Page 2
University Daily Kansan Wednesday, Mar. 2. 1960
Pledging Loyalty
Who is loyal to what? Is the pupil who stands and obediently, automatically, says, "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands . . ." loyal to the government of the United States? Is the student who signs the loyalty oath for a loan, loyal to any American cause, or is he just signing up for money?
Both examples here assume that the term "loyalty" is an understood one, that the functions of the government have been at least looked at, that students are even concerned about issues which are threatening the "American way of life."
These assumptions are absurd. School children are not educated in the basic fundamentals of their government by the time they are taught to repeat the Pledge of Allegiance. Understanding, critical thinking and responsibility to one's government seldom become even a small part of pledging loyalty to America.
We Americans who have the inherited right to bring about change in our country, are so suspicious of that right. We confuse the semantics of communism and "left wingism." We view the terms as identical. We are convinced that to find "a potentially disloyal American, we must find a man who expresses dissatisfaction with the established order of things—a man who believes in racial equality, socialized medicine, labor unions, equalization of economic opportunity, increased government activity in economic affairs," extended social security benefits, and certainly, agrarian land reforms—"particularly if the believer is not of Anglo-American stock."
The question of loyalty to the United States did not begin with the discussion of an ineffective loyalty oath. It did not begin with the Communist infiltration scare.
True, we are living in a new world filled with many ideologies which we must fear and fight. We must violently oppose any cause which is against
religious freedom. We must watch carefully those to whom we have given our children for an education, so that they will not teach those things which will destroy the sanctity of the home and eventually the basis of our government. We must exercise control over those organized groups which are "saturated with the virus of communism." We must fight, without flinching, any menace to our freedom in democracy, the freedom under which we can alter this democracy.
But can we be victorious in this fight merely by establishing loyalty programs, merely by requiring signatures on pieces of paper?
Jefferson wrote, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and what never will be."
We must have enough confidence in our established way of life to believe that through the revealing and discussion of all the facts, our public will choose to preserve those principles set down at the beginning of our nation.
The minds of free Americans are the most valuable advantages we have over Russia. In this hot, not cold, war of ideas, we must not allow unrealistic ideals and shining symbols to cloud the camp of democracy. We have work to do to make our camp ready for the struggle—work which will make the school child understand the government to which he is pledging allegiance, work which will make the college student concerned about his country's problems, work which will make every citizen aware of his responsibility in educating himself for this war of ideas, of arming himself for a really hot war.
The education which is so imperative includes the developing of the knowledge, skill, mind, and character. If we are even slightly awake, we can see we have plenty of work to do. We must wash from our eyes the sand deposited during the night's lethargy, and vehemently support that to which advocating loyalty is not enough.
- Elva Lundrv
Is There a Difference?
By Jack Harrison
The Democratic and Republican parties are founded upon basically different doctrines, despite remarkable similarities in their platforms.
The Republican party, throughout its history, has been the defender of the status quo, private enterprise and private property. The Democratic party has been in general a more liberal party, favoring social reform and showing a willingness to contemplate change.
The Republican party is more nearly a one-interest party, with the business group assuming leadership, while the Democratic party is more diversified in its membership and leadership.
The underlying principles which guide the two major parties in the United States today formed the basis for the political alignment during the first years of the nation.
The Anti-Federalist party (later called Democratic-Republican and then Democratic) was the guardian of the rights of "the people" as against "the aristocracy" and business interests.
Thomas Jefferson was the first spokesman and leader of the party, which opposed the adoption of the
UNI PRITT
Dailu Hansan
University of Kansas student newspaper
Founded 1880, became bweekley 1904,
and changed its name to KU Press.
Telephone Viking 3-2700 Extension 711, news room Extension 376, business office
Member Inland Daily Press Association. Associated Collegiate Press. Represented by National Advertising Service, 420 Madison Ave., New York, N.Y. Mail subscription press interview. Mail subscription rates: $3 a semester or $5 a year. Published in Lawrence, Kan., every afternoon during the University year except Saturdays and Sundays, University holidays, and examination days. Mail subscription counter. September 17, 1910; at Lawrence, Kan., post office under act of March 3, 1879.
NEWS DEPARTMENT Jack Morton Managing Editor
BUSINESS DEPARTMENT
Bruce Lewellyn ... Business Manager
Douglas Yoom and Jack Harrison ... Co-Editorial Editors
Constitution on the grounds that the government was being made too centralized and was being organized to favor the privileged classes.
The Federalist party was guardian of the political philosophy which was later taken up by the Republican party. The Federalists were landowners and businessmen who wanted an orderly government to protect their property interests.
After the Bill of Rights was passed, the Democratic party ceased opposing the Constitution. But it still fought the centralization of government power by opposing Chief Justice John Marshall's broad interpretations of federal power. The Democrats feared the moneyed interests would set up a strong central government which would limit the rights of the common man.
The modern-day Republican party was formed in 1854. It developed out of the political and territorial disputes occasioned by the question of slavery.
In the election of 1884 Republicans who favored civil service reform backed the Democratic candidate, Grover Cleveland, and Cleveland was elected. During the next 12 years it was claimed that the Republican party was in the hands of the moneyed interests.
The Republican party, after a decade of progressive policies when it was first formed, became the conservative party in the U.S. two party system, and has remained in that role the majority of the time up to the present day.
Abraham Lincoln was the party's first and most esteemed president, taking office in 1861.
A dissatisfaction with capitalists, banks, railroads and the moneyed interests brought about the free silver idea. The Republicans were the sound money men and attracted the conservative economic elements.
William Jennings Bryan, the free silver advocate, captured the Democratic party, but William McKinley and the Republicans won the 1896 election. In 1900 the anti-imperialistic and free silver issues of the Democrats fell flat.
In 1900 the Republican party was a stand-pat, almost reactionary group. But Theodore Roosevelt took office as president in 1901, representing the liberal element of the Republican party. The old guard was back in power in 1908, with William Howard Taft winning the presidency.
The Republican party split in 1912, and Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic candidate, was elected. In 1916 Wilson won again, even though the Republican party factions had reunited.
After World War I the American people voted the conservative Republicans back into power. Presidents Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover upheld the Republican tradition of conservatism.
Following the depression, the Republicans were swept out and the Democrats returned to power, with Franklin D. Roosevelt leading the party. Roosevelt remade the federal government. In subsequent years the Republicans have accepted the New Deal as a necessary modernizing of the American government, which stood still in the post-World War I years under the Republicans.
Harry Truman continued the liberal Democratic policy, especially in foreign affairs. He committed the American people to active co-operation with other nations in search for world peace and prosperity.
Dwight D. Eisenhower professes to be a moderate conservative, and has acted as such during his two terms as President of the U. S. The Republican party of Eisenhower is still a businessman's party and Eisenhower works for tight money and a balanced budget in accordance with the party doctrine.
The Democratic party of 1960 has many of the same characteristics the party has displayed through the past 180 years. It is the more liberal party and is the party of more diverse interests. The Republican and Democratic parties may be more nearly alike today than they have been for several decades, but their basic philosophies remain distinctly separate.
By Calder M. Pickett
Associate Professor of Journalism
LIFERATURE AND THE AMERICAN TRADITION, by Leon Howard. Doubleday, $4.50.
What is the "American tradition"? I'm not certain that an adequate definition has been provided—by historians, literary critics, or social scientists. America, in fact, seems to be best characterized by its diversity, its lack of one tradition that has operated from 1607 on.
Prof. Leon Gordon appears to suggest that the tradition is one that embodies an empirical over intuitive outlook. And it reached full flowering in the late 19th century, when writers cast off the shackles of romanticism and obeyed theurgings of Howells and Garland to create a realistic literature.
But even then all did not fall away from the romantic approach of exalting the individual, or trust in intuition. Though writers were casting a somewhat sour glance on society, and trying to present objectively what they saw, they were not completely drawn into the determinism of late century. Henry James, for example, might set his individuals in the milieu of Europe and show the contrasts of civilizations, but he created Christopher Newmans and Isabel Archers and Milly Theales who were essentially Emersonian in their resolving of problems through self-reliance.
Howard's work is an absorbing study of American letters, and he includes, even in his sketchy approach, most of the giants. The Calvinists of New England are here—Cotton, Edwards, Anne Bradstreet and Michael Wigglesworth, but so are the freer Anglicans of Virginia, notably the prolific and gry lord of Westover—William Byrd II. So are the 19th century greats, and those of the 20th—Lewis, Dos Passos, Faulkner, Wolfe and Hemingway.
His first period is 1608-1828; his second 1829-1867; his third 1868-1929, and his fourth—which he labels an epilogue—1930 on. There are valid reasons for this breakdown, as can be readily seen—the reaction to the Enlightenment set in with romanticism, and Emerson began to write around 1828; realism had its beginning around 1867, with Howells and Clemens" "Jumping Frog"; 1929 brought the end of the complacent yet exciting world of the 1920s.
It would be impossible to treat intelligently, in a brief review, the many figures and trends that Howard discusses. But some of his insights merit consideration and mention. He notes, for example, the tremendous intellectual impact of the Declaration of Independence, for here men of the Enlightenment were making the jump from empirical reasoning to intuition, and it was indeed a big jump. And the great contrast between the Declaration and the Constitution is that the writers of the latter (as well as the writers of the Federalist papers) returned to good solid empirical approaches.
Also of interest is his description of the evolution of Natty Bumppo through the Leatherstoking tales. Natty first appears in "The Pioneers" as an almost comic figure, "more closely akin to Irving's Ichabod Crane than to Daniel Boone." But in "The Last of the Mohicans" he has become an alert and accurate observer, in the pure tradition of empiricism. In "The Prairie" he is the sentimentalized symbol of the past—the personsification of Jefferson's "noble husbandman."
Howard's view of "Moby Dick" contains additional interest. Speaking of Melville and his apparent intellectual reservations over whether his story of the whale was a rational one, and about the author's attitude toward Ishmael, Howard observes that Melville's problem was a reflection of the prevailing attitude of mid-century America—"a rational commitment to empiricism as a philosophy but with enough doubts and reservations to admit the possibility of intuition and inspiration..."
LITTLE MAN ON CAMPUS By Dick Bibler
"SOMETIMES I THINK THE PRESIDENT KEeps TOO CLOSE TABS ON THE FACULTY."