OCR Text |
Show NATIONAL AFFAIRS Re viewed by I CARTER FIELD Should Peace Aims Be Stated Now? ... Is Fili-busteringto Fili-busteringto Continue ? . . . Bell Syndicate WNU Features. WASHINGTON. Wendell Willkie recently told a Canadian audience that he was afraid peace might come without a definite plan for the future. He has a right to have this fear, for nothing seems more likely than that peace will be achieved, and by victory, before that definite map of the future world order is generally approved. The reasons for this are not hard to find. Willkie is anxious for a statement of war aims NOW not only because of his anxiety for the future after the war but because he thinks such an agreement on the future plans would actually help to bring about victory. India would be the best illustration of his idea. Well before the end of the last World war Woodrow Wilson laid down a definite program for the future fu-ture in his famous 14 points. There are many who believe the statement state-ment of these points, while hostilities hostili-ties still raged, helped to bring about the collapse of morale in Germany which resulted in the armistice. Wilson's 14 points, for the most part, were vague as to precisely how his self-determination for small peoples would work out in geographical geograph-ical boundaries. No one now defends de-fends the Versailles treaty, but is it conceivable that anybody or any group of high minded people, sitting around a table, and with any reasonable reason-able length of time at their disposal, could have worked out a solution which would not have resulted in untold grief, bitterness' and the seed for future wars? Shrouded in Vague Statements Now suppose, with the best intentions inten-tions in the world, this country and Britain and Russia and China should attempt to state precisely what they proposed to do about local government in the various parts of the world, once victory was achieved. It is perfectly true that such a statement, if believed, would inspire some peoples now almost disinterested disinter-ested in the outcome to show enthusiasm for victory by the United Unit-ed Nations. But is it not also true that just as surely a lot of peoples in various parts of the world would find themselves in revolt against the program? That is the reason that so many practical statesmen, foreseeing the give and take which must come at the peace table, want to keep every statement of war aims shrouded in vague statements of generally accepted ac-cepted principles. It All Depends Who Is Using Tactics! Despite a lot of indignation throughout the country at the successful suc-cessful filibuster against the poll tax prohibition law, and despite the confident announcements of Senator Claude Pepper, of Florida, and others, oth-ers, that they would move immediately immedi-ately to amend the rules of the senate sen-ate so as to make filibusters impossible, impos-sible, this will not be done. When the time comes it will be found that many senators who were anxious to pass this bill which has just been talked to death will hesitate hesi-tate to make the tactics ty which they were defeated impossible. Next time it might easily be something some-thing THEY wanted to kill! Most people, speaking theoretically, think that this power which a few senators sena-tors can exercise to defeat any new measure, is wrong. They say that it is not democratic that the will of the majority should prevail. There are two sides to that one, but only one is important in this discussion. dis-cussion. The other one is that the purpose of the Founding Fathers, as Senator Borah used to call them, was to provide one legislative body which would respond quickly to the popular will. That was the house of representatives. The other, the senate, was deliberately removed from danger of immediate public reprisal. Until 1912, the senators were not even elected by the people, peo-ple, but by the state legislatures. The idea of course in protecting the senators from IMMEDIATE removal re-moval was to provide a breathing spell before any radical change in the laws could be put into effect. But the important side to the present pres-ent situation, involving the power lodged in any small but vocal number num-ber of senators to prevent the speedy passage of a bill, is very seldom, 1 indeed, a weapon by which a minority minor-ity defeats a majority. In all the history of senate filibusters students stu-dents have found few cases where actually the majority will was thwarted it was usually the case that privately a majority of senators WANTED the filibuster to succeed. It is impossible of proof, but any reasonable reporter can satisfy himself him-self in a few days' investigation that the recent filibuster against the bill to prohibit poll taxes had the secret approval of more than a majority ma-jority of the senate. Is that democratic government to permit our elected representatives representa-tives to accomplish their will without with-out taking the responsibility? The senators do not think so. But a majority of them were very much afraid of minority groups m their own states. And THAT smacks more of minority rule than the power of a group of senators to talk a bill to death. , Actually, two-thirds of the senators sena-tors can force action on ANY measure meas-ure within a reasonable length of time by the cloture rule. So it takes a minority of at least one-third one-third plus one to make a filibuster StThat rule will not be "liberalized." |