The Vanishing Americans

I recently had occasion to give a dinner party in London for a rather widely assorted group of friends and acquaintances. Among the guests was an outspoken Socialist I've known for many years. When the table conversation lagged, he seized the opportunity to deliver a political monolog, expressing views which were more than slightly left of center.

To my amusement, one of my other guests, a vacationing American businessman, later felt constrained to ask me how I, a "leading Capitalist," could tolerate the presence of such a wild radical at my dinner table.

"Aren't you afraid to have a man like that around you, spouting all those dangerous theories?" he asked.

Keeping a straight face, I tried to explain that Socialism is an entirely respectable political ideology in Great Britain, adding, for what I hoped was proper snob-appealing emphasis, that Socialists are even received at Buckingham Palace by Her Majesty, the Queen.

I assured my worried fellow countryman I didn't really consider the theories we'd heard expounded at all dangerous. I said I hoped my convictions weren't built on such shifting foundations that a 10-minute tirade by a Socialist zealot could undermine them or corrupt me.

My arguments did not appear to make very much of an impression. I strongly suspect the jittery businessman went away thinking that at best I had been contaminated by exposure to a subversive alien ideology and at worst had turned into one of those parlor pinks he'd heard so much about.

Quite plainly, the man is one of the unfortunately far-too-numerous Americans who seem to have lost their perspective and sense of humor and fair play in recent years. They've developed a tendency to automatically equate dissension with disloyalty. They view any criticism of our existing social, economic and political forms as sedition and subversion.

Now, I am most certainly neither parlor nor any other shade of pink. It hardly seems necessary for me, of all people, to say that I'm vigorously opposed to government ownership of industry, that I'm an energetic exponent of the free enterprise system. I can't imagine myself comfortable under a Socialist regime. Nor can I imagine such a regime looking upon me with much tolerance.

The political implications of the anecdote I've cited are purely incidental and coincidental. I used it solely to illustrate a manifestation of what I, for one, have observed to be a contemporary American phenomenon and which, to my mind, is disturbing, deplorable and truly dangerous.

I'm referring to the growing reluctance of Americans to criticize, and their increasing tendency to condemn those who, in ever dwindling numbers, will still voice dissent, dissatisfaction and criticism.

Let me make it quite clear that I hold no special brief for any particular ideology, party, group or school of thought which might want or seek to bring about changes of any kind in our manners, mores or institutions. I am not a reformer, crusader, social philosopher, political or economic theorist.

I do, however, consider myself enough of a realist to appreciate that this is not--and never has been and never will be--the best of all possible worlds. The concept that any status quo is perfect and permanent, that one must under no circumstances raise questions, voice doubts or seek improvements can only produce complacency, then stagnation and finally collapse.

It does no good to pretend there is never anything wrong anywhere, for there is always something--be it big or little--wrong everywhere. Individuals and civilizations can only strive for perfection. It is highly unlikely that they will ever achieve it.

Very often it remains for the dissenter to point out that which is wrong. He is a skeptic who doubts, questions and probes--and hence is more likely to (continued on page 82)Vanishing(continued from page 790 recognize lacks, weaknesses and abuses than are his complacent neighbors.

The dissenter is also more alert and sensitive to the winds of impending change. He is thus frequently a prophet of the inevitable, who cries for action or change while there is yet time to take action and make changes voluntarily.

Such famed American dissenters of the past as Ida Tarbell, Lincoln Steffens, William Allen White and H. L. Mencken were labeled muckrakers and much worse by some of their contemporaries. Yet, they were given fair hearing. No one seriously suggested muzzling them. No one felt afraid of being exposed to their views.

The biting commentaries, hard-hitting denunciations and exposés of the so-called muckrakers helped bring about many needed changes and improvements which even the most antediluvian conservative of today will admit had to be made and, once made, were universally beneficial.

But even if the dissenter is a false prophet and cries of perils or problems which do not really exist, he still performs an important and valuable service to society. He adds spice, spirit and an invigorating quality to life. He may create naught but controversy, but if he is allowed to speak, is heard and answered, he has served to stir the imaginations of others.

Years ago, there were many ruggedly individualistic dissenters on the American scene. They were never hesitant to disagree with minorities or with the majority.

They aimed their barbs at vital questions of the day. They expressed their opinions fearlessly, no matter how unpopular those opinions might have been. The voice of dissent has died away to a barely audible whisper. Present-day specimens of the vanishing breed are generally timorous and emasculated parodies akin to the medieval pedants who debated the question of how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

Today's dissenters mainly focus their attention and expend their energies on the most inconsequential of trivia. Where the Ida Tarbells and H. L. Menckens made frontal assaults on fortresses, they snipe at houses of cards.

Allegedly serious intellectuals quibble endlessly over such ridiculous trivialities as the artistic merit versus the political implications of a mural on the wall of a rural post office. In the meantime, the public is lulled into a perilous somnolence, spoon-fed pap and palpable untruths, many of which are turned out by special-interest and pressure groups and well-organized propaganda machines.

It is hardly surprising that the public mind is dulled and forced into a narrow mold which allows no room for consideration of the day's important issues.

Let a semiliterate disc jockey's contract be terminated--for however valid a reason--and his former employers are promptly deluged by furious letters, telegrams and telephone calls expressing protest at the "injustice" and "persecution." On the other hand, if a pressure group of dubious motive forces the resignation of a distinguished public servant, there are very few protests from the citizenry.

If a motion-picture fan magazine casts aspersions on the dramatic talents of some glandular starlet, the result is instant, widespread reaction from a partisan public. But when a vital piece of legislation is pending before a state legislature or the United States Congress, the matter is usually ignored by the overwhelming majority of citizens. It remains for self-seeking pressure groups and professional lobbyists to inform the lawmakers of the public's attitudes and opinions on the bill in question. The stagnant waters of indifference and apathy are deep.

Some of our newspapers and magazines are more concerned with the welfare of their advertisers than they are with the dissemination of news and the discussion of matters of lasting importance. I recall a recent edition of one well-known newspaper that devoted two full and lavishly illustrated pages to an article purporting to prove that Happier Gelatin Molding Makes for a Happier Home Life.

The same issue gave a three-paragraph report on a government crisis in a Latin American Republic, dispensed with a far-reaching change in Civil Defense policy in 11 lines, and allotted a scant half column to a résumé of legislative action taken that week in the state capitol.

Editorial policies?

"It's rapidly reaching the point where you're allowed to take a strong stand in favor of mothers, babies and stray dogs, and against crime and spitting in the streets--and that's about all," a veteran newspaper editor complained bitterly to me not long ago.

This, of course, is obviously an angry man's extravagant overstatement. Nonetheless, it should be painfully apparent to any regular newspaper reader that there is at least some truth to what he says.

But newspapers and magazines are by no means the only--nor even the worst--offenders. Radio, television, motion pictures, popular books--all contribute their very considerable share to the conditioning process that leads to the stultification of thought and the stifling of dissent on all but the most banal levels.

The extent to which some of these media will go to avoid controversy and to protect their own narrow interests is often incredible. It is graphically illustrated by a story I heard recently from a disgusted radio network executive. It appears that a large radio station killed a broadcast by a noted clergyman who was to have delivered a 15-minute talk on The Sanctity of Marriage.

Why was the cleric ruled off the air? The president of a firm which bought considerable advertising air time from the station was then involved in a noisy divorce scandal. The radio station's management was terrified lest this sponsor think the clergyman's remarks were directed at him!

It is, perhaps, significant that some of the most incisive and devastating commentaries on our contemporary manners, mores and institutions are being made today by night-club comedians of the so-called sick school. This would seem to indicate that, to be heard, the present-day critic must sugarcoat his bitter pills, but that, even when he does, there is at least implied disapproval of his dissent. Otherwise, why would the public label his cutting, ironical commentaries as sick?

I contend there is nothing sick about dissent and criticism. There is a great need for both in our present-day society. I firmly believe that now, as never before in our history, it is essential that not only our intellectuals, but also our average citizens question, doubt, probe, criticize and object. The stifling of dissent is not only a negation of our Constitutional guarantees of free speech, but also a renunciation of the most basic and precious of democratic principles.

Only if there are open discussions and arguments based on uninhibited criticism can there be an end to the growing trend toward complacency. And only when complacency disappears will it be possible for the United States to resume its vigorous, individualistic drive to achieve progress, betterment--and world leadership.

In a free society, nothing that in any way affects the lives or welfare of the public at large should ever be immune from examination and criticism. Be it our foreign policy, labor-management relations, educational system, or whatever, there is always justification and need for continuing, critical scrutiny.

As long as I've mentioned three specific areas of public interest, let's use them as examples and give each a quick glance. Let's begin by taking a single (concluded on page 98)Vanishing(continued from page 82) facet of our foreign policy to illustrate my point. Much time, money and energy are being expended in efforts to spread the American credo and to sell the American way of life abroad. Huge sums have been spent to build roads in countries that have few automobiles. Our Government has paid for the erection of giant office buildings in lands where the people live in mud huts. Costly exhibitions have been held in underdeveloped countries to show American refrigerators, television sets, electric ranges and wall-to-wall carpeting. We accept all these things as everyday commonplaces of our lives; but the average citizen of the countries in which we boast about our material wealth looks upon all such objects as unattainable--and often incomprehensible--luxuries.

This does not appear to be a very sensible mode of making friends of people who are underfed, poorly clothed and badly housed, unless we offer them definite, immediately workable programs whereby they can obtain these luxuries.

It is almost inconceivable that some of our foreign-aid administrators have failed to see these self-evident truths. Nonetheless, there were many who failed to see them and, for all I know, there still are those who are constitutionally unable to view the problem in proper perspective.

This and other forms of blindness have handicapped America's ambitious and commendable programs for making friends and helping less-fortunate people in foreign countries. Instead of giving those people hope and confidence, our representatives have frequently done nothing but emphasize the contrast between the host country's poverty and America's riches. Thus, the net result has been to increase resentment and to widen the gulf between backward nations and ourselves.

These situations and conditions have existed for quite a number of years. Yet, until very recently, it was considered at best very bad taste and at worst subversive to raise any questions about the omnipotence of those who directed our overseas aid programs.

As for American labor-management relations, some businessmen are still living figuratively in the long dead and unlamented days of public-be-damned laissez faire Capitalism. They resist any forward stride that may better the workingman's lot. In short, they consider labor as their natural enemy, rather than as their natural ally in a common effort.

On the other hand, quite a number of labor leaders have ceased being labor leaders. Instead, they've become executives in a new and independent industry called labor. This form of labor has but one apparent aim: to compete with business and industry and to make things as difficult and unprofitable as possible for them.

Clearly, there are errors and abuses on both sides of the labor-management fence. Yet, anyone who criticizes management will quickly have the wrath of manufacturers' groups down on his head. He who criticizes labor or its leaders will have the full fury of labor groups and organizations to contend with. In the former case, he will be reviled as a radical. In the latter, he will be accused of being a reactionary. Consequently, there are few who are willing to criticize both sides freely and objectively. There remains only the highly prejudiced criticism of one side by the other.

Our educational system? A shocking percentage of our high school and college graduates are deficient in reading, writing and simple arithmetic. Their knowledge of geography is weak, of history, woolly and muddled. There is obviously something wrong with our educational system. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that there might even be something wrong with at least some of our schoolteachers. But heaven help anyone daring to express such heretical views.

Through some weird process of brainwashing, the public has come to believe that our schools are sacrosanct, beyond criticism or question. As for our teachers, they have been endowed with sublime qualities; they are pictured as long-suffering, overworked and underpaid martyrs sacrificing themselves on the altars of education.

Any criticism of either schools or teachers brings a storm of abusive protest. Teachers' groups--and, egged on by them, Parent-Teacher Associations--are quick to counterattack. The critic is characterized as an ogre who hates children and wishes to destroy civilization and bring about a return of the Dark Ages.

According to U.S. Office of Education figures, American schoolteachers' salaries have risen more than 1000 percent in the last 50 years or so. The average schoolteacher's salary today is over $4000 per year. Would anyone in his right mind say that the quality of our educational standards has risen comparably--or risen at all--in the last half century?

Now, I did not choose these three examples because I have any particular axes to grind. I do not say that our foreign policy is bad, nor even that it necessarily needs any major overhaul. I am not trying to blame either capital or labor for any of our economic ills. In no way do I wish to imply that I believe all our school teachers are incompetent or undeserving of high praise or pay.

I chose the examples at random, merely to point out the fallacy of thinking that everything is always all right everywhere. There are always many things that require investigation, critical examination and evaluation--and then possibly change and improvement--in all areas of our society.

The public at large cannot allow itself to be swayed from seeking needed reforms by entrenched bureaucrats, selfish minority groups or organizations which have their own, and far from altruistic, reasons for wishing to preserve the status quo. In order that our society and its institutions may be strengthened there must be dissent. There must be dissenters who will seek out and point out the faults and abuses which exist or may develop.

"But most people today feel they can't afford to be dissenters," a moderately successful manufacturer declared to me recently. "They're afraid they'll lose their jobs, customers or profits if they try to buck powerful special-interest groups. You've got to be a multimillionaire to feel secure enough to speak out these days."

It so happens that I am a multimillionaire, but I'd hate to think it is for this reason alone that I can be a dissenter if I choose to be one. I don't believe it's true. I feel that the real reason there has been so little dissent of late is that Americans have been far too satisfied with their lot and with their achievements. We have all grown indifferent and complacent. Being too comfortable, we haven't wanted to see, say or hear anything which might disturb the bovine tranquillity of our rosy existence.

But I, for one, sense a strong wind of change in the offing. I'm of the opinion that America and its people are awakening to the realization that the lotus-eating binge is over. The hangover is already beginning to hurt--but it is having a highly beneficial effect. Through bleary eyes, we start to see the grave errors and deadly dangers in the "all is well and could not be better" thesis so long peddled by some of our leaders and the drumbeaters of Madison Avenue. I'm convinced the American people are ready to reclaim their minds and their nation, to take them back from the pressure groups, selfish minorities and hucksters to whom they lost them by default in recent years. I predict the vanishing American dissenters will soon reappear on the American scene and will once again make themselves heard--and will once again be given fair hearing. It will be a pleasure and a great relief to welcome them back. The nation's future will be brighter--and far more secure--for the return of the breed!