ruthless and unscrupulous persecution
Certain ideas, the Liberal seems to be
saving, cannot reasonably or morally be
held by men who live in the twentieth
century. No one, for example, may hold
that a federal system of social security
is unwarranted or unwise. No one mav
question the- veilui' of a progressive income tax either as an instrument of
money-raising, or as a social equalizer.
No one lein oppose- a Federal Fair Employment Practices Vt: no one can
question the right of labor unions to
bargain mi an industry-wide basis; and
no one. without losing his chastity, may-
inquire into the validity of the institution known .is "academic freedom.
These- are jusl a few of lhe taboos, of
course, and thev arc mentioned only
Largely. I suppose, because by the
time hi- mind has developed il is conditioned to ove-rlook evidence which supports conclusions differenl front his own.
lhe Liberal fighls hard and wantonly
against those who hold such views. And
lhe weapons be fee-Is entitled lo use. in
behalf of Liberalism, arc those whose
use- by others shocks and enrages him. A
Few weeks ago 1 saw el copy elf the following letter, which I quote in its entirety:
1 thought I wrote ye.ii once before asking vou to take me- oft the mailing list
e.l v..ur disgusting communication. It does
ueet 3i\e- me any pleasure to find in my
mail ee copy: of a letter t.. Senator Jenner, Him is so obviously disloyal in everything ilini America simuls im. ami ei letter,
moreover, which s,, clearly indicates the
same kiu.l eef disloyalty in its writer.
Josi I'll Si.sou
Notice iheii Senator Jenner is nol
"mistaken," lu- is nol "stupid," lu- is nol
"ignorant," he is "disloyal." Mun eli--
l.eveel than John Carter Vincent. John
Paton Davies, John Stewarl Serviee-.
J. Roberl Oppenheimer. and heaven
only knows hoic many security risks
\lsop has written tear-drenched and
veiieimiins columns in defense of.
Let me pul it this way. I don't think
either John Carter Vincent or William
ra. Jenner ought lo be spoken of eis elis-
loyal even in lhe diluted sense in which
Met us bv all means assume I Alsop was
ii-ing thai word in his nasty letter In his
cousin i Ken's his cousin). \nd I know
that Mr. \.sop agrees wilh me. for be
has often, over the years, expressed his
contempt and anger for those who use
that word lightly. Whal I should like lo
know i- why he feels free to refer lee
Senator Jenner ;i~ ,li-^loxalV Rut wc will
never know. Wc will never know. I Fear.
whal il is lhal makes Liberals lhal way;
but we- musl know lhat they are that
way: we musl know ilieil the hatred ilieil
they feci for anyone who disagrees with
them Iwi-ts their minds eunl poisons
their hearts, and that beneath the sueeve:
and urbane exteriors that these worldly
men exhibit in public and in private
there are storms raging lhat rock any
attempt at seasoned and calm and open-
minded thought in any area in which
lluv an' deeply committed.
Let me quote from lhe Congressional
Record of May 1 I of last year. A Senator got up and addressed the chair as
follows: "Mr. President," he said. "I
w ish. for the record, to correct a lie
printed in the Washington Post of this
morning. Thc lie is carried in the
column of the unsavory character
called''—but let's nol identify the columnist eil this moment.
The Senator then went on to quote
the statement to which he objected—a
statement which spoke of a political eilli
ance in the Senator's home slate. Setiel
the Senator: "The writer, of coins,',
knew when be wrote this falsehood that
il was false, for he originated il . . . I
should like to suggest to the ll ashington
Cost that il should not permit ils pages
to be used for the continuing dissemination of lies manufactured by this mem.
Furthermore. I think it owes it to its
readers lo make a thorough investigation of the pasl record of this man and
to publish il. so lhat all who are subjected to his propaganda mav know the
character and reliability of its source . . .
it is impossible" to discover the truth
"when tbe pages of the' press arc permeated with deliberate lies."
Well. well. Who f/o you suppose ihis
columnist i-'.' This brazen liar, this unscrupulous troublemaker? Several names
come lei mind. \\ ets it llva Ehrenburg or
Gerald L. K. Smith? It wasn't, of
course; ii wasn't Drew Pearson, either.
It was George Sokolsky—perhaps the
mosl sober, emd reliable, emd certainly
lhe mosl courteous political columnist in
lhe I nited Stales today. .And who do
you suppose made' such ei savage attack
on Sokolskv? It wets none other than
—Wide World Photo
J. B. Matthews
J. William Fulbright, Ihe loftiest Liberal
in the Senate, the idol of Ihe Liberal
community, who through a vast program
of international scholarships has struck
mighty blows in behalf of World Understanding and Tolerance. It's the Roberl
Hutchins story all over again. Gel yourself educated so you'll learn to know
we're living under a reign of terror. Get
yourself educated so that when you grow
up you'll be tolerant like Senator Fulbright and know enough lo recognize
ei pathological and perverted liar like
George Sokolsky when you see one.
Note, loo. Senator Fulbright's call for
la I an investigation of George Sokolskv
(bow ironic from a man who has. in
effect, so diligently opposed investigations of men and groups which, sonic
people think, pose rather ;i greater ihreal
litem ehti's George Sokolsky); and note
how Senator Fulbrighl is lb) calling
on the // ashington Cost to drop George
Sokolsky's column from its page's. For
years the Post has run the outpourings
of a man who indeed is and can be
demonstrated to be- a practiced liar. I
mean Drew Pearson, of course. Rill
Drew Pearson generally lies in behall
of Liberals, and against conservatives;
he doesn't, therefore, excite the opposition of Senalor Fulbright. But George
Sokolskv docs because he is a conservative, and because some of his views
bill oiiisidc the limits of tolerable opinion. That, and only that- nothing more
can explain the character of this
Frenzied outbreak of the former presidenl of the University of Arkansas.
A CHOICE EXERCISE IN BOOK BURNING
\s revealing an illustration as einv I
know of the determination of the Liberal
to translate bis intolerance into binding
social rules which would have the effect
of reading out of lhe community all
dissent from lhe Liberal position—Is
contained in a recenl column in the Net1
York Herald Tribune by radio eunl TV-
man John Crosby.
One day lasl May he devoted bis
column in the television program-
Author Meets lhe Critics. We Started »"'
by denouncing Admiral Theobald, whose
book. The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor,
had been discussed on lhal program ll"'
ni alii before-. Admiral Theobald ■"
charges were I quote Crosl.v "fantastic." "The Pearl Harbor attack has
been the object ol eighl separate '"'
vcsligalions." seiid Mr. Crosby, "which
produced literally Ions of testimony,
evidence anil opinion. There eire no neW
Facts in llu- Theobald book Iww eiml1'
there be " I you see bete a first-rate
illustration of whal I mean when I sav
lhal lhe Liberal postulates the correctness ol his position ami then eit t'11"
poinl quite logically goes on to deduc*
thai all Factual data, known or unknown-
must l.v definition support his post'
tion); there arc no new fails, there '■"'
"only new and. according lo nil rcliul"'
FACTS FORUM NEWS, June, '"'"