1104
PARTISAN REVIEW
of view. And then you have the nerve to reproach me for mentioning
so late in some forgotten comer of the press one half of the nonsense
that all the papers give in headline as the greatest political move of our
day. 'Quickly done!' you say."
"Never mind," said the diplomat, who had listened to this long
speech with no sign of either impatience or approval, " I still say this
is quickly done. Anyone can do that. It doesn't take much intelligence
to be destructive."
"I know that," said the writer, "and I never claimed that it takes
a superior intelligence to criticize the government.
As
you so rightly
put it, anyone can do that ... but who does? People with government
jobs can't do it; that wouldn't be correct; and
if
they could, they
wouldn't do it anyway; that wouldn't be wise. So the critic must be a
free-lancer, which means that he must do a pretty thankless job unless
he
is
a columnist of nation-wide repute, and even then, his criticism
will be viewed as treason."
"I still contend that you are wrong," said the diplomat, "even
though I must add that. in private, I have often agreed with what
you said in your articles and would probably still agree with you now.
But
in private
I said and wish to repeat;
not
in public. Unless you can
offer some good, workable alternative, it is very bad to discredit the
government, because that leads to fascism, you should know this."
"Sorry," said the writer coldly, "I don't think we agree." Mter
which they both parted, "former" friends.
Now, as the reasons put forth in the above are so frequently
heard today as to have become standard phrases in our daily argu–
ments at home, in the street, in the press and over the radio, let us
examine the problem and see what it is that wrecks friendships,
provides quarrelling couples with excuses to fight, and divides public
opinion in so deep a manner.
At first sight, all there seems to be to it is that some believe the
truth should be whispered, others told aloud. It's a matter of form.
The opinions may well be the same, and, what is more surprising, they
are
for the most part the same, because most of those who thus argue
seem to agree wholeheartedly on one basic point: that we must
preserve our free discussion from the dailger of Communist thought–
control.
