PARTISAN REVIEW
finally to listen to speeches. . . . " He adds that "one of my Socialist
friends" warned him against "the Communists' indifference to the
dignity of the individual" But Matthiessen does not even attempt to
deal with this objection, to discover whether it is true or false. The
teetering American intellectual succumbs to the large crowd, to the
stirring songs and the fraternal laughter; he does not even report what
the Stalinist leaders said at their rally-and what does it matter?; for
the rally was large, and they sang songs and they laughed-he was with
them, one of them-hurrah !-all comrades together, arm in arm–
marching, marching. Where to, Mr. Matthiessen? Or is it enough that
Russia "knows what it wants?"
Finally: Wallace. In his seconding speech at Philadelphia, Matthies–
sen spoke of Wallace's kinship to "Thomas Jefferson in the range of his
humane interests and in his fearless devotion to principles." He placed
Wallace "against the background of our agrarian and populist move–
ments" and found in his thought influences of "Roger Williams, and
Emerson, and William James."
By now the appeal to Jefferson is so hackneyed and absurd that
even politicians are embarrassed when they use it. Matthiessen seems to
work on the assumption, however, that in politics anything goes, even
the oldest of all cliches. Thus, again, his comparison of Wallace with the
populists. He must know that populism was an indigenous and spon–
taneous agrarian movement essentially democratic in its motivations and
political control, while the Wallace movement, which has least sup–
port among farmers, is a completely contrived creature of Stalinism, so
much so that it refused to endorse the mildest criticism of the Rus–
sian dictatorship. Or does he use such comparisons for mere rhetorical
effect and without regard to their accuracy?
It
would be a pity if Matthiessen's literary colleagues and audience
were to allow his political stand to go unchallenged. At the Wallace con–
vention he spoke as an outstanding intellectual-which was his privilege,
provided that, in turn, he speak as a Wallace supporter to the intellectual
community of which he is part. Let him tell us concretely which of
Wallace's recent statements he thinks introduced "major principles into
political discussion." Wallace's desire to cede Berlin to the Russians? Or
his fantastic admission that he could not characterize the Communist
Party because he, a candidate for President, had no knowledge of Com–
munism? Or his numerous apologies for the Stalinist coups in eastern
Europe? Let Matthiessen speak up on these matters; the audience which
hears him out on literary subjects will unquestionably wish to receive
1128
