LIBERAL HANDSHAKE

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Recently you gave a Mr. Gwirtzman an opportunity to tell the CRIMSON readers something of the lecture Bill Buckley delivered in New Haven a short time ago. As a member of the organization which sponsored Mr. Buckley's appearance, I hope you will give me the same opportunity, and--if it will not impose on vitally needed space--a chance to express my repugnance at the character of Mr. Gwirtzman's remarks.

Mr. Buckley's subject, "The Liberal Mind" was delivered with the purpose of exposing some of the latent fallacies of in the liberal mind--namely its inconsistency, its intolerance, and its basic disregard for precise evaluation of facts and evidence. I do not know Mr. Gwirtzman. I do not know if he possesses a liberal mind. I do not know if he possesses a mind. Yet it is obvious to me that his report of the Buckley lecture exemplified the same kind of inconsistency of which Mr. Buckley was concerned. Indeed, Mr. Gwirtzman might well deserve the title of "mental spastic," a phrase used by Mr. Buckley.

Why is Mr. Gwirtzman inconsistent? In answering this question, I do not see why we must restrict ourselves to one individual. The answer can as well apply to many others--who in their attempt to think "freely" are in reality conforming to a dogma--who in their attempt to be different, look strangely and disgustingly alike. The basic inconsistency of which I speak is the Liberals insistence of fair play when he is at bat, and the disregard of this ethic when an opponent like Mr. Buckley takes his turn at the plate. One example--and there are many others--of the former characteristic is the Liberal hue and cry, usually pursued to a sickening degree, whenever Joe McCarthy was alleged to have stepped on a pink toe. An example of the latter characteristic is Mr. Gwirtzman's report on Bill Buckley's lecture. Mr. Gwirtzman tried his best to discredit the seriousness of Mr. Buckley's intent by inflating a few casual remarks about who would or would not shake hands with whom to the status of a main character in the plot. Did Mr. Gwirtzman attempt to convey any of Mr. Buckley's more serious points to his CRIMSON audience? Did Mr. Gwirtzman himself risk an exchange of ideas with Mr. Buckley during the hour-long question-answer period provided at the end of the lecture? He apparently feels safer in mouthing his opinions through the columns of the CRIMSON, which undoubtedly believes he has put on a good show.

A great tragedy is that Mr. Gwirtzman, the CRIMSON, and other liberally orientated species, undoubtedly believe themselves to be intellectually honest. Self-deception is another mental fallacy of the Liberal that I would add to Mr. Buckley's list.

Mr. Gwirtzman's "humorous" report of Mr. Buckley's lecture indicates that Mr. Gwirtzman believes in laughter as a spring tonic. I believe in laughter, too, but not at the expense of a young man who has the courage to throw out some ideas--regarded as unfashionable by the Liberal conformist--as to what is necessary to the very survival of this nation.

I suggest Mr. Gwirtzman get some sunshine. Peter Ridley Sperling, '53   Co-Chairman, Conservative Society   of Yale Law School

Would Mr. Sperling shake hands with Mr. Gwirtzman?--Ed.