VI
HNAM
651
However, freedom is more subtle and takes infinitely longer to ac–
complish than repression. Meantime, nationalism, once the friend of
progrel!s and now increasingly its enemy, has proven even more con–
tagious. On our side, pride and belief in the American example give
way on the Right Wing and often elsewhere to the despairing fallacy
that we are "losing the Cold War." Even in the academic world, many
still speak of the Sino-Soviet bloc, and regard the war in Vietnam as a
now-or-never confrontation with world Communism, required in the
national interest. if not by a wider crusading impulse. Yet this is at the
very time when in domestic affairs the most visionary plans gain a respect–
ful governmental hearing, and when President Johnson is determined,
not only to complete the unfinished business of the New Deal, but to
move far beyond it, provided that intellectuals and administrators can
help define the programs. The President understandably complains that
he has also inherited the essential business of defending South Vietnam,
but he has, it seems, himself accepted a legacy of self-righteous and
complacent belief that we were helping repulse, not a civil war, but a
Communist invasion, centrally directed. Hence, to invite the Vietcong's
representatives to the conference table would at least begin political
reeducation in this country, and this would be to an immensely greater
audience than teach-ins or other minority protests could possibly reach.
In Santo Domingo, dealing with a feeble if not nonexistent foe,
President Johnson found the courage
to
compensate for initial error, and
is now seeking a coalition not dominated by the military. In Vietnam to
begin de-escalation
by
stopping the bombings and offering to deal with
the Vietcong would take great courage, too. It might not open the way
toward immediate solution; but it would eventually make other changes
possible, moving in the direction of a settlement. Otherwise, by polarizing
the world and seeking goals beyond stabilization, he may prepare the very
defeats he fears.
Harold Rosenberg
Read casually the "Statement on Vietnam and the Dominican
Republic" in PR seems unobjectionable. True, it does not add much to
earlier criticism. But it protests against the military buildup, favors "free
societies" and "democratic revolutionary groups," and calls for an intel–
lectual reappraisal. Why not sign it then? Because upon closer examina–
tion what comes through is the intellectual format of the paralyzing anti–
Communist
Realpolitik
of the McCarthy days. In actual fact, the state–
ment is a reactionary defense of the policy it seems to attack and its call
