Yes, Yes, of Course

To The Editor of The CRIMSON:

In yesterday's CRIMSON the editorial entitled "Politics and Politicians" was especially worthy of note. It was an excellent example of an editorial attempt to say something which has only succeeded in nothing much. As a matter of fact, the little editorial was pure gas which served but to air a prejudice. On the basis of the author's belief (He offers no statistics or factual information--we are to take his word for it) that the present Administration offers no solution to the depression, he utterly condemns the New Deal. Under the veil of criticism of New Deal policy, politics and politicians he conceals a far more reaching criticism of our entire system of government. His editorial is actually an attempt to not only unqualifiedly disparage our present administration, but to annihilate, by nothing more than his own omnipotent personal opinion, our fundamental system of government. For reasons of method, his editorial is insidious, underhanded. I really suspect that he is an N.S.L.

Now, of course, we believe that our system of government, our New Deal, is open to criticism--we insist upon it. But then, too, criticism, i.c., acceptable criticism must have a foundation of fact. We must be able to substantiate our opinions. A mere statement of opinion does not guarantee its right of existence as such, but it must be logical in itself and logical in its assumptions. For instance, the author in question says: "The Administration's Federal Relief system is an instance of a two sided affair." And he goes directly on to talk about charity and ethics, while we wait patiently but in vain for an exposition of the two sides. But by that time we have forgotten, too. However, it is an excellent example of his logic. Reading on: "Not even Franklin Roosevelt or Herbert Hoover or Upton Sinclair or Commander Hayes of the American Legion can hope to supply a cure for our troubles and still cling to the methods of a hundred and fifty years ago!" And I might add Jesse James. But this is utterly meaningless, a mere hodge-podge of names and inconsistencies, mere guesswork. And nothing is said by way of clearing up this hopeless jumble. Or perhaps he was being witty? Further comment needless, such statements as quoted can be most irritating. They are an insult to one's intelligence. They forfeit any claim to intellectual integrity. Alfred M. Nittle '36.