an extremely difficult problem and posture in this area. Executive and legislative speech writers have automatically maximized the domestic Communist menace ever since World War II. The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Mr. Hoover, although he made an admirable recent statement concerning the radical right, exaggerates the domestic Communist menace at every turn and this contributes to the public’s frame of mind upon which the radical right feeds. Assistant Attorney General J. Walter Yeagley, who continues in charge of internal security matters, has always maximized the domestic Communist menace. There is grave danger that the upcoming legal battle between the Department of Justice and the Communist Party over registration (particularly if there are additional indictments of individuals) will itself fan these same flames.
Each Administration since World War II has mazimized the Communist problems. It will therefore be no easy task for the Administration to turn the corner and take a different attitude. But action along this line is necessary to contain and in the long-run to roll back the radical right. Without minimizing the Communist Party strength or potential in the thirties and forties, it has no capacity today to endanger our national security or defeat our national policies. There is no need for a further effort to dramatize the domestic Communist issue; the need now is to rein in those who have created the unreasoned fear of the domestic Communist movement in the minds of the American people and slowly to develop a more rational attitude toward the strength of this movement. Without forbidding dissenting officials from expressing a contrary viewpoint (and thus evoking charges of muzzling Hoover, etc.), an effort to take a more realistic view of domestic Communism by the leaders of the Administration would probably cause most of the Administration officials to fall into line and even some legislators might be affected thereby. Fifteen years of overstating a problem cannot be reversed overnight, but thoughtful handling can reduce tensions and misconceptions in this area, too.
It would be the easier course to look the other way and say that the radical right will disappear when we solve our problems at home and abroad. But the radical right may, if it is not contained, make it more difficult, if not impossible, to solve our problems at home and abroad.
Efforts to deal with radical right Generals and Admirals and Minutemen, investigation to determine whether to list radical right organizations, efforts to dam the illegal flow of money in their direction, efforts to set the domestic Communist problem in perspective—all will evoke immediate charges of softness on Communism. But this is not a problem that can be swept under the rug. The Administration can no more combat the radical right by being “tough on domestic Communism” or appeasing radical right Generals than the Republican Administration was able to fight McCarthyism by its own excesses in this area. It is very late in the day to start dealing with these problems, but it will never get earlier.
For it is false altogether, what the last Sceptical Century taught us, that this world is a steam-engine. There is a God in this world; and a God’s-sanction, or else the violation of such, does look out from all ruling and obedience, from all moral acts of men. There is no act more moral between men than that of rule and obedience. Woe to him that claims obedience when it is not due; woe to him that refuses it when it is! God’s law is in that, I say, however the Parchment-laws may run: there is a Divine Right or else a Diabolic Wrong at the heart of every claim that one man makes upon another.
— Carlyle
The Bell From Europe (1947) by Weldon Kees:
The tower bell in the Tenth Street Church
Rang out nostalgia for the refugee
Who knew the source of bells by sound.
We liked it, but in ignorance.
One meets authorities on bells infrequently.
Europe alone made bells with such a tone,
Herr Mannheim said. The bell
Struck midnight, and it shook the room.
He had heard bells in Leipzig, Chartres, and Berlin,
Paris, Vienna, Brussels, Rome.
He was a white-faced man with sad enormous eyes.
Reader, for me that bell marked nights
Of restless tossing in this narrow bed,
The quarrels, the slamming of a door,
The kind words, friends for drinks, the books we read,
Breakfasts with streets in rain.
It rang from Europe all the time.
That was what Mannheim said.
It is good to know, now that the bell strikes noon.
In this day’s sun, the hedges are Episcopalian
As noon is marked by the twelve iron beats.
The rector moves ruminantly among the gravestones,
As the sound of a dead Europe hangs in the streets.
To think that this was written by someone born during Washington's first term. I thought all of this lib nonsense was new!
—Thomas Hamilton, Men and Manners in America, 1833
On the whole, I cannot help considering it a mistake to suppose that slavery has been abolished in the Northern States of the Union. It is true, indeed, that in these States the power of compulsory labour no longer exists; and that one human being within their limits, can no longer claim property in the thews and sinews of another. But is this all that is implied in the boon of freedom? If the word mean any thing, it must mean the enjoyment of equal rights, and the unfettered exercise in each individual of such powers and faculties as God has given him. In this true meaning of the word, it may be safely asserted, that this poor degraded caste are still slaves. They are subjected to the most grinding and humiliating of all slaveries, that of universal and unconquerable prejudice. The whip, indeed has been removed from the back of the Negro, but the chains are still on his limbs, and he bears the brand of degradation on his forehead. What is it but the mere abuse of language to call him free, who is tyrannically deprived of all the motives to exertion which animate other men? The law, in truth, has left him in that most pitiable of all conditions, a masterless slave.
It cannot be denied that the Negro population are still compelled, as a class, to be the hewers of wood, and drawers of water, to their fellow-citizens. Citizens! there is, indeed, something ludicrous in the application of the word to these miserable Pariahs. What privileges do they enjoy as such? Are they admissible upon a jury? Can they enrol themselves in the militia? Will a white man eat with them, or extend to them the hand of fellowship? Alas if these men, so irresistibly manacled to degradation, are to be called free, tell us, at least, what stuff are slaves made of?
—Thomas Hamilton, Men and Manners in America, 1833
This is really important to read if you want to understand 20th century US history:
— William Bullitt, letter to FDR
Stalin was feeling extremely gay, as we all were, but he gave me the impression he was speaking honestly. He had by this time made the impression on me of a man not only of great shrewdness and inflexible will (Lenin, you know, said of him that he had enough will to equip the entire Communist Party), but also possessed of the quality of intuition in extraordinary measure. Moreover, like every real statesman I have known, he had the quality of being able to treat the most serious things with a joke and a twinkle in his eye. Lenin had that same quality. You have it.
As I got up to leave, Stalin said to me, “I want you to understand that if you want to see me at any time, day or night, you have only to let me know and I will see you at once.” This was a most extraordinary gesture on his part as he has hitherto refused to see any Ambassador at any time.
...
After I had said good-bye to Voroshilov and the others, Stalin went to the door of the apartment with me and said, “Is there anything at all in the Soviet Union that you want? Anything?” There was one thing I wanted, but I hesitated to ask for it, as Litvinov had told me that the Moscow Soviet had definitely decided it would not give us the building site in the center of the town’s park, and that a map would be submitted to me showing that the new canal would run through the center of the property. Therefore I first said, “Everyone has been more than kind to me and I should hesitate to ask for anything in addition, except that the intimate relations we have begun tonight may continue.”
Whereupon, Stalin said, “But I should really like to show you that we appreciate not only what the President has done, but also what you yourself have done. Please understand that we should have received politely any Ambassador that might have been sent us by the Government of the United States, but we should have received no one but yourself in this particular way.” He seemed moved by a genuinely friendly emotion.
Therefore, I thanked him and said that there was one thing I should really like to have, that I could see in my mind’s eye an American Embassy modeled on the home of the author of the Declaration of Independence on that particular bluff overlooking the Moscow River, and that I should be glad to know that that property might be given to the American Government as a site for an Embassy. Stalin replied, “You shall have it.”
Thereupon, I held out my hand to shake hands with Stalin and, to my amazement, Stalin took my head in his two hands and gave me a large kiss! I swallowed my astonishment and, when he turned up his face for a return kiss, I delivered it.
This evening with Stalin and the inner circle of the Soviet Government seems almost unbelievable in retrospect, and I should have difficulty in convincing myself that it was a reality if I had not on returning to my hotel awakened my secretary and dictated the salient facts to him. Moreover, the next day shortly before my departure Litvinov told me that the property in the park should be ours if we wished to have it.
— William Bullitt, letter to FDR
The truth is that the weapons of “activism” are not weapons which the weak can use against the strong. They are weapons the strong can use against the weak. When the weak try to use them against the strong, the outcome is… well… suicidal.
Who was stronger—Dr. King, or Bull Connor? Well, we have a pretty good test for who was stronger. Who won? In the real story, overdogs win. Who had the full force of the world’s strongest government on his side? Who had a small-town police force staffed with backward hicks? In the real story, overdogs win.
“Civil disobedience” is no more than a way for the overdog to say to the underdog: I am so strong that you cannot enforce your “laws” upon me. I am strong and might makes right—I give you the law, not you me. Don’t think the losing party in this conflict didn’t try its own “civil disobedience.” And even its own “active measures.” Which availed them—what? Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi.
In the real world in which we live, the weak had better know their own weakness. If they would gather their strength, do it! But without fighting, even “civil disobedience.” To break a law is to fight. Those who fight had better be strong. Those who are not strong, had better not fight.
Who was stronger—Dr. King, or Bull Connor? Well, we have a pretty good test for who was stronger. Who won? In the real story, overdogs win. Who had the full force of the world’s strongest government on his side? Who had a small-town police force staffed with backward hicks? In the real story, overdogs win.
“Civil disobedience” is no more than a way for the overdog to say to the underdog: I am so strong that you cannot enforce your “laws” upon me. I am strong and might makes right—I give you the law, not you me. Don’t think the losing party in this conflict didn’t try its own “civil disobedience.” And even its own “active measures.” Which availed them—what? Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi.
In the real world in which we live, the weak had better know their own weakness. If they would gather their strength, do it! But without fighting, even “civil disobedience.” To break a law is to fight. Those who fight had better be strong. Those who are not strong, had better not fight.
Why don’t Christians have the right to vandalize abortion clinics? Because they do not have the might to do so (and get away with it). If they did, Christians would be on top and progressives would be on the bottom. We would live in a different country—one in which, as in most legal codes in human history around the globe, abortion was considered a serious crime. And there would be, of course, no such thing as an “abortion clinic.”
My advice to every sort of activist is: whatever the law is, wherever you are, follow it at all times. Don’t even ask whether you have the power to break it and get away with it. If you have to ask—you don’t.
My advice to every sort of activist is: whatever the law is, wherever you are, follow it at all times. Don’t even ask whether you have the power to break it and get away with it. If you have to ask—you don’t.
(It's hard out there for a Jew.)
The constitution of a country is a mockery and a sham unless it reflects the real structure and possession of power in the country. Suppose “Martian invaders” invade America and take over Washington. All power is held by the Martian invaders, with their death-rays. But they don’t bother to cancel the Constitution—why should they? We therefore see a divergence of power between the real authorities, the Martian invaders, and the nominal authorities, the American people. In this case, is America still a democracy? Nominally, yes. Really, no.
While there are no Martian invaders, it is relatively straightforward for us to distinguish between two kinds of democracy: one kind, in which power genuinely flows upward from what people want, and another kind, in which power flows downward from the beige oligarchy / Martian invaders, is converted into what they’re supposed to think, and regurgitated dutifully at the polls.
While there are no Martian invaders, it is relatively straightforward for us to distinguish between two kinds of democracy: one kind, in which power genuinely flows upward from what people want, and another kind, in which power flows downward from the beige oligarchy / Martian invaders, is converted into what they’re supposed to think, and regurgitated dutifully at the polls.
Observe the fascist or socialist State again, through the eyes of the orthodox libertarian or classical liberal. We see an 800-pound gorilla on acid, whooping it up at the wheel of a running bulldozer. Your libertarian says: stop that bulldozer! Your Carlylean says: stop that gorilla!
A bulldozer, well-made, well-maintained and well-operated, is a positive force in the world. But only if it is controlled by a man and not a gorilla. If you saw a bulldozer driven by a qualified bulldozer operator, dear libertarian, would you cry: stop that bulldozer! I think not. You might be amazed at all the good works a qualified bulldozer operator can work with a bulldozer.
A bulldozer, well-made, well-maintained and well-operated, is a positive force in the world. But only if it is controlled by a man and not a gorilla. If you saw a bulldozer driven by a qualified bulldozer operator, dear libertarian, would you cry: stop that bulldozer! I think not. You might be amazed at all the good works a qualified bulldozer operator can work with a bulldozer.