Senator Flanders a standing ovation.
One reporter was so uncouth as to
press the' matter, asking Senator Flanders to crystallize his charges: Are you.
said the reporter, are you saying that
these men are perverts? Certainly not,
said the Senator: I am merely asking
Let us take a hypothetical situation.
Tomorrow. President Eisenhower authorizes our ambassador itt Japan to
consent to limited traele between Japan
and Red China. Senator McCarthy gets
lip on the floor and suggests that the
action of the President is satisfactorily
explained if one assumes he is a member of the Communist party. To those
who immediately roar out their indignation he- says, simply: I'm not accusing the President of being ei Communist.
I'm just asking questions . . .
ll is eis simple as lhat. Flanders can
Lret away with something McCarthy, or
Jenner. or Taft. or Knowland could
never gel away with. The Liberal community deals differently with the same
offense, depending on who commits it
and against whom il is committed.
A year ago Senator McCarthy seiid to
ei general in lhe I nited Stales Army.
"Any genera] who says "I will protect
another general who protected Communists' is not fil to wear lhat uniform."
Thc Liberal community fairly exploded
with outrage. Fur General /wicker had
been decorated for bravery. (Anyone
decorated for bravery, the Liberal seems
to be saying, cannot, no matter what he
subsequently does, be considered as unfit tn wear a uniform. Rut it is not the
irrelevance of this defense of General
Zwicker thai concerns us. here in a discussion of Liberal inconsistency.)
\ Senate committee recommended
McCarthy be censured for that one. einel
llu' Senate came mighty close to acting
on the committee's recommendations. It
didn't, finally: but ils refusal to do so
enreig'-el the Liberals, one and all; wc arc
guilty of letting down ;i man who has
fought valiantly for his country, they
said; so in their own minds, thev censured McCarthy for this outrage.
A month or so after McCarthy had
thus spoken to Zwicker. another legislator paid his respects, face to face, in
another man with a distinguished background of military service, et fellow legislator. This congressman was decorated
during the first world war wilh the Distinguished Service Cross, the Distinguished Serviec Medal, and the Purple
Heart; be was awarded the Croix de
Guerre with palm, be was cited for
bravery by Marshal Petain. bv General
Edward, hv General Hale, and bv Gen-
i-reil Lewis. His name' i~ is. Carroll Reece.
and the assault upon him was made bv
Congressman Wayne lleivs during a
committee bearing over which Recce vvas
Heiys: I will say this to (you) ...that
out w he-re I come from we have a saying
that if a man double-crosses you once,
that is hi> fault; if lu- double-crosses you
twice, that is yeeur feilllt. I just want you
tu kneiee vein won't 5''t the' BCCOnd uppeel'-
Reece: there i- no living meen can
justifiably say that...(I) have' ever
double-crossed anybody or... failed tei
keep ... i teiv ) word.
Hays: I am saying heeth ... is theit clear
enough? There i- no inference there, is
Reece: That does not disturb me a
Hays: I leneew. Yeeei eire pretty Hani te>
disturb. I thought they had more guts in
As far as I know, there has not been
a single editorial in lhe \eie York Times
urging that Congressman Hays he censured, not one manifesto from the committee for an effective Congress, nor
an extra million dollars appropriated
by the Fund for the Republic lo look
into the threat of "Haysism." In fad.
I know of not one Liberal, prominent or
not. who has suggested censure or even
a mild reprimand. The best I could gel
oul of Liberal publicist George Hamilton Combs whose- fulminations over the
Zwicker incident shattered steel and
concrete — and that onlv after suasion.
cajolery, and threats, was thai "'perhaps
Mr. Hays' conduct was a little undisciplined." And this, of course, is why: In
tbe one ease it was an outsider who wets
being abusive: in the other it weis a fellow Liberal who. what is more, weis engaged in obstructing an inquiry into the
ideological bases (,f [he great Foundations, which, because they are virtually
all run bv Liberals, eire bv definition
I submit thai if McCarthy were to use
such language as Hays used on the chairman of anv committee of which he is a
member, or we're lo employ- such laities.
he would be run nut of Washington
with wet towels. Certainly he would activate tbe otherwise listless editorial
writers of the New York Times.
NOT A WASHABLE EXPLANATION!
It is possible to maintain thai such
inconsistencies eis these, emd et thousand
others that could readily be enumerated,
reflect nol on the Liberal mind, but on
the Liberal temperament. Everyone loses
control of himself, after all: and in lhe
heal of the occasion we are all likely lo
apply one set of standards to those we
approve of emd another to those we do
I believe' that such an explanation
docs not wash. For one thing, no human
being loses his temper as often as el
Liberal is inconsistent. And anyway,
most Liberals arc icy men who think in
refrigerated office's, where petssion is
in.I admitted. \\ Im ever heard of \\ alter
Lippmann being carried away? No, I
submit thai lhe inconsistency of the
Liberal is traceable neither to unbridled
emotion nor lo opportunism — but
rather to his fundamental incapacity to
ihink objectively. Whal I am saving is
most of the time the Liberal doesn't know
hi' a being inconsistent, doesn't know
In'- being unjust. He is so buill theit he
cannot in a controversy in which he is
committed, see the parallels in two situations; he moves not by reason but hv
instincl: he is lhe man who is truly
prejudiced; for he consistently prejudges men and situations. The certified
Liberal — the Eleanor Roosevelt, the
Wayne Hays cannol err: in going
after Roy Cohn emd Joseph McCarthy
and Carroll Recce thev cannot stumble.
therefore they do not stumble, therefore
the decent, the well disposed and the industrious of thc community can give
litem their unthinking support: which is
the type of support the Liberal characteristically extends.
Lack of objectivity leads to inconsistency, hut il betrays, also, an incapacity lo assess evidence; eunl this i~ tic
third aspect of the Liberal's irrationality.
The first illustration thai comes to
mind here is the must obvious, perhaps
even the mosl written about. I mean, of
course, our putative reign of terror. I
haven't the energy lo catalogue, once
again, sample Liberal statements about
our reign of terror, nol even the more
hilarious ones about bow we go to jail
if we rceld Thomas Jefferson, or gel
starved out by the- American Legion il
—Wide World Pti°tc"
Congressmen Wayne L. Hays ID-Ohio''
above, and B. Carroll Reece (R-Tenn.) wfre
central figures in a heated exchange during
a House committee hearing which Reece
FACTS FOItUM NEWS, June, H>55