psychological response such as confidence following upon enthusiasm.
The facl thai nol one conviction has
resulted frnm McCarthy's activities is a
valid objection to McCarthy's investigative racket, now fortunately a thing of
the past. And McCarthy's so-called (by
Buckley) reply of a logical nature does
not einswe r the Liberals or prove in any
wise their inability lo ihink. Is il nol
reasonable lo conclude lhal if McCarthy
failed to secure a conviction il possibly
w;i~ line tn his incompetence? And if
McCarthy is sn successful, whv should
there la' "successful Communists who
throw you off the hack"? And if there
are persons about whose loveillv there is
.1 reasonable doubt, who decides what ee
"reasonable doubt" is? McCarthy? Mr.
Buckley's naivete prevents him from
realizing lhal whal lhe Liberals are
driving al is nol lhal we should lei down
our guard as far as subversion is concerned bul lhal we should conducl such
investigations in a calm, level-headed,
bipartisan fashion without lhe aspects
nf ei Ringling-Barnum eK l.eeile-v circus
characteristic nf McCarthy, and withoul
'lie feist and loose system i,I accusations,
most of which, as Air. Buckley himself
Hates, were false. If need he. we mighl
mention the professional witness fees received bv many uf McCarthy's witnesses
including the turncoat Matusow who
campaigned for McCarthy in 1052. Air.
Buckley mighl ihink il quite cynical for
We lu stale lhal McCarthy has exploited
the communism field as skillfully as a
manufacturer of yoyos exploited yoyos
'hiring the days of lhe yoyo fad.
In another piece in vour magazine
Buckley stales lhal Ihe Liberals have
grabbed power coarsely, which amounts
'° a gratuitous and insignificant generalization. Air. Buckley, can vou ihink
°f anyone else who has grabbed power
coarsely"? With public relations firms
and the resl i,l the Btandard equipment?
And with methods more befitting an
election for dogcatcher?
To sum up: There is a case for conservatism and there is a ease againsl
'uii'ieilism. hut evidently Messrs. Buckley and Burnham are incapable and un-
aWe lo make such cases, we mighl also.
*nd very appropriately, turn around the
Phraseology in the penultimate paragraph of page 55 of lhe some issue in
r,5id: "When Buckley Ihinks. he tends
'° Ihink illogically. He lends, moreover.
'" hr inconsistent, and to ignore any
evidence that fails lo harmonize with
'he verdict he proposes al all cost to
fupport." Air. Buckley's rhetorical
showboating" mav impress some of
tour readers, hut vou may resl assured
'hat those' who have not declared intellectual bankruptcy will nol be impressed
1,1 the least.
Jvmks E. Hkkiuin. Businessman
KACTS FORUM NEWS, August, 1955
The essay on "lhe Liberal Mind" by
William I'. Buckley, Jr.. in vour June
issue is an intellectual treat—closely
reasoned, beautifully written, irrefutable.
For the very reasons he sets forth, it
could have no real effect on the misnamed Liberals, win- einv of them to
read il. They are by this lime. alas, impervious In logic. Rut II is well thai lhe
resl 'il us should have a clear understanding uf lhe menial and mural confusions of lhe breed.
I should like to contribute an episode
to Air. Buckley's documentation. Il
seems lu mi' pertinent because il grew
out of lhe J. 11. Matthews affair, which
Mr. Buckle) dealt wilh. and involves
Joseph Alsop. whom he cited eit one
point as ein example of Liberal behavior.
I In- correspondence I proceed to sum
up strikingly reveals not onlv Mr. Alsop's
inability lo ihink clearly where his emu
lion- eire engaged hut. mure serious, his
cavalier attitude toward truth. His journalistic ethics appear shabby and cynical
te. an extraordinary degree, hut his typically Liberal self-righteousness is so
overwhelming lhal he does nol hesitate
lo confess lo a disdain for fails which,
in anyone else, he would himself. I feel
sure, recognize as immoral.
Rack in July. 105.'!. when lhe Matthews
slorv weis oil tlle frunl pages, el column
hv Joseph Alse.ii moved me lo write a
letter lo ihe New York Herald-Tribune.
I began by pointing mil lhal 'The kind
eef people emd publications which howl
in protest when an alleged Communisl
is 'smeared' nol onlv have failed lo rally
tn Dr. Matthews bul have joined in
know-nothing attacks nn him.*' Then I
came lo "a shocking example of ibis
I refer 'o the amazing statement hv
Joseph Alsop lhal "Air. Matthews
charged lhal 7.000 Prnleslanl clergymen
were secrel agents of Moscow. This is
misrepresentation so reckless, s,, unfair.
so remote from what Dr. Matthews did
charge thai there is no polite word lo
describe ii. Lei Mr. Alsop. in deference
lo his conscience, poinl out where and
when Dr. Matthews accused 7.000 clcr-
gvineu of being "secrel agents." The figure referred to Communists, fellow travelers, dupes, and secret agents—which is
certainly a horse of another color. In lhe
nature of lhe case onlv et few could have
served secretly; the Matthews article,
page afler page, shows lhat feir frnm
acting secretly lhe clergymen in question gave their names and llieir energies
lo Kremlin causes openly. I submit that
nothing in Dr. Matthews' article is as
morally reprehensible as ibis wild falsification.
The letter, of course, weis nul published. The Herald-Tribune until recently
found itself chronically short nf space
where certain viewpoints were concerned. Rut Airs. Helen Reid, then the
publisher, advised mc that she heul forwarded my communication lo Air. Alsop.
Since I was interested in pinpointing
the columnist's misstatement publicly.
her gambit, turning it into a private
correspondence, was not exactly cricket.
Rut the results were interesting, if nul
For in a few days I received an answer from Air. Alsop. An incredible answer, coining from ei journalist. The ni-l
of it weis in this paragraph:
The point yuu make is a distinction
withoul ei difference. I do nol feel
obliged U) quote ei man nf the character
uf J. R. Matthews in extenso. I ihink
what 1 wrote conveyed lhe exact sense
lhal he intended lo convey.
Mr. Alsop. believe it or not. nul only
st I pal on his palpable falsehood bul
he I..ok ihr position thai where anyone
wheese- character he happened In disapprove was involved, he reserved the
right In dispense with accuracy! 1 had
not argued lhal he should quote Dr.
Matthews "in extenso." hut only lhal he
was under a simple human eunl profes-
siuiieil obligation nol lo misquote him. as
he heul sei obviously done. Dr. Matthews.
he admits in effect, eliel nol sav there
were e.000 clerical secret agents l.ul it
weis. iii Mr Msop's superior judgment.
whal hr "intended In convey."
\ohiidv who read llu- Matthews article
lhal lunched off lhe fracas, or his other
writings on the senile subject, eniilil agree
with the Alsop judgment. Alsop. however, heis ei God-given righl to he wrong.
An honest procedure, therefore, would
have been lo sav: Dr. Matthews does not
write lhal the 7.000 clergymen were
secret agents; in facl. he indicates lhal
few if anv of them operated secretly;
bul he can'l fool an Alsop I know that
he wanted in convey the idea lhal they
were all subterranean spies. That, eil
least, woulel have made honest nonsense.
Instead nf which he short-circuited (be
argument with a forthright assertion
lhal Matthews had "charged thai 7.000
Protestant clergymen were secrel eiiicnis
Because my letter had been addressed
to the newspaper, nol io Mr. Alsop. I
livpass.al the gentleman and wrote once
more lo Airs. Reid. Alt. Usop's confession lhal he considers himself relieved of
the nerd in write fairly and accurately
about those whom be dislikes. 1 said,
simplifies matters a lot. Let the columnist provide ;i guide-list of persons whose
words he considers himself privileged to
I wist out of shape. If Airs. Reid and bis
other publishers made the list public,
llieir readers would be forewarned emd
in a better position thenceforth to csli-
male the vcreuilv nf Alsop reports.
Thai seemed In me. and still dues, an
(Continual on Parte ■'," I