OCR Text |
Show Newsax THi3:'Mi:VS:! Dy Paul Mallon 3 ' Iteleased by Western Newspaper Union. FOUR FREEDOMS AND RADICAL IDEOLOGIES WASHINGTON. The unresolved conflict between the Four Freedoms and radical ideologies which is apparent ap-parent behind the confusing political politi-cal news from abroad is also conspicuous con-spicuous behind much domestic news and interpretation. The Leftist journals are currently campaigning for the Beveridge proposed pro-posed "way of life" in Britain, with the critical demand that it also be pursued here. They think that is what the Four Freedoms mean, assumption as-sumption by the state of more complete com-plete authority over the lives of men economically, fixing their wages, their employment, their security rather than encouraging the individual indi-vidual to do it himself on his own initiative. That is the kind of peace and postwar planning they want. But we have campaigned this war through to a point near victory on the basis of bringing liberty and democracy de-mocracy for the individual both here and abroad. Is their thinking now not as confused and as far wrong as It was a few months ago when they were campaigning for a quart of milk a day and labor-wage standards stand-ards to be fixed throughout the world? What is liberty? What is democracy? democ-racy? What is freedom of the individual? indi-vidual? If we do not first decide that, how can there be anything but confusion about postwar planning? plan-ning? TOO IDEALISTIC? To me, an individual enslaved to a state economically by taxation or otherwise, is no less a slave than if controlled politically. In a dictatorship, dictator-ship, his life is no more free than the conscience and ability of the man who happens to be running the state at any given time. If he has a democratic form, he Is still no more free than by whatever what-ever degree his president and congress con-gress are free from domination by minority class groups and interests. In the religious sense, he, is not free if he is dominated by , any class group either. Domination by one religion or by atheism is equally far from any democratic ideology. The radicals see this, but this part of it only. How can they expect anyone to believe domination brings economic freedom when they see bo well it does not bring religious freedom? They could not consider the world politically free if it was dominated by one world imperial power, at least no one else wouM Oneness domination never yet ha achieved freedom or liberty or democracy de-mocracy in any way. What we would like to have is complete freedom for all peoples in all ways, economically, politically, religiously. This always has proved ' too idealistic a goal for the world to achieve entirely, but by whatever further progress we make in that direction, the peace will be successful. success-ful. By whatever measure we compromise com-promise it, the peace will fail. We were drawn deeper into what measure of collectivism we already had before this war only to meet failures. The ideal was not voluntarily espoused as the proper way of life. It was not what we wanted. It was what we had to take. Entering the war, we assumed the additional collectivism col-lectivism only for 'war. Our course in that direction should be pursued in the postwar peace only to whatever extent it will brings true justice to the individual. The star of individual freedom should never be eclipsed one inch by collectivism col-lectivism as our ideal. Our success in this war was not due to collectivism but to voluntary democratic cooperation by all hands. To whatever extent labor sacrificed its right to strike, it expects ex-pects to get that right back, and so with all of us. DEMOCRATIC COOPERATION Internationally we did not win by collectivism either, but by truly democratic cooperation. One nation did not dominate the military decisions de-cisions of how to proceed with the fighting. This democratic way is working well against a nation which practiced collectivism and preached subservience of the individual to the state. These are rudiments of simple sim-ple common sense for peace. If we wish to dispel confusion and plan our way, we must first define de-fine our words and understand our goals. We must decide that, . internationally or domestically, the star of real liberty must be maintained as indispensable. We must abhor collectivism as an ideal, and compromise with it reluctantly and temporarily only to the extent truly necessary to bring justice to the individual. We must abhor oneness domination, domina-tion, totalitarianism, dictatorship, and remember always that an individual indi-vidual enslaved to the state by any means whatever will have no more Liberty and democracy than the fluctuating fluc-tuating goodness and justice of that controlling force. Men do not take well that kind of power either as heads of worlds or Df any subdivisions of society. |