VARIETY
467
do so only superficially. Their
view is small that is to say, cir·
cumscribed, as evidenced by their
passion for "order" at all costs,
how it stinks! or what in another
aspect is seen plainly enough to
be their limitations.
Nothing is likely to surprise
them more than to see themselves
aligned with associates among
states inimical to the democratic
purpose with whom they could,
intellectually, go quietly to bed.
For instance, would it not surprise
John Dewey, greatly as he knows
himself to be respected, to find
himself by reason of his strictly
ar ~ ued
letter in the same class
with those who ordered the Easter
bombing of Guernica? Or Max
Eastman, because of his article in
Reader's Digest,
another Rimm–
ler? The mark of the intellectual
is there plainly to be seen.
Naturally Dewey and Eastman
have committed no crimes as the
others with whom I have compared
them are criminals. I say merely
that there is a resemblance as in–
dicated and that it is a dangerous
resemblance which in times like
these we, as a group, must guard
against.
The significance of this, in a
democracy, and this is where the
blunders committed by such men
as I am speaking of cut deepest, is
that whereas Washington and Lin–
coln were factors for order, such
men and many more like them are
factors for disorder. It is the in–
tellectual smallness of their posi–
tions as contrasted with the
lar~e
ness in the sense of a great inclu–
sion that is the deciding point.
II
Wallace Stevens in his poem,
"Connoisseur of Chaos," stated
that, a violent order is disorder.
Intellectuals do violence to the
body politic by their insi5tence,
in vacuuo, that is, on a basis of
pure thought, on some principle,
some blockade which must be lev–
eled before action will be permit–
ted to proceed beyond it. No flank
attack is recognized. Any biolo–
gist would get the absurdity of
such a situation at a glance; not,
apparently, a philosopher. The
Trotzkyite and Stalinist positions
reduce themselves finally to the
opposing terms of just such a pat–
tern.
Eastman makes his three major
points on the U.S.-Soviet relations
as follows:
l.
Military - There must be
complete, effective collaboration
among all the Allies on all the
fighting fro.nts, backed by system–
atic and mutual economic support.
2. Political - There must be
uncompromising insistence on the
values of free democratic society,
and on the hypocritical white–
washes of the evils of dictatorship
and totalitarianism: belief in lib–
ertarian ideals is a full-time job.
3. Diplomatic- We must have
a tough-minded, plain speaking
representative in Moscow, who
represents the American people
(as we are represented in Con–
gress, does he mean, or business?)
who knows the Russian achieve–
ments, and who realizes that soft–
ness in Stalin's eyes breeds con–
tempt.
This is well said. But-There
must be, there must be, we must
... etc. We must face the facts
a'bout Russia.-The "facts", says
he!
•
And if there isn't, if we do not?
Then what? Must we give up the
war? Eastman does not realize
that inherent in his permitting
himself to spout in this way is a
major factor for disorder. Noth-
