Evening Post Wednesday, May 31. 1944. WENDELL WILLKIE WARNS

Evening Post, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 127, 31 May 1944, Page 4

Evening Post Wednesday, May 31. 1944. WENDELL WILLKIE WARNS

Wendell Willkie, a man of many speeches and writings and at least one book, appeared to be impressing both the United • States and the world, yet he evidently did not impress some unseen factors in the Republican Party, for he drifted out of the U.S. Presidential contest after one decided rebuff from the Republicans of Wisconsin. Retiring, he bequeaths a varied collection of opinions on world politics and.on Russia —some of which have been rejected in Moscow—and he also bequeaths something of special interest to all parts of the Englishspeaking world that are not American. This pearl of great price is a hope that Mr. Willkie expressed in October,' 1943, through a London paper, that "the British people will neither directly nor indirectly attempt to participate in American politics," and will not be tempted by the United States Presidential contest to say—in editorials or otherwise—that "the reelection of the present Administration in Washington is indispensable either (1) to the successful completion of the war, or (2) to the establishment of a just peace, or (3) to a fruitful international co-operation among the nations of the world." It may be in order to say that United States participation in post-war affairs is essential to the attainment of these three great goals, dr any of them, but not to include in that essentiality either President Roosevelt or a Democrat Administration. Thus spake Wendell Willkie. And when he spoke he spoke as a then probable choice of the Republicans for the Presidency.

This three-po.int warning is not very difficult to understand or to comply with. But Wendell Willkie"*s caution does not end there. He also warns against remarks that "constitute in their effects" criticism of American political leaders. In using these words he seems to ban anything that may be deemed critical by people who draw inferences; and to fix the limits of inferential criticism may be rather difficult. For instance, would a condemnation of the principle of social security, on the New Zealand model, amount to an attack on Mr. Fraser and Mr. Nash, and would an approval of that principle justify an inference that Roosevelt's New Deal has fallen short? Inferences, in the last analysis, belong solely to the person who draws them; and a ban on them, since they are indefinable, may not be practical. Nevertheless, Willkie warns against ."the creation of inferences that the members of the opposition in America are more 'political' in their outlook than the leaders of the Administration," and against any action "by officials of the British Government" in the way of "making remarks which, though they may not be direct attacks, constitute in their effects attacks upon the motives of the political leaders who are in opposition to the present Administration" in America. It will be seen that the "tapu" imposed by Wendell Willkie goes a very long way, psychologically as well as physically. He sees that there are two reasons why outside people should, not try to influence the American elections in this Presidential election year. One is that the Americans may resent it; the other is that outside attempts to influence American voters will operate in reverse. He does not deal with the difficulties of an unconscious critic, who becomes a critic only by some American's notion of what is to be inferred.

Did Winston Churchill, that master of words, escape this inferential net? Somewhat narrowly, perhaps. By "a strange coincidence," he said at the Mansion House, "this year, 1944, is also election year in the United States." There was not much in that to catch hold of. But not long ago "Senator Nye gave currency in Congress to an irresponsible columnist's story that Mr. Churchill, on his last visit to Washington, represented that it would be a tragic catastrophe if the American people failed to re-elect President Roosevelt." In quoting this statement, "A Political Observer" in the "Fortnightly" calls it "a very plausible canard, and in view of the intimacy which exists between the two leaders there is every evidence the Senator's allies are out to make the most of it." Even personal friendship, in its simple self, could give rise to inferences. In the circumstances, it may be sufficient to note that Mr. Dewey, chief contender for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Presidency since Wendell Willkie's retirement, has made further remarks that can be called the reverse of isolationist. He reaffirms his opinion that "our foreign affairs must be conducted so that disasters like the present [do not recur," and gives it new vitality [by saying that "we must not again i sit on the side-lines while future Kaisers, Fuhrers, and war lords grow strong and perfect plans for aggression." Both literally and inferentially, this is a reassuring statement.

Another reassuring fact is that the U.S. Administration walks with Congress, not as in 1918-19, when an earlier Democrat Administration walked by itself. The Secretary of State, Mr. Cordell Hull, reports today enthusiastically on the result of his discussions—discussions which will continue—on foreign policy with the post-war advisory committee of the Senate. These discussions were "frank and fruitful," and the Secretary of State adds: "I am definitely encouraged, anrj with the President's approval I am ready to proceed with informal discussions with Britain, Russia, and China, and then with the Governments of the other United Nations. Meanwhile, I shall have further discussions with the leaders of both parties of Congress and with others. The door of non-partisanship will continue wide open at the State Department, specially for consideration of any phase of planning a post-war security organisation." Faced with a Congress in which both parties are strong, and guided by the post-war experience of World War I, Cordell Hull's "non-partisanship" policy gives bright promise. And while things are going well, further speech- may be