"The Great Antagonism" by Dr. Jerome D. Frank, which appeared in the 101st anniversary issue of the Atlantic Monthly, has inspired me to write this article. Although I owe my inspiration to Dr. Frank, I do not see eye to eye with his diagnosis of his unprecedented patients, Uncle Sam and the Russian Bear.
I propose to make a diagnosis of four distinguished persons, two men and two women, each eminent in his or her calling, in the capacity of a critic, just to show how these so-called eminent people have such uneducated opinion on international issue, what damage they have done and what harm they are capable of doing to the cause of free nations.
Dr. Jerome D. Frank is the person to begin with. An associate professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School, his research interest in psychotherapy has led him to the diagnosis of what happens to Americans when they think of Russia and what happens to Russia when they think of the United States. Since the United States and Russia are the center of international issues, Dr. Frank, though writing as a professional psychiatrist, has presented his views and arguments in the role of a super-statesman. Although we find armchair experts galore in this world, there seems to be still room for one more like Dr. Frank.
In treating the United States and Russia as two individuals susceptible to social attitudes, Dr. Frank betrays his ignorance of international relations. Psychiatrist Frank would have a better case some 150 years ago when every nation was ruled by an individual with absolute power. The relations between two sovereign states then were determined by the whims and mood of the two rulers. Dr. Frank might be able to take full advantage of his professional training in psychiatry to do something for his patients so that relations between them could be improved. However, the difference in international relations today is not the difference between the leaders of the governments but the difference between one system of government and that of another. The leaders of one nation merely strive to defend the system of a government they represent. Those who believe that a state exists for the benefit of the people find it impossible to compromise with those who believe that the people live to slave for the state. So the belief held by the free nations is diametrically opposite to that of the Communist bloc. Psychiatrist Frank's attempt to diagnose the leaders of the governments without taking into consideration of the basic differences between the two systems of government leads him further away from coming into grips with the issue. That he is trying to achieve the impossible is a foregone conclusion.
"One sign that a person's thinking processes have gone seriously awry is inability to detect absurdities," says Dr. Frank. But his diagnosis is an absurdity per se. His arguments in favor of the Soviet Union are loaded with contradictions. His admiration of the Russian leaders' ability to achieve their goal successfully by means short of war even if they are bending every effort to make the entire world a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has completely blunted the sense of psychiatrist Frank's judgment. In other words, it doesn't matter for the United States and other free nations to become a part of Soviet Socialist Republics as long as Russia is capable of doing so by means short of war. In one instance he regards the United States fear of Russia unjustified and in another instance, he shows that he fears the outbreak of war so much that war should be averted at any price. Dr. Frank admits that "Russia is still a ruthless dictatorship," In the same paragraph, the psychiatrist says, "Although the treacherous execution of Nagy shows that Russia's policy toward the satellites is still one of terror, it may be significant that since execution of Beria, no defeated Russian leader has been killed. Dr. Frank should have his head examined by a more competent psychiatrist when, as an American, he thinks the life of a Russian leader more important than that of any other nation. As long as Russia's foreign policy is, in the words of Dr. Frank, "one of terror," the seemingly liberal domestic policy pursued at home has nothing to do with the outside world. Granted that the domestic policy in Russia today is more liberal than during the time of Stalin, it is not due to the so-called "stirrings of freedom" but to the fact that Khrushchev is not half as strong and confident of his leadership as Stalin was.
During the heyday of the British Empire, nothing in the international scene provoked more resentment of free peoples throughout the world than the eagerness of the British to maintain their empire. Yet Britain is one of the most democratic nations in the world and has more liberal colonial policies than those of the Soviet Union. In the course of the last ten years, one colony after another has won independence in spite of the very democratic government at home and a more liberal policy toward the colonies. Now an American psychiatrist believes in kowtowing to Russian imperialism despite the fact that its policy is "one of terror" just because of the "stirrings of freedom" within Russia. What a paradox!
It is at once a privilege for the free people to show interest in the world they live in. It is also a source of strength of the democratic government when its people can discuss freely the merits and demerits of the policy of their government. Unlike other experts and professional men who choose to live in a world of their own, Dr. Frank shows so much interest in world issues that he ventures to cure the sick world by virtue of his professional training as a psychiatrist. His intentions are praiseworthy, but unfortunately, his professional training has so dominated his thinking process that his diagnosis is as inapplicable as it is misleading. He has become an appeaser, though an innocent one at that, without realizing it himself. The consequences of his armchair statesmanship are that he may mislead other people no better informed than he is on international Communism.
Walter Lippmann is known for his authoritative views on foreign affairs and an armchair diplomat at that. What makes Lippmann different from others of the same trade is that he considers himself the fount of wisdom of all subjects, social, national and international. And he is always ready to demonstrate his eloquence not on the basis of facts but on prejudice born out of literary conceit and intellectual aloofness. In the face of the global struggle between the free world and the Communist bloc, Lippmann believes in "neutralization," "disengagement" and "withdrawal" of the Western powers, Russian aggression notwithstanding. Aware of the unpopularity of the word "appeasement," a reminder of the odious Munich days, he has coined a new term for it. He uses the word "accommodation." Garlic smells garlic even if you call it Channel No. 21, and rose smells rose even if we choose to Christen it garlic. Appeasement means nothing more or less than appeasement no matter what new term we can concoct in its place.
During the early days of World War II when China was putting up a heroic resistance against the Japanese invasion, Lippmann told the whole world via his widely syndicated column "Today and Tomorrow" that the retreat of the Chinese to Hankow meant the end of the Kuomintang rule. It has proved time and again that he was wrong in his analysis of the international situation. But he was quoted and re-quoted by those who found his views useful to support the case of a wayward politician. So the armchair diplomat has become an armchair appeaser in that he can only preach appeasement via his writings while the real appeaser, Nehru of India, carries out appeasement in fact. Now the question is: why must Lippmann, or rather "Pundit" Lippmann, a well trained journalist and an experienced writer, believe in something so impracticable of application, so unacceptable in theory and so unsound in logic? What is responsible for shaping such a mentality? These questions can be answered in one hyphenated word -super-salesmanship. Undoubtedly Lippmann has been so successful a journalist that his continued success depends on his ability to be in the limelight all the time. In achieving this, he must try to be different from the majority of the people even if they are right. The more controversial and unpalatable his arguments are, the more publicity he gets. He has everything to gain by being wrong instead of by being right. The more he is the subject of controversy, the more saleable is his column. This leaves the discerning reader with the inescapable impression that Journalist Lippmann is more a businessman than an intellectual. On the other hand, Lippmann's unreasonable reasoning could be due to his superiority complex. He believes that he can succeed where others have failed. The repeated failure of leaders of the free world to effect settlement of the outstanding issues, such as disarmament, the status of Berlin, etc. has convinced Lippmann of the necessity of adopting the extreme course by yielding completely to the threats and wishes of the Russian leaders, since the West cannot succeed in curbing the aggression of the Soviet Union by positive action. In other words, if we cannot advance, let's retreat. Or to put it bluntly, if we cannot survive as free man, let's live as slave. The consequences of appeasing the Russian imperialist do not bother Journalist Lippman. No matter how we analyze this journalist, we find him nothing more than an intellectual freak, a degenerated journalist and an unreadable writer.
But Lippmann is not alone in his world of appeasement. He has the company of other eminent people such as Mrs. Roosevelt and Pearl S. Buck, to name just two of the opposite sex.
Being handicapped by her lack of pulchritude, Mrs. Roosevelt was wise enough to devote a greater part of her time in her youth to social welfare work instead of society life. She has also succeeded in developing a personality, which in later years, made it possible for the dowager to radiate inner beauty of more enduring quality than those with beauty of skin deep, so to speak. When her husband became the American President, she kept herself busy not only by what was expected of her as the First Lady but by her activities in various field of her own. Today at the age of 72, her activities as a diplomat, humanitarian, writer (author of several books), politician and lecturer have made a deep impression on the public. Is she really so talented? With due respect to Mrs. Roosevelt's personal integrity, she is anything but a statesman with vision on international issues. When she voiced her opinion on the advisability for the United States to extend recognition to the Peiping regime, she at once betrayed her ignorance of the meaning of the global struggle between the free world and the Communist bloc. Years of social welfare work have so shaped and molded her mentality that she thinks and acts a social worker. She is always ready to speak up for and give her moral support to the leftists as if they were the underdogs, who deserve better treatment by the international policy makers. During her many years of residence in the White House, Mrs. Roosevelt was an important member of the "palace guard," whose consistent patronage of the activities of fellow travelers has done ineffable damage to Uncle Sam's international relations. As an UN delegate today, her action and public utterances savor of official sanction. In her exalted position, she can afford to make irresponsible statement in that she will not be held to account for the consequences.
Being also a member of the Commission on Human Rights, Mrs. Roosevelt tackles every problem from the point of view of a social worker, who either chooses to ignore or refuses to believe in the importance of international politics and the Communist intrigue. We respect her fearless candor and envy her untiring interest in world affairs but cannot but disagree with her in her uneducated views on international issues.
Although Pearl S. Buck is only a novelist by trade, she is as internationally known as Mrs. Roosevelt because of the popularity of her writings. What she has in common with the former First Lady is that she too is interested in humanitarian work. The only difference is that she has never held any official position. She has been engaged in humanitarian work on her own. Her contributions and invaluable services to community in bringing up Eurasian children have won her nation-wide recognition.
She may know a thing or two about China where she has lived many years. But no Chinese would regard her as an authority on Chinese affairs. Her superficial knowledge of China, which she claims to love only next to her own country, has led her to make ridiculous mistakes in her attempt to portray China for the Western readers. China under the Communist domination is so un-Chinese to the Chinese. Author Buck's uneducated views on the United States' China policy shows her ignorance of the aims and purposes of the Communists. By joining the army of armchair experts, Pearl S. Buck has become a full-fledged appeaser.
Are the destructive influences of Psychiatrist Frank, Columnist Lippman, Humanitarian Roosevelt, Novelist Buck and a host of other so-called intellectuals of equal eminence the necessary evils in free nation? My answer is "No." The government of a free nation is partly responsible for such a phenomenon because of its failure to educate the public to be better acquainted with the policy of the government in particular and the international situation in general.
Paradoxically, the American people, who have almost achieved perfection in the art of advertisement, have failed in the art of propaganda. They have not only failed to promote better and closer relations between the United States and its allies, they have also failed to promote better understanding between the American people and their government. The reaction of the American public toward the government policy on the Communist shelling of the offshore islands is only one of many instances which show the failure of the competent authorities to keep the public better informed on this issue. The naivety of American propagandists, or public relations personnel for that matter, may be seen in the following incident based on the writer's personal experience.
"What's your opinion about this publication of ours?" asked the Director of USIS, Medan, Sumatra, Indonesia, when he was showing me a copy of the early issues of some Chinese publication entitled "America Today".
"Oh, my God!" I exclaimed when I was leafing through the publication.
"What's wrong, Mr. Lee," the Director showed great uneasiness in his tone.
"Everything."
"Could it be that bad?"
"Yes. The title of the publication is misleading and the contents are unsuitable and unreadable to the type of readers that this type of publication is intended to reach."
"Can you be more precise?"
"How could you name this publication 'America Today' when the contents are dealing with the countries in the Far East. It is certainly a great help to the Communist propaganda which accuses the United States as being imperialistic. You are proving their point of view in black and white. Outside of those articles on the Far East, you have reprinted the speeches by Congressman so and so and senator so and so and translations of editorials of New York Times, New York Herald Tribune, etc. which don't mean anything to the man-in-the-street in this part of the world. That's why they are unsuitable and unreadable."
"What are your suggestions?"
"The title of this publication should be 'The World Today.' The contents should be devoted to science, social life, music, art, drama, theater and personalities."
All my suggestions have been accepted. Literarily the name of this publication was changed overnight and so was the nature of the contents. If 'The World Today' is a success, the Director of USIS has every reason to be proud of his wisdom in consulting one who knows his own people better.
The inherent weakness of a democratic government is that the elective officials only remember the man-in-the-street during election time when every man, woman and baby becomes his blood relation overnight. As soon as the election is over, these people are forgotten. The forgotten people have nowhere else to turn for intelligent information and views on international issues except the so-called eminent people of the community. Day in and day out, these eminent people tell the public either through their column in the case of Walter Lippmann, through magazine article in the case of Psychiatrist Frank, by public utterances and lectures in the case of Humanitrian Roosevelt or through obita dicta in the case of Novelist Pearl S. Buck.
It is imperative that a democratic government should understand the psychology of the public which is best described by the late G.B. Shaw's authorized biographer, Archibald Henderson, who had the following to say in the early thirties.
"An unfortunate and alarming contemporary tendency, a misguided byproduct of the instrumentalities for publication, is the journalistic assumption of omniscience on the part of any man or woman who attains eminence in any particular line. Edison was besieged for opinions on every conceivable subject — politic and prosperity, music and art, health and happiness, concerning many of which he knew neither more nor less than the man-in-the-street. Henry Ford is expected to utter obita dicta on topics chosen at random from the entire range of human knowledge: Congress and cookery, religion and radio, history and hysteria."
It is not merely the "journalistic assumption" but the public attitude to regard every man and woman, who has attained eminence in a particular line, to be omniscient. This public assumption of omniscience of man or woman of eminence, who is over confident enough of his ability without further-encouragement from the public, is forcing many a man, however modest he is, to wear the mantle of omniscience so as not to disappoint the public faith in him. One's great success is another factor to one's over-confidence. It is so easy for the eminent people to make some casual remarks on some international issues which he knows next to nothing. But what is said is invariably published by newspapers not because of what is said as to who has said it. The reading public cannot fail to be impressed by it. His opinion is influenced by it accordingly.
Every nation has its share of "eminent" people of omniscience. This weakness of democracy can be remedied not by denying the people the freedom of speech. The government is the only authority in a position to educate the public to better understand the wisdom of government policies, domestic or foreign, and the basic causes of international issues. The better educated the public, the less price we will have to pay for democracy.