FORTHRIGHTNESS

To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

One interesting aspect of the current presidential campaign has been the impact on large segments of the Harvard population of the personality and speaking manner of candidate Stevenson. His air of intellectualism and humility have caused thousands to hail him as the most forthright candidate in decades. Everywhere claims are heard that Stevenson's campaign is one of candor and honest discussion of issues, where Eisenhower has fallen to demagoguery and shameful surrender to the reactionary line. I wish to present some serious objections to this theory. . .

While Nixon may be guilty of Fuzzy-mindedness in regard to his campaign funds, and of a certain amount of ballyhoo in trying to clear himself, he is nevertheless morally honest, and certainly not reactionary. He is not McCarthy. (The CRIMSON's coverage of his Boston appearance was not only slanted but inaccurate. Nixon was introduced not by Lodge, who never spoke, but by Herter.) On the other hand, Sparkman has been kept pretty far in the background. Do the "liberals" in the Stevenson camp really think they can kill the filibuster or legisislate FEPC with Sparksman presiding over the Senate? Is it "honest discussion" to raise such a furor over Nixon, while deliberately disregarding the alternative?

Surrender

Every Democratic spokesman from Stevenson on down has accused Ike of "surrending" to Taft. The fact is that, before his nomination, Eisenhower showed himself to be basically opposed to Big Government, as is Taft. In the interest of party unity, Ike and Taft have emphasized their areas of agreement and glossed over their difference. However, neither has attempted ta change his stand to appease the other, except possibly for Ike's reversal on UMT. The charge of "surrender" is a standard political device. . . Democrats cite Ike's stand on the Taft-Hartley law; he recommended that is be amended where necessary, but that its many sound principles be preserved. . . . Stevenson, on the other hand, has reversed his stand and demanded complete repeal of the law, without suggesting what he would put in its place or how he would prevent the labor monopolies from becoming dictatorial. . .

A great effort has been made to identify Eisenhower with McCarthy. He has appeared on the same platform with him, and endorsed "all Republican-candidates for Congress." While this blanket endorsement is blindly partisan, it is neither strong nor unusual. Ike has specifically denounced McCarthy's methods in terms so direct that no one can honestly doubt his meaning. On the other hand, Stevenson has not renounced any Democratic candidate; he has appeared with Paul Dever. . .

lllusions

Stevenson has joined in spreading the illusion that the Depression was caused by Republican incompetence and wiped out by the magic of FDR. This is at least a gross oversimplification. He has accused the Republicans of advocating military weakness; yet there has been no more persistent advocate of a realistic arms program than Henry Cabot Lodge, to whom Ike owes his nominations. Stevenson claims that corruption in government is primarily the fault of the voters. Such specious reasoning is not forthrightness. His argument will be true only if the voters endorse the corrupt administration at the polls.

This letter is intended neither as a discussion of the real issues nor as a character assassination. It does not claim that Eisenhower has entirely avoided the inconsistencies of politicians. It merely seeks to show that the claim of Stevenson's forthrightness as opposed to Eisenhower's demagoguery will not stand up under scrutiny. Edward Upton '53

The confusion of Lodge with Herter regrettably exists in Mr. Upton's mind, not in ours. Lodge indeed performed the introduction. 1200 residents of South Boston's Ward 6 and several score members of the working press managed to see what Mr. Upton apparently missed: that it was Herter ( a tall, spare man who doesn't look a bit like Lodge) who remained silent throughout the proceedings. As for the intentional slanting, it would be a difficult process at best. The CRIMSON is editorially oppose to Nixon, while it is supporting Lodge and Herter.--Ed.