SOUR GRAPES

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Although I am also disappointed at the defeat of Governor Stevenson at the polls last Tuesday, I cannot stomach the brand of sour grape juice served up in your editorial of November 6th in which you analyze the reasons for this defeat.

Around the Corner

The proposition advanced in this editorial is that the GOP won because it adopted the witch-hunting technique of "the McCarthys, the Jenners, the Kems, and the Cains." Your implication is that Fascism (sic) is just around the corner if "the current drive for conformity" continues.

Allow me to draw your attention to several points which may put your fears at rest.

1. Governor Stevenson's advisers attribute the large vote which he received in Philadelphia, in contrast to his weak vote in other cities, to the efforts of a vigorous new Democratic organization there. They do not attribute it to the fact that there are fewer Catholics (to your way of thinking apparently the element most likely to support McCarthyism) in Philadelphia than in cities like Boston.

2. Of the five worst "witch-hunters" (Kem, Ecton, Cain, McCarthy, and Jenner), three were defeated for reelection. This hardly indicates public approval of their techniques.

McCarthy Ran Behind

3. Jenner and McCarthy, favorite targets of the CRIMSON pre-election editorials, although elected, ran substantially behind the national ticket in their states. The New York Times characterizes this as a "rebuke from the voters."

I do not deny that we must be on our guard against "witch-hunting" and "book burning." In light of the above however, the CRIMSON would do well to follow its own editorial advice the large studies of this year's attempting to asses of McCarthyism of the single of the population. I view with alarm the continued tendency on the part of the CRIMSON editors to see a Man on a White Horse clattering down Plympton Street. R. G. Livingston '53, 1G

Our attention suitably drawn, we take up reader Livingston's points in order:

1. We never suggested that the Democrat's sweep is Philadelphia rested on ethnic considerations alone. As everyone concedes, it rested mainly on the zeal of local Democrats. Yet it is fair to say, as we did, that Philadelphia Democrats were not plagued by the same factor that plagued Boston Democrats, the Reds-in-government issue operating on people highly sensitive to the problem of Communism in general. Cities with heavy Catholic vote of cities like say, Los Angeles, where exacerbation of subversion is now a ghastly vogue, offered problems to Stevenson worker's that Philadelphia did not.

2 & 3. Happy though the retirement of Ecton, Kem, and Cain is, this windfall is irrelevant to the effect of McCarthyism and its practitioners on areas out of their respective states. McCarthy's presence in Connecticut, for instance, is credited in great part with the finality of Benton's defeat. McCarthyism's effect is undoubtedly stronger in areas like Connecticut, Massachusetts, and cities whose electorate is especially Jittery over Communism that it is in Washington, the scene of Cain's defeat, whose population is more liberal. And it was these Jittery voters who deprived Stevenson of votes the Democratic Party needed for national victory. As for the "rebuke from voters," we suspect the "Times of hopeful fantasy. Perhaps McCarthy and Jenner did not receive the votes gloomy liberals predicted; what is of importance is that McCarthy won substantially, and Jenner defeated the most popular Democrat the State of Iowa can boast.

This of course does not prove that McCarthyism alone elected Eisenhower. What, in out opinion, it does suggest is that, among all the complex issues which determined the election, the Reds-in-government issue--by paring down the national Democratic big-city vote--played a leading part in the GOP victory. The Reds was a primus inter pares, if you wish, among the issues.

If this analysis is true as we believe, then there is an obligation on the General, payable to men like McCarthy. We do not say that the General will feel required to pay off, rather we hope he does not, but in any case the mere presence of such an obligation is disturbing.

Is this, then, a strident proclamation announcing the advent of Fascism? Is it an outright prediction of a Palmer-like series of witch-hunts? The editorial reader Livingston attacks is no more than a deeply felt and statistically plausible qualm on our part, one which we hope is needles. Whatever upset reader Livingston's stomach, then, has little to do with such mild grape-juice as out. It involves ingerdients which he himself unjustly read into the editorial. --Ed.

Our attention suitably drawn, we take up reader Livingston's points in order:

1. We never suggested that the Democrat's sweep is Philadelphia rested on ethnic considerations alone. As everyone concedes, it rested mainly on the zeal of local Democrats. Yet it is fair to say, as we did, that Philadelphia Democrats were not plagued by the same factor that plagued Boston Democrats, the Reds-in-government issue operating on people highly sensitive to the problem of Communism in general. Cities with heavy Catholic vote of cities like say, Los Angeles, where exacerbation of subversion is now a ghastly vogue, offered problems to Stevenson worker's that Philadelphia did not.

2 & 3. Happy though the retirement of Ecton, Kem, and Cain is, this windfall is irrelevant to the effect of McCarthyism and its practitioners on areas out of their respective states. McCarthy's presence in Connecticut, for instance, is credited in great part with the finality of Benton's defeat. McCarthyism's effect is undoubtedly stronger in areas like Connecticut, Massachusetts, and cities whose electorate is especially Jittery over Communism that it is in Washington, the scene of Cain's defeat, whose population is more liberal. And it was these Jittery voters who deprived Stevenson of votes the Democratic Party needed for national victory. As for the "rebuke from voters," we suspect the "Times of hopeful fantasy. Perhaps McCarthy and Jenner did not receive the votes gloomy liberals predicted; what is of importance is that McCarthy won substantially, and Jenner defeated the most popular Democrat the State of Iowa can boast.

This of course does not prove that McCarthyism alone elected Eisenhower. What, in out opinion, it does suggest is that, among all the complex issues which determined the election, the Reds-in-government issue--by paring down the national Democratic big-city vote--played a leading part in the GOP victory. The Reds was a primus inter pares, if you wish, among the issues.

If this analysis is true as we believe, then there is an obligation on the General, payable to men like McCarthy. We do not say that the General will feel required to pay off, rather we hope he does not, but in any case the mere presence of such an obligation is disturbing.

Is this, then, a strident proclamation announcing the advent of Fascism? Is it an outright prediction of a Palmer-like series of witch-hunts? The editorial reader Livingston attacks is no more than a deeply felt and statistically plausible qualm on our part, one which we hope is needles. Whatever upset reader Livingston's stomach, then, has little to do with such mild grape-juice as out. It involves ingerdients which he himself unjustly read into the editorial. --Ed.