New Guard December 1964

Herbert C. Hoover

Here was a man whose "essential loyalty and patriotism were unusual in a day when men compromised their souls for the crumbs of popularity. He held himself responsible to safeguard this nation from the corrosive poisons of socialism and communism" which sprang from "centers of irresponsible intellectualism which had made a creed of change for no greater purpose than to change." These were the words which Herbert Clark Hoover, 31st President of the United States, used to describe another great American, the late Robert A. Taft. But they could just as well characterize one of the last of the truly "great" citizens of this nation, Hoover himself.

Recently the NEW G U A R D commented that his life was "an example after which to pattern our own lives." For the patriotic young conservative this is inflexible truth.

Here was a man born into poverty, orphaned at an early age, forced to put himself through school without Federal or other aid. Yet by the age of forty he had become one of the world's leading mining experts, worth millions of dollars, all without the boost of government contracts or friends in Washington.

With the advent of the World War I , Hoover put aside his personal fortunes and embarked on a career of humanitarian and governmental service which was to gain him an international reputation for his works of mercy. He was a tremendously human man and his compassion dictated that wherever help was needed by his fellow man, he could be found. He organized escapes from Europe for refugees, brought food and supplies to starving Belgiums, headed the entire U.S. Food Administration during the war, and then afterwards, led the American relief work which saved thousands of Europeans from death by starvation. For his work in sending relief to the Russian people he even gained the temporary gratitude of the Communists and the Tsarists.

2

Apart from the presidency, Hoover became a national figure for his service as chairman of the "Hoover Commisions" set up by Truman and Eisenhower. A vast majority of the commission recommendations aimed at streamlining ihe government, were adopted and became law.

But Herbert Hoover also typified the type of positive conservatism which seems best suited to endure and conquer. His was not a blind reaction to the problems that beset him and his Nation. Without compromising his principles or beliefs he was able, again and again, to promote humanitarian and charitable enterprises which were far more successful than their government-run counterparts.

Even in the face of the Depression he recommended, and pressed for the adoption by Congress, programs which could legitimately be considered within the scope of the Federal government. These were met with a cold shoulder by the Congress elected in 1930 in which the Democrats controlled the House. One Democrat leader of the day sneered: "We won't pass anything Hoover wants. He'll wish he were dead before he leaves office." Yet the first Roosevelt Congress proceeded to pass many of the same measures as part of the so-called "New Deal."

As late as 1960, Kennedy and Johnson were indulging in the quadrennial Democrat sport of Hoover-baiting. For more than a generation it became common practice for Democrats to smear Hoover as the devil incarnate who had watched Americans starve and would do nothing. For a while this sort of trash seemed plausible, but as he concontinued his service to the Nation his actions outshone the meanness of detractors' words. He lived to see the day when leaders of both parties acknowledged his greatness.

Herbert Hoover knew victory and defeat in his lifetime of ninety years. It would have undoubtedly disappointed him to know that the election of 1964 had moved America that much further from the path of freedom. But it can be said with certainty that Hoover would not have been deterred one bit in his fight for the principles which make freedom possible. Writing in 1934 in his book. The Challenge To Liberty, he gave us words of encouragement good to this day: " I have no fear that the inherent and unconquerable forces of freedom will not triumph. But it is as true today as when first uttered that 'the condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal viligance.' We have in our lifetime seen the subjection of Liberty in one nation after another. It has been defeated by the untruth that some form of dictation by government alone can overcome immediate difficulties and can assure entry into economic perfection. America must not and it will not succumb to that lure. That is the issue of our generation, not a partisan issue but the issue of human liberty.

"The spark of liberty in the mind and spirit of man cannot be long extinguished; it will break into flames that will destroy every coercion which seeks to limit it."

THE

NEW

GUARD

This Month . . .

THE NEW GUARD The Magazine of Young Americans for Freedom, Inc. Editor: Carol Bauman Contributing Editors: Allan Ryskind T. A. Quinn, Jameson G. Campaigne, Jr. Kenneth E. Thompson, Ken Tomlinson, Gary Russell, Fred J. Eckert, Richard Derham Alfred S. Regnery, Terry Catchpole Robert M . Schuchman, Randal Teague CONTENTS December, 1964 • V o l . I V , No. EDITORIALS ARTICLES Can Conservatives Keep Control of the Republican Party?

Carol Bauman We, Too, Will Continue. William F. Buckley, Jr. Indonesia: The Next Crisis in Asia Randal Grindle Disrespect for Lavs^ and Order Allan C. Brov\^nfeld The Alianza: Road to Socialism in Latin America R. J. Bocklet YAF ROUNDUP SPOTLIGHT ON YAF AROUND THE NATION

• So, we pledge to continue to proselytize about conservatism. We will criticize the "Great Society," and support those conservatives in Congress who will be more in the minority now than before Nov. 4. Why all this re-dedication now? Simply because we are still right, and we intend to organize, publish, and educate until the majority of Americans know that we are right.

12 3

7 10 12 15 17 20 22 23

INSIDE THIS ISSUE... i l ^ ^ Conservatives' wholehearted urge to continue the fight has been inspiring to watch. There was no more inspiring message than the one given us by the fighting editor of National Review, William F. Buckley, Jr. in a speech to the annual convention of Young Americans for Freedom several weeks before the election. We proudly present, "We, Too, Will Continue," on page 10.

PBT" Our editor issues a call to action to preserve conservative leadership of the Republican Party. She has amassed impressive evidence to show just which wing of the party has been most responsible for the present status of the GOP, on page 7.

H T " No post-election issue would be complete without an analysis of "What Went Wrong," with the campaign.

So we present our view in an editorial in page 4.

H T " Two fine pieces on foreign policy spice this issue.

Randy Grindle of Baltimore Y A F has done some mighty research to come up with an important article on Sukarno's Indonesia, on page 12. A n d Richard J. Bocklet of Ridgewood, N . Y . offers some advice about the "Alliance for Progress," and its effect on Latin American nations, on page 17. m r Civil Disobedience, says Allan Brownfeld, will hurt the civil rights cause. Brownfeld is a law graduate j and a member of the faculty of St. Stephen's Boys' j School in Alexandria, Virginia, I I The New Guard is published monthly by Young Americans for Freedom, Inc., in Washington, D. C. Copyright 1964 in the U.S.A. by Young Americans for Freedom, Inc. A l l correspondence, manuscripts, circulation orders and changes of address should I

be sent to: The New Guard, 514 C Street, N.E., Washington, D. C. 20002, Phone: 546-3355. Rates: $4 a year. The editors welcome unsolicited manuscripts but request the enclosure of a self-addressed return envelope. Opinions expressed in signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or of Young Americans for Freedom, inc.

DECEMBER 1964

• Lyndon Johnson was not our candidate. We think four more years of moving steadily toward socialism will be bad for the country. More importantly, four more years of retreat in foreign policy will be bad for the Free World (what's left of i t ) .

• L B J got lots of congratulatory messages on his resounding victory. Among them were wires from the leaders of the Soviet Union: President Anastas I .

Mikoyan and Premier Alexei N . Kosygin. The Soviet newspaper, Izvestia, said the results of the election show "the majority of Americans realize the danger of extremism and understand the danger that would face them if it succeeded in grabbing the helm."

• I n the meantime, both domestic and foreign crises are ahead.

• Economists are increasingly worried about the prospect of a severe recession in the year ahead. The dollar today is worth only 43^ as compared with the dollar of 25 years ago. Our total national budget deficit for the past four years is $24.8 billion—the highest four-year peacetime deficit in our history. Many are worried about the "false prosperity," built upon "borrowed money," deficit financing and increasing national and personal debt.

• The most serious foreign policy question continues to be Viet Nam. Shall we get i n deeper or pull out?

The Viet Cong attack on U.S. military aircraft at the Bien Hoa field near Saigon, which killed four and wounded 72 Americans, should have served to focus the Pentagon's attention on the need for complete reevaluation of our posture in that war-torn country. The State Department is no doubt terrified at the prospect that a more aggressive, self-interested approach to the Viet Nam war would get us i n trouble with China. So, still we wait for a decision. A n d the cold war grows hotter.

• Speaking of China, the left-wing journals are already urging the new Johnson Administration to "reconsider" present policies in Asia. Cautiously, hopefully, the New Republic commented: "By not renewing anti-mainland China commitments in the campaign, the President has kept himself free to explore a fresh approach to Asia.

I t is not unlikely that in the months ahead we may hear further talk of sounding out the Chinese on nuclear tests or preparing the American public to stomach the admission of Communist China into the U . N . at the next session."

3

THE NEW GUARD

iditorials

What Went Wrong?

Even though the obstacles against Barry Goldwater were perhaps insurmountable, the 1964 presidential campaign left many within the conservative camp with the aching feeling that we could have done better.

About 40 percent of the voting public, or 26 million people, supported Barry Goldwater. Roughly, that is about the same number of people, according to a recent Gallup Poll, who consider themselves Republicans. From July until late October, the Gallup Poll and Harris Poll both recorded about the same percentages dividing Lyndon Johnson and Barry Goldwater. I n short, the campaign, expensive, and hard fought, changed very few votes.

Let's quote from the conservative New York Daily News, which said in an editorial October 30: "When the Republicans nominated Sen. Barry Goldwater for President last July, we had bright hopes that the Arizonan would put on a skillful, highpowered campaign which would draw many vital issues sharply between him and President Lyndon Johnson.

"We've been badly disappointed in that hope. ". . . But the Goldwater campaign has been so clumsily conducted up to now, and the Senator has made so many unfortunate remarks in public, that one wonders how capable a President he would be. ". . . So, with great regret, we are unable to offer our readers a conscientious recommendation as to whom to vote for for President and Vice President next Tuesday."

The editorial was a disappointment to Goldwater supporters who had learned to expect strong editorial support for GOP positions from the News during the campaign. The News admitted it was anti-Johnson, and "shuddered" at the prospect of Hubert Humphrey being a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

But the News was expressing in print what many, even within high councils in the Goldwater campaign, secretly felt.

In the final weeks of the campaign, a lot of voters were still on the fence. They agreed with many of Barry Goldwater's attacks on the left-wing policies of the Johnson Administration. They were shocked by the Walter Jenkins scandal. They did not favor more government spending and the "Big Daddy" attitude of Lyndon Johnson.

Interestingly, newspapers editorially endorsing Johnson almost without exception qualified their support by adding that the Johnson-Humphrey ticket was by no means ideal. Most went further, even to the extent of openly criticizing President Johnson's personal failings and his mawkish sentimentality. The Washington Star epitomized this attitude by admitting that it was endorsing LBJ with its "fingers crossed."

What Was the Alternative?

I n truth, the GOP attacks on the Johnson Administration were effective. What the Republican candidate failed to do, was to provide a responsible alternative.

Reporters inquiring at the Republican National Committee about what Barry Goldwater's legislative program would be if he were elected President, had to be told that no such program existed, nor was it likely to.

The only positive specific proposals made by Sen. Goldwater were ( 1 ) his tax cut plan; ( 2 ) his promise to end the draft, and ( 3 ) his support of a constitutional amendment to return prayer to the schools.

Left unanswered were questions about his procedures in reversing unemployment, fighting poverty, dealing with juvenile delinquency, foreign policy, and on what programs to cut back in order to reduce the size and cost of government.

While Sen. Goldwater undoubtedly was the first candidate in many years to take a definite stand on every controversial issue of the day, he managed to leave the

A Clear Choice Not Offered From the high point of his acceptance speech in the San Francisco Cow Palace, the tone and quality of Sen. Goldwater's speeches steadily disintegrated. He spoke in generalities. He mouthed high-sounding rhetoric which we knew the meaning of, but which, apparently, 60 percent of the voting public misunderstood.

The result was an electorate which formed its opinion of Barry Goldwater from the smears and distortions that flowed both from the camp of the opposition and from the hostile press.

The issues should have been more clear-cut than ever before: freedom vs. socialism; victory vs. surrender. But with Lyndon Johnson's refusal to debate, and his devotion to the "corn" approach, it was completely up to the GOP challenger to set the pace.

4

In Your Heart.You Know HE*5 Wrong I THE

NEW

GUARD

impression that he had no program. Americans have come to expect a program from a Presidential candidate, and in this election most importantly, they should have been given one from which to choose.

A frantic phone call came in to Republican headquarters in Washington about a week before the election from a lady Goldwater worker in California. She had just helped conduct a survey of Democrats in her county.

She said that 60 percent of them were as yet undecided.

At that time. Sen. Goldwater was making a whistle-stop train tour of Southern California, and getting encouraging response to his attacks on the corruption of the Johnson official family. Most of these Democrats, the hard-working lady said, were prepared to vote for Goldwater, if only they could find out what he, as President, would do.

In other words, the truism that it is easier to criticize than to perform lay heavily on the minds of these voters.

In short, the American electorate was looking for excuses to vote for Goldwater. But the generalities continued, and the cliches became more entrenched.

The Reagan Show A sharp upturn in the morale of the entire campaign occurred when Ronald Reagan made his hard-hitting speech on nationwide television, " A Time for Choosing."

The Reagan speech was specific in its indictment of the Democrats, merciless in placing the blame on liberals for the retreat from freedom in the world.

The reaction was immediate. Some disgruntled Republicans were stirred to enthusiasm. Former Rockefeller backers changed their minds. Calls and letters poured into Washington urging that the show be repeated. It was, along with another strong program featuring John Wayne, dissecting the steady retreat of our country in the face of the Communist advance around the world.

But the upturn came too late. I n fact, the Reagan program, more than any other incident, solidified feeling in the Goldwater camp that the research staff and the chief speechwriters of the campaign were pussyfooting. Word trickled down that one of Sen. Goldwater's most powerful advisors fought desperately to keep the Reagan program from being shown. It was only because the " T V for Goldwater-Miller" committee was relatively autonomous that the Ronald Reagan show did go on.

Even after the overwhelming response to Reagan, influential members of the research staff pooh-poohed the program, charging it had "no intellectual content," and that it was "too Birchy."

Enough said.

Positive Action

Needed

What this does teach us is that to regain momentum and to persuade others to our cause, conservatives must formulate specific programs of action. Of necessity, much of our response in Congress, in debate, and in intellectual discourse, is negative.

But docs this mean that, given the premise that conservatism gained the ascendency in U.S. politics, wc DECEMBER 1964

would only repeal laws, or remain motionless in victory?

We hope not!

The conservative philosophy is a dynamic philosophy, one that built America and developed a nation of the most generous people in the world. I t is a philosophy, that allowed to operate, does have answers to problems like juvenile delinquency, unemployment, poverty, moral decay, and retreat from Communism.

IN OUR JANUARY ISSUE: *

Tom Huston on Challenges Fraternity Randal

*

to the

System

Teague on South

Africa

Chris Simonds on Dr. Spock

The conservative position, it should have been pointed out in the campaign, has the most honest, compassionate and just answer to the problem of discrimination. Perhaps the ugliest aspect of the Goldwater campaign was the pinning of the "racist" label, unfair as it was, on the Republican Party. The racist appeal, and there was such a subtle appeal by some Goldwater supporters in the 1964 campaign, hurt our cause more with white voters than the Negroes. For Sen. Goldwater's entirely correct vote against the Civil Rights bill of 1964 probably lost him the majority of the Negro vote irretreivably, but his subsequent emphasis on this position, and his failure to re-emphasize his truly outstanding record in civil rights, voting for the civil rights bills of 1954, 1957, and 1960, perhaps lost him the support of white Republicans sympathetic to the Negro cause.

The one issue most thoroughly covered by Sen. Goldwater's speeches was defense policy and an appeal for strength against Communism. But every time the Senator talked about foreign policy, the nuclear issue overshadowed all that he had to say in the minds of many voters. "Trigger happy" was the most frequently used excuse to explain why a voter could not support Goldwater. Of course, the Democrats, capitalizing on this issue, used it for all it was worth in terrifying television spots.

After reflection about the campaign, we conclude that conservatism has not been defeated. What convinces us of this is that ( 1 ) many fine conservative Congressmen and Senators ran far ahead of Sen. Goldwater; and ( 2 ) there was actually no debate of conservatism vs. liberalism between the two Presidential candidates.

But we would have to agree, reluctantly, with the New York Daily News, that the conduct of the campaign, in many ways failed to prove Sen Goldwater's qualifications to be President.

What it most emphatically did not prove, was that conservatism is dead as a political philosophy. Conservatives have proved their strength and can no longer be regarded lightly by their adversaries, the liberals. $

In Memoriam

3mt^ a, Witk There is some special and indefinable quality which sets apart a "newspaperman" from the journalist. Each has his own role in the field of journalism, but in the public eye, the newspaperman has always seemed to be the hard-bitten hero, exposing corruption and defending the little guy.

A great newspaperman died on November 6, but he was also something else—one of the leading conservatives of his day. James Lester Wick, president of Human Events, the oldest and largest conservative publication, died after a short illness, in the Washington to which he had fought so hard to return American principles. Though he passed away at a time of troubles for the conservative movement, his life and accomplishments serve as an inspiration.

Jim Wick, the irascible, smiling, old curmudgeon, whose bark was usually, but not always, worse than his bite, was the Dutch uncle of a whole generation of young conservative writers. Coming to Human Events from a long background of journalism in 1954 (he headed his own newspaper chain), he filled the vacuum caused by the illness of the late Frank Hanighen, the founder of the magazine, who died in January of this year.

Wick immediately took under his wing a youthful school of journalists peopled by young men who have today made the first steps toward great careers; Stan Evans, editor of the Indianapolis News; Ken Thompson, editorial writer and columnist for the Dallas Morning News; Richard Wheeler, editorial writer for the Oakland Tribune; Bill Schulz, assistant to Fulton Lewis, Jr.; Antoni Gollan and Ross Herman, also editorial writers for the Indianapolis News; and at Human Events itself, Allan Ryskind, Capitol Hill editor, Tom Winter, executive editor, and Gary Russell.

There is no way to calculate just how many young people have been expQsed to conservatism as a result of the works of Human Events.

With a tremendous promotional flair and a zeal born of deep belief in principle, Jim Wick spread conservatism in the printed word and with the periodic "Human Events Conferences" which brought conservative leaders together from all over the nation. Many of the founders of YAF itself were products of the Human Events school, including David Franke and Doug Caddy. Few who knew him could forget Wick's ability or his early morning conferences, at an hour best described as ungodly.

In his own right, he had a distinguished career. In 1940 he was a national defense specialist for the Republican National Committee, and in 1944 on the research staff of GOP candidate Thomas E. Dewey. In 1952 he authored a book "How NOT To Run For President" sounding the "me-tooism" charge which has proven so valid against liberal Republicans. He was one of the first to promote the rising star of a young Arizona Senator named Goldwater.

In a million ways, and with a vitality and wit that made him seem much younger, Jim Wick fought the good fight for conservatism, and lived to see it blossom and grow. At 67 he is dead.

For those young conservatives such as we, and especially for Young Americans for Freedom, whom he genuinely helped and valued, we extend our deepest sympathies to his wife and his family. He truly gave his best to furthering the course of human events.

Can Conservatives Keep Control of the Republican Party?

by Carol Bauman

The first order of business in keeping the conservative movement alive and growing is to build on gains made in control of party machinery at the national level.

/ i L m i d the more than 5,000 wires deUvered to Sen. Barry Goldwater at his Phoenix hilltop home, on Nov. 4, was this one from a lady quoting President Woodrow Wilson: '7 would rather fail in a cause that I know someday will triumph than triumph in a cause that I know someday will fail."

The stiff upper lip philosophy so gallantly expressed by Goldwater supporters in their telegrams to the Senator is a brave front. Conservatives know they have lost a major battle, but they are not ready to give up.

Elsewhere in these pages we print a prophetic speech by William F. Buckley, Jr., delivered several weeks before the election, in which he daringly predicted Goldwater's defeat.

Buckley was soundly rebuked by some at that time for his defeatism. But his words were spoken then in a spirit of hope, and they sound even more hopeful now. > A Strange Paradox One week before the election, a Harris poll revealed some remarkable things about the American voter. An amazing percentage were in substantial agreement with Barry Goldwater on domestic issues. A majority were concerned about corruption and immorality in government. They favored a constitutional amendment to return prayer to the public schools. They felt that too much welfare could make our people lazy. They feared that by going socialist at home, America could lose the war against communism abroad.

Most of them felt that Barry Goldwater was a "nice guy." They felt he would bring more honesty into government.

Even so, 60 percent of the American people turned down the choice offered by Barry Goldwater, and in DECEMBER 1964

so doing, tragically turned out scores of conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives. Expected gains in the state capitols and the U.S. Senate did not materialize.

What defeated Barry Goldwater was fear. Americans fear, apparendy more than the loss of liberty, death in nuclear disaster. They would rather continue to appease Communism than to make a decision to oppose it. In effect, most of the 41 million who voted against Goldwater thought they were voting to save their own skins—trying not to notice the loss of freedom and the enslaved millions behind the Berlin Wall and the Bamboo Curtain. Selfdeceptive and cowardly, but all too human.

Our adversaries will no longer doubt America's readiness to fight for freedom. Forty-one million Americans confirmed that we are a nation of cowards.

Truly, a sad commentary on our people. But we, think a fair one. > Whither Conservatism?

What of those 26 million who enthusiastically voted for Barry Goldwater?

They represent the massive opposition party, a party now under the control of its natural leaders—American conservatives. Their influence will grow, not diminish. Among them are the thousands of workers and millions of small contributors who helped nominate Goldwater, who gave millions of dollars to the Republican Party, and whose stubborn resistance to the liberals in the party will preserve the two-party system.

Those zealots, call them what you will, still are the major backbone of the GOP. For the first time, almost twice as many households were contacted by Republican workers as by Democrats. Republicans made 1.8 mil-

GOP Cliairman Dean Burch lion phone calls, to the Democrats 1.5 million. They personally visited 5.3 million households, while the Democrats stirred themselves enough only to visit 2.3 million families. The total was 7.1 million Republican contacts to only 3.8 million Democrat calls.

Financially, the Republican National Committee wound up an expensive campaign with a $500,000 surplus— enough to run the committee for several more months.

The Goldwater campaign was one of the most expensive in the party's history, yet it was in large part financed by the "little people." Whereas in 1960, the Nixon-Lodge campaign received contributions from about 40,000 individuals, donations to the 1964 campaign came from almost two million people!

On the Wednesday morning following Dean Burch's Monday night appeal for funds to finance television time for Sen. Goldwater to reply to President Johnson's speech on changes in the Soviet Union, an unprecedented 30,000 pieces of mail turned up in the first mail delivery! In each of those envelopes, an average contribution of $5 to $10 was enclosed. Personal inspection of some of the mail showed 7

Dean Burch can organize a strong Republican checks or cash in amounts of $5, $3, or as low as $1. Often the money was enclosed with the comment—"all we can afford, wish we could send more."

About one-third of those who contributed made a point of mentioning that they lived on Social Security, so could not send a large contribution. That same day, the afternoon's delivery brought another 12 bags of mail, containing approximately 30,000 more pieces of mail.

The following day, the rate of mail continued. Long-time fund-raisers at the Republican National Committee were astounded. They commented that they had never seen anything like it. • But Still We Lost Outspoken liberals in the Republican Party, said Barry Goldwater shortly after his nomination in San Francisco, did more damage to him than Lyndon Johnson ever could have. He

Gov. Nelson Rockefeller was right. Every major issue used by the Democrats had first been used by Republican opponents of Barry Goldwater in the bitter primary contests.

Prime among them were the nuclear issue and the Social Security question. Gov. Nelson Rockefeller of New York was among the first to pounce on Barry Goldwater as a warmonger. His campaign literature during the California primary asked the question: "Whose finger do you want on the nuclear button?" California Republicans, at least, responded that they didn't want Rockefeller's.

On Social Security, and a myriad of domestic issues, Gov. William Scranton hammered away at Barry Goldwater before millions of TV viewers during the 1964 Republican National Convention. Scranton's i l l advised "letter" to Sen. Goldwater two days before the nomination was full of the same intemperate attacks 8

on Goldwater's mentality and competence that later characterized Democratic broadsides. Scranton's later decision to support the party ticket seemed guided more by a covetous eye on the 1968 nomination than on a sincere desire to see Barry Goldwater win.

party . . .

in Ripon, Wis., and they claim that the defeat of Goldwater was a repudiation of the conservative wing of the party.

> Liberals Desire GOP Control The same liberals, who neither openly supported or worked for the Goldwater-Miller ticket, now presume to fire Dean Burch, young, aggressive, GOP chairman, and take over the party.

Nelson Rockefeller was the first to admit openly to the bankruptcy of his Republican philosophy. At a news conference, two nights after the election, Gov. Rockefeller called for a party "not polarized at either extreme," not wedded to ''any ideology."

There is something to be said for broadening the base of any political party, but to call for a party unified only around the name, "Republican," with no ideology at all, would be futile.

Former Vice President Richard Nixon, who campaigned so tirelessly for the ticket, scored Rockefeller mercilessly, and said that it was the New York Governor who was the real -divider" of the GOP. "It's a rule of politics that those who do not participate in the campaign . . . cannot be leaders." Nixon said.

"He can't be a leader. He must be one of the soldiers in the unification of the party."

"When you have disagreement with the party," Mr. Nixon added, "you can't be a spoil sport or drag your feet."

Rockefeller, vacationing in Spain, shot back that Nixon's "latest maneuver is hardly calculated to advance this effort."

"This kind of peevish post-election utterance has unfortunately become typical of Mr. Nixon," Rockefeller added, peevishly.

And those constant snipers at the conservative cause, the Advance crowd, are standing on the sidelines, hoping to pick up a few crumbs out of the defeat they helped so much to cause. Only now they have given themselves a new name. They call themselves the "Ripon Society," after the birthplace of the Republican Party

Richard Nixon Among the proposals being made by the Ripon Society, under the leadership of Prof. John S. Saloma, a very recent graduate of Harvard and a political science teacher at M.LT., is the creation of a "Shadow Republican National Committee." Saloma, and the rest of the Advance crowd who cling to the Rockefeller "philosophy" of Republicanism, of course did not support the Goldwater-Miller ticket. Just how few they speak for has never been revealed.

At this writing, liberal Republicans of the Saloma-stripe, are gleefully mapping plans to force Dean Burch out of his job as Chairman of the Republican National CommiUee. Just how this can be done, technically, is not clear. When Burch was unanimously elected at a meeting of the RNC in San Francisco, he was elected to a four year term. It can be authoritatively reported that he now means to serve out that term and help rebuild the party. > Their Arguments Have Holes The liberals think they have an airtight case against conservative control of the party. What with the devastating loss of the national ticket by a percentage of 60-40, and with the loss of some 30 Republican House members, the conclusion seems all too simple: conservatism has been massively repudiated. Therefore, let us return the party to the "middle of the road" philosophy of Eisenhower, and begin again the appeal to "independents," and Democrats that almost won for Richard Nixon in 1960.

From a practical point of view, there are several holes in that argument. The most obvious, and the one which should be most consoling to THE

NEW

GUARD

The Republican

National

those who labored so hard for Barry Goldwater, is that the nomination of a liberal Republican at the head of the ticket in 1964 probably would have prompted even more defections from the party—or at least cut down drastically on the Republican vote. The GOP would have had to appeal so strongly to the Democrats that the 26,000,000 conservatives in the party would have been sorely tempted to sit this election out.

Second, GOP liberals have controlled the presidential nominations and the machinery of the Republican National Committee for some thirty years. And what has happened in that time? We know all too well. Before 1930, Republicans enjoyed a comfortable margin of support both in the House and the Senate. After the depression, and President Roosevelt's election, the Republican party never really regained its former glory. From 1932 to 1946, both the House and the Senate were dominated by Democrats by an average percentage of 70 to 30.

In 1946, gains were made in the Congress, convincing Republicans that they could win the presidency in 1948.

But the party nominated a liberal— N.Y. Gov. Thomas E. Dewey, and again went down to defeat. A l l this time the liberals (now called the "moderates") controlled party conventions, policy, and the Republican National Committee.

Despite a brief period when Republicans had a shaky majority in Congress (because of the Eisenhower landslide in 1952) the GOP has continued on the downward trend started in the thirties when it began to adopt a more "progressive" image. Significantly, even in Dwight Eisenhower's eight years as President, Republicans lost many seats in Congress.

It is a matter of record that in the House of Representatives, normally the more conservative of the two chambers, the Eisenhower Administration presided over the loss of some 75 Republicans in the House of Representatives.

Besides losses in the House and Senate, the GOP lost control of State Legislatures and State Capitols.

During the Eisenhower years, with "moderates" like Meade Alcorn running the Republican National Committee, the Party continued to lose support among the American people.

DECEMBER

1964

Committee

can be a force

According to a survey made by the American Institute of Public Opinion (Gallup) the Republican Party's overall support among Americans since 1940 looks like this: Repub- Dem- Indelican ocrat pendent 1940 38% 42% 20% 1950 33% 45% 22% I960 30% 47% 23% 1964 25% 53% 22% It can be seen that while the number of voters who class themselves as Independents has fluctuated by only 2 or 3%, the numbers calling themselves Republicans decreased from 38% to 25%—a net loss of 13%. At the same time, the Democrats picked up support from 42% to 53%, a net gain of 11%.

By no stretch of the liberal imagination can this sorry trend—spanning 24 years—be considered the fault of conservatism within the Republican Party, or of Senator Barry Goldwater.

A,

^^^^^^^^^^^

If a "moderate" party image is expected to help elect Republicans, why did the party consistendy lose elections during the Eisenhower years?

And if the leadership of the party is safer in "liberal" hands, why has the party consistently lost strength since 1940—all during the years that the Republican Party was firmly in control of GOP liberals? > Conservative Trend Continues Let us not forget too soon the reasons Sen. Goldwater won his party's nomination this year. He won the delegates—in state primaries and state conventions—by legal, parliamentary means. Richard Nixon, after campaigning throughout the U.S., told the press that the Gov. of New York, Nelson Rockefeller, enjoys almost no support among Republicans. He added that Rockefeller's support of an effort to purge Dean Burch as Chairman of the Republican National Committee would be the "kiss of death, in view of his conduct in this campaign."

"He has had his pound of flesh, and he, T do not think, can now exert

for

conservatism

leadership outside of New York," Nixon added.

Nixon also added some wise counsel amid the rash of inter-party fingerpointing: " I think to say that the future of the Republican Party lies in a more liberal' direction would mean that we would, in effect, after losing an election partly because of splitting the party one way, we would then tend to lose the next election by splitting it the other way. . . ."

And that is precisely the point!

After nearly 30 years of domination by "liberals," the GOP has finally begun to dig itself out, to develop an ideology, one that has always been more closely identified with the Republican Party than any other. On the basis of the real resurgence of conservative sentiment within the party, cautious, shaky gains were made in House and Senate elections in 1960 and* 1962. That trend was temporarily, not permanently, halted by the Johnson landslide. The Democradc sweep, in fact, was indiscriminate in crushing Republican conservatives and liberals alike.

The lessons of the 1964 election for conservatives will not become entirely clear until several months have passed, and the columnists and commentators have gorged themselves on the defeat of Barry Goldwater. Barry Goldwater, let us face the fact, was their target. But the Senator himself would be the first to say, as he has so often, that he was merely the instrument of a philosophy, and happened to be around when we were looking for a candidate. He would not want us to blame ourselves, our ideas, or work for this loss. He would, and has, urged us to continue the fight —a fight he will keep making himself.

The first order of business in our regrouping, therefore, is to stand firm with Party Chairman Dean Burch.

The preservation of his command of the party's national machinery can be an important step in recouping our losses. Under effective leadership, the Republican National Committee, so long a refuge of incompetents and has-beens, can become a vital force for conservatism. The national party can once again stand for something, and we can again argue philosophies and issues, not just cand" ates and promises.

Let's get on with it.

9

W e , Too,

Will Continue These excerpts from a speech by the editor of National Review, made in September to the annual meeting of Young Americans for Freedom in New York City, now demand the attention of every young conservative.

Ladies and gentlemen: Once again you have done me the honor of inviting me to address you.

I am greatly flattered by this attention. I have hoped during the past four years to be useful to you on such occasions as I could, and take pride in the infrequency of those occasions. I sometimes feel like the old movie that stands by for service at one in the morning, in the event that nothing more alluring comes along. But I am glad that some of you are so kind as to stand still for a re-run of Captain Blood who, it was said, was quite a blade in his day, back in the dimly-remembered fifties, when, at Yale, God and man were locked in mortal conflict, and the scenario writers followed a script that required, as is the mood in modern drama, a surprise ending.

I regret you could not be addressed tonight by a fresher figure. I feel like the pompous bishop who promised one of his priests that he would speak on the occasion of the burning of the mortgage of his church "provided you can't find somebody less distinguished." The priest searched high and low, but finally was forced to redeem the bishop's pledge, and his grace appeared reluctantly, on the scene. In introducing him to the parish William F. Buckley, Jr. the priest apologetically stuttered out the story and then said: And so ladies a total aloofness from any need for and gentlemen, having looked high human and compassionate sustenance. and low and failed to find anyone less That is a front. We need you every distinguished, I present to you, our bit as urgently as you need us. We Bishop. have no other function than to help you, and no greater necessity than to Effronteries of the Twentieth Century be helped by you. I f we fail you, we fail ourselves, and any infidelity to the A great many of you have done cause we hope to serve, and no doubt me, and the beloved journal I serve, we commit those infidelities frea great many public and private quently; this a cause for mortification. favors, and I take the opportunity to I do not know of any purpose for A^flthank you kindly, in behalf of myself tional Review, if it is not to be of and my colleagues. You may think service to you, to remind you that we that the hauteur of our editorial tone are at your disposal, to serve as a suggests a total independence of spirit.

10

by William F. Buckley, Jr.

lightning rod for the best thought, and the expression of that thought, by which to pierce the surrounding gloom, and remind ourselves of the necessity to hurl back what I called a year ago at your meeting in Fort Lauderdale, the effronteries of the 20th Century. We do not believe in Platonic affirmations of our own little purities. Our intention is to take the clay God gave us, and mould it into a better world. I f we do not help to fire your imagination, or your zeal, there is little reason for us to proceed, we might just as well retire into the night, and bury that fingernail of a saint that Whittaker Chambers said might yet be the only recourse for sensitive men, "to remind someone that there was once something else, that something else is thinkable, and need some evidence of what it was, and the fortifying knowledge that there were those who, at the great nightfall, took loving thought to preserve the tokens of hope and truth."

My debt is to you in general, but in particular to your chairman, Robert Bauman, for his incessant courtesies, for his manly and courageous leadership of this organization, which has seen dark days, most of them the making of our insensate society, which so hotly resists the nurturing of any tokens of hope and truth; some of them the making of our own flawed natures, which are so greatly attracted to our petty vanities, as to interrupt grievously, even critically, the progress we need to make, in order to stay alive, and to prosper, and to justify ourselves.

Great Work Yet Undone I wish to speak on two subjects.

The first has to do with the role of the conservative movement at this juncture in American history, when.

THE NEW GUARD

'The

well-planted

seeds of hope . . . will flower in a future

to no one's surprise more than our own, we labor under the visitation of a freedom-minded candidate for the Presidency of the United States. I say labor, because the nomination of Barry Goldwater, when we permit ourselves to peek up over the euphoria, reminds us chiUingly, of the great work that has remained undone, a great rainfall has deluged a thirsty earth, but before we had time properly to prepare it. / speak of course about the impending defeat of Barry Goldwater.

That it impends is an objective judg-ment. That it will happen, is of course not certain: it was not after all certain that the French would defeat King Harry at Agincourt, though defeat most certainly impended, as it does today, and I take the occasion not to attempt to fire you on to superhuman endeavor, for three reasons, the first being that any charge by me to go forward and fight would be tautologous, the second that I am not William Shakespeare, the third that 1 view this as an intimate occasion, more of the character of a conversation among those who are determined to live to storm the gates of Agincourt on another day, in the likely event that this time we do not succeed.

Wrong to Assume Victory My words are not intended for public currency. They are intended for your own ears, and for my own edification. The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord. The next and most urgent counsel is to take stock of reality. Reality, during a political campaign, sometimes suggests the advisability of dismissing strategic considerations, in order to yield to tactical imperatives, which seem to call for cultivating, in the Goldwater camp, the morale of an army on the march.

Our morale is high, and we are marching. But the morale of the army on the march is that of an army that has been promised victory. But it is wrong to assume that we shall overcome; and therefore it is right to reason to the necessity of guarding against the utter disarray that sometimes follows a stunning defeat: it is right to take thought, even on the eve of the engagement, about the potential need for regrouping, for gathering together our scattered forces. After all we take it as established that even after November the third, although you will have aged.

DECEMBER 1964

you will still be young; and that although you will have been discouraged, you will still, God willing, desire to pursue freedom; and that by your persistence you will prove, as King Harry sought to do, that if it be a sin to covet honour, you are the most offending souls alive.

I have on a few public occasions ventured to predict that Senator Goldwater will most likely lose this contest, and I have been dismayed by the growls of resentment, at the utterance of this political truism. I f one could proceed as though the election of Senator Goldwater were a likelihood, there would be little left to do than to celebrate. But any election of Barry Goldwater would presuppose a seachange in American public opinion; presuppose that the fiery little body of dissenters, of which you are a shining meteor, suddenly spun off nothing less than a majority of all the American people, who suddenly overcame a generation's entrenched lassitude, suddenly penetrated to the true meaning of freedom in a society where the truth is occluded by the verbose mystifications of thousands of scholars, tens of thousands of books, a million miles of newsprint; who suddenly, prisoners all those years, succeeded in passing blithely through the walls of Alcatraz and tripping lighdy over the shark-infested waters and treacherous currents, to safety on the shore.

A Prison Break

'

The Goldwater movement is in the nature of an attempted prison-break.

It is supremely urgent that the effort be made, gloriously encouraging that we are mobilized to make the attempt: but direfully boring to proceed on the assumpdon that we will succeed, or to reason that if we do not, the attempt to reach safety cannot ever succeed. To those who remark the danger of demoralization in midcampaign by talk about an impending defeat, it is necessary to remark the necessity for talk about the dangers of demoralizadon after the fourth of November. I fear that the morale of an army on the march is the morale that is most easily destroyed in the unanticipated event of defeat. There are weeks and months and years ahead of us, and I do believe that Senator Goldwater would be the first to deplore the rise of any spirit of synthetic optimism which might result

November

. . /

in a national demoralization of the conservative movement the day after the campaign ends.

The glorious development of this year was the nomination of a man whose views have given the waiting community a choice. The opportunity is golden to take the advantage we have got. It is an advantage that has been given us primarily as the result of the gallant efforts of Senator Goldwater. His disposidon to sacrifice his career in order to give us these few months to take our point to the people from a national platform is an act of political nobility. Under different circumstances the job for us would have been greatly more difficult. The successful fight to nominate Senator Goldwater has required the opinionmakers to consider more seriously, if no less scornfully, the substantive alternatives that a freedom candidate offers. The advantage is uniquely here to require the American people to think through the conservative alternative.

If it were not for the presence of Goldwater as a candidate for the Republican Party our opportunity to proselyte on a truly national scale would not exist. Now is precisely the moment to labor incessantly to educate our fellow citizens, now that so many of them feel required to listen, because the choice must be made at the polling booth. The point of the present occasion is to win recruits whose attention we might never have attracted but for Barry Goldwater; to win them not only for November the third, but for future Novembers: to infuse the conservative spirit in enough people to entide us to look about us, on November 4th, not at the ashes of defeat, but at the wellplanted seeds of hope, which will flower on a great November day in the future, if there is a future.

We Will Continue If God should grant us a victory at this moment there is time enough to count our unexpected blessings and to exult greatly. But we dishonor the Goldwater movement if we permit ourselves to speak to those recruits we gather as though the Walls of Agincourt were hollow egg shells, which will come crumbling down under the pressure of our heroic rhetoric. We have in mind, do we not, (Continued on page 14) 11

INDONESIA: The Next Crisis in Asia

by Randall Grindle

Indonesia's President Sukarno, enjoying absolute power, threatens more trouble in Southeast Asia. Open Soviet military support makes his threat formidable. hile American public attention remains focused on the deteriorating situation in South Viet Nam, a turbulence is brewing in the South China sea, destined to become the locus for the next phase of the Communist war of attrition in Asia. The focal point of the tempest is the Archapelago of Indonesia and her pretentious dictator, Sukarno.

The Dutch Venture Indonesia today is the product of a curious set of circumstances, and the will of one man, the omnipresent Sukarno. The Indonesian dictator holds his people enthralled with incessantly rekindled memories of an overly repressive Dutch colonial regime.

The Netherlands occupied the East Indies in the 15th century as an economic venture, with litde thought given to the development of native potential. As an illustration, where by 1940, the U.S. government in the Philippines had trained 12,170 college graduates, the Dutch, with a native populadon 4 times as large, had graduated only 630. The Dutch colonial regime also pursued a policy of using Chinese merchants as go-betweens in running the plantadons and minor industries of the Indies, thereby preventing the formation of an indigenous entrepreneural class, and making Capitalism an alien ideology. Marxist ideology, on the other hand, gained a relatively easy foothold. Indonesia's first political party, the direct forerunner of the Indonesian Communist party, was a Marxist group founded in 1910 by a Dutch radical socialist.

Japan's Influence The legions of the Rising Sun sweeping across Southeast Asia in the 12

late 1930s encountered little resistance in Indonesia. On Java, the Japanese occupation forces interned the former Dutch masters and established a native militia and puppet government, giving Sukarno and other collaborators an opportunity to consolidate power. Although Japan surrendered on July 18, 1945, the first

President Sukarno of Indonesia Allied occupation forces did not reach Indonesia until September 2nd. There, the British and Australians found an independent, functioning goverment under Sukarno established in the 45 day interim, and were compelled to deal with it as the de facto government of Indonesia.

The Dutch, however, had no intention of losing their former colony, and by 1946, when the British left the islands, the Netherlands had landed some 90,000 troops. In July of 1947, the Dutch launched the first of three armoured, air-supported attacks on the Republic of Indonesia, all in explicit violation of American sponsored cease fires and treaties and all involving Dutch terrorist activities and heavy resistance by the native populace.

Hate-the-Dutch Campaign Sukarno's anti-Dutch harangues easily became a platform for the blanket condemnation of the West; Bung (brother) Karno assiduously promoted a hate-the-Dutch campaign from the final peace setdement with Holland in 1951, culminating in 1957, when, to cover his illegal abrogation of the 1950 constitution and seizure of the posts of President, Prime Minister and Commander in Chief, he triggered a "spontaneous" uprising against remaining Dutch nationals, resulting in the seizure of over $1 billion in Dutch Capital and the flight of tens of thousands of Dutch technical personnel.

Deteriorating economic conditions caused by the flight of Dutch talent, the rise of Communist influence and Sukarno's drive for total power stimulated a last attempt at responsible government in Indonesia. In February of 1958, a revolutionary government was formed, composed of moderate Socialists, Islamic anti-Communists and outer islanders concerned over Javanese centralization of power. The rebellion was also backed by the CIA, through such operatives as the Formosa-based Civilian Air Transport, a pact which was to provide considerable grist for Sukarno's anti Western propaganda mills.

Concentration of Power The unsuccessful 1958 rebellion crystallized the three elements which currently dominate the Indonesian political landscape: The PKI, Indonesia's Communist party and the World's third largest; An armed force, on which 75% of the nation's budget is expended; And, the man, Sukarno, around whom all power today revolves.

Although founded in 1926 and therefore the oldest party in Asia, the PKI was of litde direct influence until THE NEW

GUARD

1951 when Stalin announced the shift to the co-existence theme. Around the globe the international power structure pivoted abrupdy to the right, bringing Dipa Nusantara Aidit to the fore in Indonesia as Agitprop Chief.

By 1954, Aidit had seized control of the Party Secretariat and had launched a United Front with the radical Indonesian Nationalists. Party membership rocketed from a 1951 figure of 8,000 to its present 2.5 million. The Party established a system of front groups, enlisting youth, peasants, women, artists and laborers—which today numbers over 12 million—and effectively dominates all Union and peasant activities. Since 1958, the P K I has gained strength by acting as Sukarno's mouthpiece in mobilizing the populace in support of the Government's various anti-Western programs. As a result, should an election be held today, the party could effectively mobilize over 25 million activists, making it the nation's most powerful force.

General Nasution The only institution in Indonesia of comparable strength is the armed forces, under the nominal Command of General Haris Nasution, who rose to prominence by engineering the military defeats and the amnesty under which the 1958 rebellion collapsed.

As it became clear to Washington that the rebellion was doomed to failure, the State Department shifted support from the rebels to Nasution, eventually supplying the Army with some $20 million in military aid, mostly in the form of arms for ground forces and a fleet of Hercules C-130 heavy transports. Later, U.S. military aid was expended on management and insurgency control programs for the officer corps, and on a public works and civic improvement program conducted by the army as a means of oflfsetting the Communist apparatus at the village level. Congressional severance of the American aid program in August of 1964, a move sponsored

by Sen. Tower and necessitated by Indonesia's aggression against American allies in Asia seems to have toppled this program.

Massive Soviet armament deliveries to the Air Force and Navy commenced in May of 1958, and since that time the USSR has provided over DECEMBER 1964

$800 million in military aid. Soviet equipment, including 40 TU-16 and IL-28 medium jet bombers, over 100 MIG jet fighters, two 19,000 ton missile launching cruisers, four frigates, seven destroyers and 20 subs, at least 12 of which are of the long range W type, make Indonesia the fifth most powerful military force in the world, and by far the most powerful in Asia.

Communist influence in the Navy and Air Force, which control the vital air and sea transport and Communications routes around the island, coupled with General Nasution's recent decline in power and the Marxist sentiments of about 25% of the Army officer Corps, seems to assure an eventual complete Communist takeover of the island nation which the Moscow Literary Gazette already refers to as ". . . . our beach-head in South Central Asia."

Sukarno's Absolute Power Whatever the results of the power struggle between the Army and the PKI, Sukarno's control despite four attempts on his life, is today absolute.

The last opposition newspaper was closed in 1961; the moderate former' leaders are all in jail; all political parties have been banned; the parliament has been replaced by a rump advisory body representing functional and regional groups; and all Western organizations from the Boy Scouts to the Rotary have been banned. Last

month, Newsweek became the 18th foreign press agency banned for "discrediting and insulting remarks" about Sukarno, who now holds the posts of President-for-life, Commander-inChief, Chairman of the Supreme Advisory Council, Great Leader of the Revolution and Supreme Leader of the National Front. This last mentioned organization is a coalition of diverse interests ranging from the Communists to the Moslems, to the Army's officer Corps, over which Sukarno holds paternalistic reign and through which he institutes his political manifesto for "Guided Democracy", a curious blend of Marxism, Islam, and a quasi-mystical attempt to translate the communal oragnization of the Indonesian village into a nationstate context.

Failure of the Marxist Economy Guided Democracy in practice has meant economic chaos. Volume and value of exports is b^low pre-WW I I figures. Indonesia's industrial complex operates at 30-40% of efficiency.

Agricultural production is down to less than 50% of 1939 figures and dropping. Seventy percent of her motor vehicles are idle for lack of spare parts. Since 1959, the consumer price index has risen over 900%, and Indonesia, a maritime and agricultural nation, has been forced to import hundreds of thousands of tons of fish and rice to stave off starva13

Indonesia has become a pivotal point in the world Communist tion. Foreign indebtedness now exceeds $1.6 billion, mostly owed to the US and the USSR. While chronic drought and rat infestation threaten starvation, US aid has built a $300 million Mosque, a $14 million resort hotel, a $15 million sports stadium and 3 Convair Coronado jet air liners worth $19 million.

Only the royalties from the as yet unexpropriated Bridsh and American oil industries and the fact that the predominently rural population can subsist on its own produce, keeps Indonesia just beyond the brink of bankruptcy. Indonesia's economic crisis is the familiar result of Marxist Policy: suppression of entrepreneural talents, expropriation of foreign capital, the flight of foreign technical skills. Agrarian reforms which break up productive farms into subsistence plots, inflation and wild government spending.

There is a formula used by dictators in such circumstances to contain internal unrest: find a scape goat, preferably external. And, who else but the Dutch? In January, 1962, the first of some 2,000 Indonesian "volunteers" were parachuting into the jungles of Western New Guinea, to engage in sporadic fire fights with the Dutch, and to harass the 23,000 European setders. Sukarno, determined to "liberate" the 700,000 aboriginal Papuans, knew he could count on the assistance of Sino-Soviet and Afro-Asian blocs in the U N and the "surrender-now-pay-later" boys in the U.S. to turn the screws on the Netherlands. On August 15, the Dutch capitulated to diplomatic pressure and transferred control of West New Guinea to the U N , and in turn to Indonesia in May, 1963. Sdkarno had acquired 154,000 sq. miles of territory at the nominal expense of a few hundred lives and a few thousand dollars. The Papuans, just emerging from the Stone Age, had lost a European benefactor which had supplied $20 million per year in aid funds, to gain new colonial masters whose economy barely supports Sukarno's fleet of Cadillacs.

Another Target—Malaysia Sukarno, his appetite whetted by an easy conquest, had already turned his sights toward a new quarry, the newly formed Federation of Malaysia, 14

a union of Malaya, Singapore and the former British colonies of Sarawak, Brunei and Sabah.

The first shock came in December of 1962, when an Indonesian-Communist inspired riot rocked the tiny oil-rich province of Brunei. Since then, the 7,000 man Gurkha garrison in Malaysian Borneo has engaged landing parties, parachutists, and across-the-border sorties of Indonesian irregulars. Communist agents on Singapore have sparked racial riots between Malays and Chinese, and are seeking out and arming the hard-core remnants of the 1948-1960 guerilla war in Malaya which cost Britain 11,000 lives to suppress. Since August, some 300 Indonesian Guerillas have crossed the Straits of Malacca by air and amphibious craft, forcing the British, Australian and New Zealanders to dispatch military assistance to Malaysia, to whom they are tied by treaty. And, for the first time, the government of the Philippines reports troubles with Indonesian infiltrators on the Island of Mindanao.

Trouble for the West Although superficially, Sukarno's motivation for the petty harassment of the West's Malaysian and Filipino allies seems to amount to nothing more than an adolescent surge of nationalism, a deeper look reveals deep currents of trouble for the West.

Consider the following items: 1) Indonesia's harassment of Malaysia ties down Commonwealth military forces which the US has requested in Viet Nam, and in fact may direcdy involve American military forces, for we are bound by the ANZUS mutual defense pact to the defense of Australia and New Zealand.

2) Hostile Indonesian actions in the Straits of Malacca, the world's third most important waterway, threaten US supply lines to South Viet Nam. 3) Hostilities in the Straits also represent a threat to the economic health of Japan, Hong Kong, Formosa and the Philippines, which must trade with South East Asia through the Straits.

4) Japan, faced with the prospect of reduced trade with the mainland, has no other opdon than to seek closer economic ties with Red China, thereby strengthening China's industri-

strategy

al potential. Japanese-Chinese trade, which in 1963 totaled $137 million, has exceeded $572 million in the first half of 1964.

5) Indonesia has in the past two years deepened ties with Red China, North Viet Nam, North Korea and with Cambodia, which now acts as a refuge for the Viet Cong, and has repeatedy violated the South Vietnamese border.

6) The Soviet Union, which recently vetoed a Norwegian-sponsored resolution in the U N Security Council condemning Indonesia for aggression against Malaysia, holds a tight economic grasp on Sukarno through a huge military credit extension. Russia's interest in Indonesia as an anti-Western base of operations in Red China's back yard, has been cast into prominence by Sukarno's current threat to turn Indonesia into a Soviet rocket base. Soviet missiles, even intermediate range types, would cast nuclear shadows from Rangoon to Tokyo, and Saigon to Canberra, tipping the present Asian power balance precariously.

Indonesia's present course and her potential leverage in Asia indicate that she has already become a pivotal point in the polycentric Communist world's strategy. Sukarno, believing that a Marxist victory is inevitable, has set about to circumscribe a sphere of influence in the power vacuum being created by the progressive dissolution of Western influence in Asia.

Indonesia has cast her lot with the East, and it is already apparent that she is destined to be the next major "crisis" which the American people will be called upon to witness in Asia.

Buckley

(Continued from page 11)

a counter-revolution? Counter-revolutions are not accomplished by defeating Nelson Rockefeller or William Scranton. The enemy is made of sterner stuff. So are we, and so must we prove it, by showing not a moment's dismay on November the 4th in the likely event that the walls stood firm against our assault. On that day we must emerge smiling, confident in the knowledge that we weakened those walls, that they will never again stand so firmly against us.

On that day we must be prepared to inform Lyndon Johnson that we too will continue.

THE NEW

GUARD

Disrespect for Law and Order

by Allan C . Brownfeld

What part has the newly fashionable 'civil disobedience' played in the breakdown of respect for law? Author Brownfeld fears anarchy will result if the trend continues Law is held in greater disrepute in America today than ever before in our history. To note that our streets are no longer safe, and that murders, rapes, and physical assaults have become commonplace is merely to belabor our unfortunate situation.

Disrespect for law, however, has not come about all at once. Many causes have contributed to it, not least of which is the lowering of morals in a climate of relativism, believing that what is right is simply what works.

Pragmatism is America's unique contribution to the philosophy of man— if negation may be considered a philosophy, and non-value viewed as a verity, even if not eternal. but a proud achievement. Perhaps we In recent days we have been faced are destined to see in this law-loving with a more obstinate and less subtle land people running for office not on threat to our system of law. It is a their stainless records but on their view that men must obey only those prison records." laws with which they agree, and are Martin Luther King has said that free to disobey all others. This is the "we want everything now." His new view which is vocally advocated by book is entitled Why We Can't Wait.

Martin Luther King, Adam Clayton His view, briefly stated, is that "There Powell and other civil rights leaders. are just laws and there are injust laws.

It is a view which has worked well . . . I submit that an individual who in influencing Lyndon Johnson, Hubreaks a law that conscience tells him bert Humphrey, and other advocates is unjust and willingly accepts the of civil rights legislation. It is however, penalty . . . is in reality expressing a view which may be accepted only the highest respect for the law." by those who are willing to return to a society without law, in which Dr. King has stated repeatedly that each man is at war with his neighbor. his view of civil disobedience is a Christian view. This, however, is Disobedience With Impunity hardly borne out by a brief look at Our liberty rests only within the what Christian theology says to us body of the law, and once it is shatabout the need for obedience to law. tered so also is our freedom. By our In Chapter X I I I of Paul's Epistle is meant the freedom of all Americans, to the Romans it is stated: "Let every Negro and white, those who advocate one be subject to the governing aucivil rights bills and those who do not. thorities, for there is no authority exThe problem, though many cannot cept from God, and the existing ausee it, is more encompassing than the thorities have been ordained by God. day to day affairs of Negroes seeking Therefore he who resists the authoriadmittance to lunch counters and ties resists what God has appointed, amusement parks. The problem is one and those who resist will incur judgof whether or not due process will ment." be used to change laws which are St. Augustine's view was that all considered wrong, or whether they laws promulgated by the ruler must will simply be disobeyed with imbe obeyed by all citizens, with the punity. Those who advocate civil dissole exception of laws or commands obedience have chosen the latter path. which run contrary to God's injunctions. Professor Deane has commented In an address at Colby College about St. Augusdne's philosophy: Adlai Stevenson said that ". . . even ". . . . When Augustine says that a jail sentence is no longer a dishonor DECEMBER 1964

God's command overrules laws and customs, it seems clear that he is referring to those commands of God which have been directly revealed to men in the Scriptures, such as the prohibition against idol-worship. . . .

He does not say that if the ruler is unwise or evil, and fails to take the eternal law into account when he frames temporal laws, these laws have no validity, and the subjects have no obligation to obey them; nor does he say that the subjects have a right to determine for themselves, by reference to the natural or eternal law, whether or not such a temporal law is valid and is to be obeyed."

Disobedience Un-Christian Discussing the Rev. King's claim that his views stem from the Christian tradition, theologian Will Herberg made this comment in The National Review: "The early Christians under the teaching of the aposdes were enjoined to obey the laws of the state, a pagan state, mind you, whether they held these laws to be just or unjust— so long as the state did not claim for itself the worship and allegiance owing only to God." Whatever else may be said for civil disobedience, it is certainly not a Christian doctrine!

What remains is a rather primitive view of man and society, and the role of government. It is a view which holds that the legal and legislative processes written into our Constitution are only one of the means to use in attempting to achieve pardcular legal, political, or social goals. If these means fail, then there are other means, and these are essentially means of intimidation.

There are demonstrations, peaceful at first, such as the March on Washington in 1963, culminadng in the

acted law. He, in fact, did little in the area of civil rights for the first three years of his Administration. Only when Negro groups decided to take the matter into their own hands did he show some interest in such a Bill.

r rioting of Harlem, Rochester, Paterson, and Philadelphia. There are boycotts, sit-ins, lie-ins, and blocking of traffic. Many of these groups believe that they can get by intimidation what they could not get through legal channels. This belief was fostered by the governmental establishment which reacted in just such a manner. Some have called it a popular protest. Perhaps anarchy is a more descriptive term. Discussing the riots in Paterson, New Jersey, which Negro leaders had attributed to the wrongs of ghetto life, Mayor Frank X. Graves, Jr. stated: 'This was just plain old lousy law breakers who are using their color to say they can't be arrested."

tor such a reckless action. We would be criticized for showing a disregard for the pedestrian, and for the motor ist traveling in the opposite direction Yet when civil rights advocates block highways they are not condemned Efforts are made to "understand' them. When they loot we are asked not to be outraged, but to be compassionate. Those who ask for equal rights condemn with vehemence the reverse side of that coin—equal justice. Negro groups often say that particular laws are not "convenient."

Many centuries ago Livy pointed out that: "No law can possibly meet the convenience of everyone; we must be satisfied if it can be beneficial on the whole and to the majority."

Breaking Down the Fabric of the Law Changes 'Demanded' 'individualities,*' Disraeli has written, "may form communities, but it is the institutions alone that can create a nation." If each individual, or group of individuals, decides for himself which laws he will follow and which laws he will disobey, the entire fabric of law is broken down.

One fact shines through, and those who advocate a policy of resistance to law should realize this before they make it too late. That fact is that Negro equality can exist only in the same proportion as respect for law exists. What a tragedy it would be if Negroes succeeded in destroying our system of law, and in the very process destroy the very things which can make them free.

Given the situation in which we understand too well the danger of establishing the idea that laws may be broken at will, why have we made such law-breaking a profitable enterprise? In the pattern of our daily lives we would hardly think it proper to pass a red light because we believe that, in all fairness, it should have been green. We would be condemned 16

Those within society who wish to alter existing law have been encouraged not to pursue the legislative path.

Such methods are considered too painstaking and too slow. They have, instead, been encouraged to take to the streets, thereby making evident to jurists that the "temper of the community" demands change.

We are, thus, led to a situation in which William Epton, head of the Harlem Defense Council, is quoted as stating that "the state must be smashed . . . we're going to have to kill cops and judges." A detective in attendance at a secret Harlem meeting made this report: "There was talk of bloodshed, violence, missiles being thrown and warnings that all white sympathizers were to stay away. . . ."

Abraham Lincoln said that "There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law." Yet civil rights groups have found this a successful tactic. Let us consider, for example, the civil rights act of 1964. The late President Kennedy had litde interest in proposing a Bill which would embody the features of the presendy en-

In 1963 civil rights groups conducted a March on Washington. A l though the March itself was peaceful, in the background were threats that if the Bill desired by such groups was not passed then violence would ensue. The Bill was passed, and for the moment violence was averted.

Threat of Violence How close, however, can leaders come to preaching the doctrine of violence, even as a threat, without having members of their group pursue such a course actively? The answer, of course, is that once violence has been threatened it is almost certain that it will result. Once it is stated that law need not he obeyed unless it is ''good law" the beginning of an end to rule by law has been initiated.

"People say it's against the law," Adam Clayton Powell has remarked, "What law? And who made them?

There is only one great and unbreakable law, and that is the law of God." If we adopt the idea that threats of violence and intimidation will work, for after all they have worked, then we have abandoned a society of law and order. What if each group with a grievance were to take to the streets, and decide for itself what level of law it will obey? The result would be anarchy and chaos.

Daniel Webster stated that "Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint." Such restraint is hard to find in America today, and without it we are in danger of truly becoming a government of men and not of laws.

When law fails, men must fill the vacuum, and civil rights groups and others should carefully consider how they would fare in a society run not by a properly established law but by whim of man. Civil disobedience is a long first step in that direction, and the submission to it by recent Democratic Administrations marks the failure of society to maintain that order without which freedom and liberty is lost. Let us hope that there is still time to change our course and return to a system where the law merits respect and not scorn and abuse.

THE

NEW

GUARD

The Alianza: m Road to Socialism in Latin America?

Expropriation of the land is an experiment that failed miserably in Cuba, Mexico and Bolivia, but that is exactly what our 'Alliance for Progress' promotes The New Frontier doggedly makes its way on under its new leader, Lyndon B. Johnson. Pledged to continue the policies and programs of his predecessor. President Johnson vowed renewed efforts to eliminate blight in Latin America via the Kennedy-initiated Alliance for Progress. Launched at Punta del Este, Uruguay in August, 1961, the 10-year program commits the United States Government to pour $1 billion annually into all of Latin America with the exception of Cuba.

The Castro-Communist takeover in Cuba—more than anything else— hastened the development of the program. The State Department, (and the New York Times) felt that if the U.S. did not actively promote better living conditions south of the border, we would shordy be faced with other Cubas. The fact that Cuba was one of the most prosperous of the Latin American nations when Castro took over is never mentioned. One of the primary means of achieving "social justice" for the Latin American masses is the issuance of land reform decrees in the individual countries.

Land Reform: Phase One The Alliance for Progress called for a "more equitable distribuUon of the ownership of land, in a manner consistent with the objectives of employment, productivity and economic growth." Among other Latin American countries, Venezuela, Colombia, Peru, Costa Rica, Uruguay and Nicaragua are, in various degrees, undertaking land reform programs.

In all these countries, measures are being taken to break up large estates (mosdy by expropriation) in order to DECEMBER 1964

provide peasants with their own small tracts of land. This breaking up of large estates stems from the following allegations: large estates tend to keep a big part of the land in disuse; they are often owned by absentee landlords caring little for the living conditions of their employees; large estates tend to exploit the country's riches and yet produce only a fraction of what could be grown on the land.

The New Frontier's remedy for these allegations—each of which contain some elements of truth—is a land reform movement throughout Latin America to take land from the rich and give it to the ubiquitous poor in the interests of "social justice." Aside from the injustice of such Robin Hood-type taking from the rich to give to the poor, just what can be expected in greater wealth for the peasants and their pardcular countries from such programs?

Remember Castro?

Attempts at land reform in Latin America are not new. The most recently publicized land reform movement is the Cuban one. Many U.S. liberals were overjoyed at Castro's land reform decree of May 17, 1959, which called for expropriation of large estates in order to make sure that each peasant had the minimum land holding of 66 acres. At that time, U.S. sugar interests alone owned or controlled over 2,000,000 acres in Cuba, most of which was considered to be "latinfundios" or "excessive land holdings," and were therefore expropriated. The fact that these sugar fields and refineries were operated on

by R. J. Bocklet a highly mechanized and efficient basis or that they paid some 100,000 Cubans a comparatively handsome $3 to $4 for a day's work did not save them from being taken over by the Castro government.

Under Castro's land reform program, peasants found that, contrary to promises made about their having their own plots of land to cultivate, they are now working on land organized into government "cooperatives'! which, in reality, are little less than communes. Red Chinese style.

The peasants were indeed given •'deeds" to the land, but the State retained control of the use of the land. The peasants are told what crops to plant and are allotted only a portion of the produce for their own use.

They cannot rent, sell or mortgage the land. And, in 1962, four years after Castro took over, their earnings dropped to approximately $1.50 a day.

Production Declines How has the economy as a whole reacted to the land reform program?

Owing to the breaking up of productive large estates into small "cooperatives" run by peasants lacking any kind of agricultural or managerial technique, production has dropped off markedly. In years just preceding Castro's takeover, sugar harvests averaged 5,675,000 tons. In 1962, after four years of land reform, the sugar output was 3,800,000 tons, a 20year low. This big dropoff in output resulted in a loss of revenue to the government and the Cuban people.

The crop was so low, in fact, that sugar is still being rationed in Cuba today.

But this was a drastic movement.

Other milder types of land reform have been tried in Guatemala, Argen17

Socialists

applaud the routing of private owners from Latin

tina, Brazil and the Dominican Republic. A l l were inidated with the intention of dividing up large estates into small tracts for landless peasants, and all have resulted in subsequent declines in output. The two most profound attempts at land reform in Latin America took place in Bolivia and Mexico.

Changes in Mexico After Mexican dictator Poriirio Diaz' regime came to an end in late 1910, winds of change blew over the country and eventually a land reform law was enacted. Under leftist President Lazaro Cardenas, 45,000,000 acres were turned into peasant farms, either as individual holdings or in the form of ejidos. The ejido is a system of communal tenure in which lands are held as the property of a town either for collective use or for distribution among the peasants for use in small plots to which each individual has a right of occupancy and usufruct. Family heads were assigned to specific lots to cultivate as they wished, but the land could not be sold, rented or mortgaged.

The results of the Mexican land reform program show that the ejidos cannot compete with the country's privately-owned estates. Dr. Lewis Hanke of the University of Texas said in his book "Modern Latin America" (1959) that "a further distribudon of land to landless peasants will not necessarily increase production greatly. The most publicized distribution of land to peasants took place in the fertile Leguna district in north central Mexico. A recent investigation indicated that cotton and wheat production have definitely increased there since expropriation, but the increase, ironically enough, has come mostly from private properties."

In the November, 1959, World Today, Victor Alba, Mexican journalist, put it as blundy as this: "The failure of the ejido, alike from the point of view of productivity and form of living standard of the peasant masses, is apparent."

Bolivian Land Reform In Bolivia, land reform legislation was enacted in August, 1953 as part of a social revolution under President Victor Paz Estenssoro. The ambitious program plunged the country into great economic troubles. "The forcefed changes," wrote Richard Patch 18

for the American Universities' field staff in April 1959, "many (of them) made because of political not practical necessities, have brought the country to a state of chaos which must be seen to be believed."

Under the Bolivian law, expropriation was carried out of lands deemed "excessive" i.e. "extensive rural properties which remain unexploited or deficiently exploited by the extensive system, with antiquated instruments and methods which allow waste of human effort." The breaking up of large estates hurt Bolivia's production of the valuable coca leaf from which cocaine is derived. Formerly, coca was produced on well-tended fields with a network of elaborate terraces and high expenditure for labor. By tedious cultivation and skillful harvesting, the best crop possible was produced. It, in turn, brought revenue in the form of heavy taxes. When peasants took over the coca estates, they either failed to comprehend the real value of the crop or neglected to exert the self-discipline and efficiency required for success. Within two years, terraces were allowed to erode beyond repair. The former crop of

Bolivia's coca-rich Yungas, or semitropical valleys, has almost disappeared.

The Decline of Property Another example of degeneration of formerly productive property under the land reform law is Pairumeni where "Tin King" Simon Padno had

America

his estate. He had spent millions of dollars creating a model farm, orchards, dairy and stockbreeding establishments. The farms served as a center for distribution of selected seeds and purebred livestock at less than cost, with the aim of improving yields throughout the area. Only a few months after the land reform law had broken up Patino's estates, seed-corn was being made into chica (Indian liquor), prize catde and sheep had been butchered for meat, and buildings and machine equipment were stripped for saleable parts. In the following five years, orchards and gardens became overgrown with weeds, and gutted buildings only hinted at the former splendor of Pairumeni.

Bolivian land reform and unwise nationalizadon of resources cost the government such prodigious sums of revenue that it resorted to issuing paper money without backing. Runaway inflation reduced the value of the boliviano from 220 to the dollar in 1952 to a low of 14,000 to the dollar in 1956. Today Bolivia is bankrupt and dependent on U.S. aid for rescue from chaos.

Despite land reform failures in varying degrees in every Latin American country—with Cuba, Bolivia and Mexico experiencing the biggest economic fiascoes—the New Frontier forges ahead with its land reform objectives in the Alliance for Progress.

The driving out of private owners and investors from Latin America is just what indigenous Socialists and Communists want. This will inevitably lead to governments' entering new areas of nadonal production.

Trend to Industry The liberal argument that every peasant should have his own plot of land fails to take into account modern trends away from agriculture employment in Latin America as industrialization there increases. Before World War I I , about 60% of Ladn American workers were employed in husbandry. By 1956, United Nations statistics showed that the contribution made to the gross national product by the average agricultural worker in Latin America was less than 30% of that made by the non-agricultural worker. The concept that every peasant must have his own plot of land rests more on sentimental theories than on economic argument.

THE

NEW

GUARD

A highly developed scientific husbandry system such as that in the United States provides ample food for the population though only 11% of the people are engaged in farm work. Large-scale capital investment in big Latin American estates should be encouraged, not discouraged, if the objecdves of the Alliance for Progress are to be achieved.

There are Better Ways Of course, it is true that there is need of social improvement and better land use in Latin America. I f underproductive or idle land were goaded into full production by increased land taxes an absentee or neglectful owner would be forced to sell to another private individual or company willing to do the agricultural job properly.

Also, tax-relief incentives could be offered to estates not able to show an immediate profit and therefore unable to attract private capital investment.

Such "land reform" measures are relatively simple to put into effect. They would tend to increase productivity and at the same time foster private enterprise and private capital investment both domestic and foreign.

The poor social conditions of some farm laborers on some estates could be improved by remedial social legislation rather than by destruction of the large enterprise.

The Alliance for Progress, pumping aid of $1 billion annually into Latin America on a government-togovernment basis, cannot do the job

that the $8 billion U.S. private investment in the Latin American economy performs. The private investments promote profits, not deficits, out of which come wages, taxes, local sales of materials and new investments.

The Alliance for Progress emphasis on public rather than private investment in Latin America has caused a flight of capital from the Latin nations, has fostered the expropriadon fever ranging throughout Latin America, and has led to the by-passing of Latin American investments in favor of risk-taking in Western Europe.

Unless the U.S. Government recognizes immediately that progress in Latin America can be achieved only through sound private capital investment and expansion, instead of government-to-government handouts, all of Latin American may soon be on the road to Socialism.

The

true

reason why

America is

not

prepared to survive a nuclear war!

THE DECEPTION OF CIVIL DEFENSE

by Kenneth D. Barrett An

expose of

the tactics the

have used in weakening our

Liberals Country!

ALSO A complete plan for a nuclear blast and fallout

shelter

system

to

protect

the

people of America! $4

(hardcover) 10

$2 (paperback)

copies—$15

Order from

The NEW

GUARD

reaches over 25,000 young conservatives . . .

Independence Press, Inc. P.O. Box

11017

Orlando, Florida

Write for advertising rates today.

It pays to advertise in the NEW GUARD

Subscribe to the NEW

GUARD

F O R R E A L W E S T E R H - S T Y L E FUN, B E A D F O R K K O T T ' S

A

Bring your family, come early and plan to spend the whole day! Ride the stage c o a c h , pan for real gold, ride through the Calico Mountain Gold Mine.

Highlight the day with a delicious dinner . . . Mrs. Knott's famous fried chicken or western-style s t e a k s .

Mrs. Knott's Jams and Jellies are as delicious as ever. You can buy them at the Farm—or at your favorite food store.

DECEMBER 1964

ENOirs

lOBTFilBM &i;hostiom

In Buena Park, 30 minutes from Los Angeles On Highway 39 (Beach Blvd.)

2 miles south of Santa Ana Freeway

19

YAF Roundup

Growth in Chapters Marks Post-Election Period; YAF-Sponsored Publications Proliferate in all Regions Membership

and Chapters

Increase

The day after the election last month the telephone began to ring in the national headquarters of Y A F . With the mountain of mail the following day, our best hopes were realized. Almost to a man (or girl) the thousands of Y A F members across the Nation had decided that now is the time to work harder than ever for the principles of conservatism in which we believe. In the two days after the election five chapters were formed by long distance telephone calls to the office. Two generous people walked in off the street and contributed substantial amounts of cash, a never-before event in our lives. Young people telephoned, came in, and sent letters—all with a single purpose: to make sure that the wave of conservatism does not falter.

Nasson College Y A F in Maine is Perhaps most encouraging of all is now publishing Freedom Writers the great increase in membership. headed by Jeremy Horn, and edited Almost 2,500 young Americans

by James Kilborne. Staff members injoined Y A F in October alone. This clude Richard Jerome, Eric Nelson, f^rowth has continued during NovemPaul Crowell and Robert C. Rand. ber. Much of this has been due to ihe hard work done by Thomas PhilThe excellent publication of Georlips, our man in charge of membergia YAF, The Challenger, is better ship and a former member of the than ever and now edited by Beverly national Y A F boarS. Tom reports Allen of Agnes Scott College. $1.00 that literally thousands of young peomailed to The Challenger, Box 8, ple exposed to conservatism during Agnes Scott College, Decatur, Ga. the election campaign in such groups 30030 will get you a year's subscripas Youth for Goldwater, are now tion. joining Y A F with a view to fighting New England Y A F , under the again. There is plenty to do, and leadership of Regional Chairman Dan these pages illustrate just a few of Carmen now has the YAF Yankeethings that Y A F chapters are doing. lander which serves as a house organ We would appreciate it if you would for the New England states. Its latest send us your chapter reports, and issue reports that the area now has especially photographs. more than 30 chapters with plans for another 20 or more.

The New Nationalist is published YAF Publications Expand by the Pillion Chapter of Y A F in Sometimes the national headquarBuffalo, N.Y., under chairman Ken ters begins to feel like the head of a Maher. Peter M . Nowakowski is edigreat chain of newspapers around tor and Dr. John P. Halstead, adthe nation. Literally hundreds of lovisor. In addition to its good writing, cal chapter publications have apthe Nationalist also contains excellent peared bearing YAF's name and recartoons. Subscriptions can be ordered cently a new crop has appeared. at $1.50 a year from P.O. Box 62, Station C, Buffalo, N.Y. 14209.

The Public Affairs Committee of Hawaii Y A F is distributing a weekly Other Y A F publications deserving one-page newsletter called The Issue. commendation are The Patriot, pubSo far, issue papers have covered lished by Boston University Y A F , 70 such topics as "What Is YAF?", "FisHilburn St., Roslindale, Mass. 02131; cal Responsibility," "Civil Rights," Richard F. Adair is the editor; The and "Crime and Delinquency." AnyLiberty Bell of Richmond County one wishing to subscribe, and we recYAF, P.O. Box 3444, Augusta, Ga. ommend it heartily, can send $2.00 30904; and The Reservite published to The Issue, P.O. Box 1 199, Honoby The Western Reserve Academy lulu, Hawaii 96807.

YAF with Thomas E. Bonsall as 20

chairman. Staff members include Henry E. Haller, editor and contributors Robert Keener, and Guy E. Wells.

Liberals Are Not Liberal The November issue of the N E W cited several instances in which left wingers had tried to suppress free speech and the right to air conservative political views during the campaign. Here are a few more samples: Boulder, Colorado—When the Y A F chapter and the Young Republican Club jointly sponsored a booth distributing campaign materials and selling copies of the books "None Dare Call It Treason" and "A Texan Looks at Lyndon" the University banned their sale. No doubt this was in the spirit of academic freedom about which we hear so much. Commented the usually liberal Denver Post, which opposed the book banning, "We hope . . . a way will be found to allow appropriate political activity on the campus to continue."

Milwaukee, Wisconsin—During the nine days of the Wisconsin State Fair, Wisconsin Y A F manned a full time booth presenting campaign materials to the public. During that time the following events occurred; (1) LBJ bumper strips were liberally pasted on the painted surfaces of cars bearing Goldwater signs; (2) an abrasive compound was poured into the engine of a car with a Goldwater car top sign, causing extensive engine damage; (3) several Goldwater auto top signs were stolen or smashed; (4) someone slashed the roof of a convertible with a Goldwater sticker on it.

Waukesha, Wisconsin—Local Y A F members erected a giant sign on private land near a state highway boosting Barry Goldwater for president.

Within hours a Wisconsin state roads official, beholden no doubt to the Democrat governor of that state, appeared and ruled the sign illegal. He need hardly have bothered. During the first night of its existence the sign was badly damaged by broad minded supporters of Lyndon Johnson who undoubtedly would resent being called extremists.

GUARD

THE

NEW

GUARD

Tampa, Florida—Despite a long standing right of students of the University of South Florida to picket as means of freely expressing their views, this right was completely abolished during a speech last month by general do-all Sargent Shriver. A small group of university students were prevented by campus police from demonstrating with Goldwater signs.

Dean of Student Affairs, Herbert J. Wunderlich first tried to pressure students to prevent the demonstration and then ordered police to stop them.

He explained that there were other "channels" on campus by which the views of the conservative students could be presented. He mentioned "select courses, select faculties and so forth." Knowing the Liberal plan for student education we can bet that courses and faculty have been indeed "select." Unfortunately, for the right of free speech, you had better not select the University of South Florida.

YAF members whose free speech was suppressed by the Libs included Jack Allen, George Zink, Damon Beyer, Ernest Tickner, Tom Drake, George Mann, and Stephen Johnson.

A YAF at Yale The living refutation of the charge that young intellectuals are not conservatives is Y A F member John C. Meyer, class of 1967 at Yale. John, the son of famed author and National Review editor, Frank Meyer, earned the title of United States Junior Chess Champion last summer in a tournament at Baltimore. He won first place by winning seven straight games and drawing the last two in a field of 72 players. Meyer has been playing chess since his father taught him the fundamentals at the age of five, but the game remains a hobby with him.

His burning interest is in conservatism and the practical aspects of getting conservatives elected to office.

In the recent elections Meyer was appointed Campaign Director for the Yale Republican Club and was in charge of a team of YRs which canvassed New Haven's 17th Ward. John was well grounded for this work since he had been one of the moving forces in the founding of a "Goldwater for President Club" at Yale last spring when he was still in his freshman year.

One thing that bothers Y A F member Meyer is the many liberals he meets in the chess world. To remedy this, and to carry on the work started by another Eli, William F. Buckley, Jr., John is now working on the formation of a new chapter of Y A F at Yale. This should succeed admirably since the project is headed by a young man the Yale Daily News calls: "One of the most active conservatives on campus."

YAF Member is Youngest Arkansas J.P. Maurice R. Franks, a 22 year old YAF member majoring in political science at Harding College in Searcy, Ark., has been elected Justice of the Peace in White County, A r k .

When sworn in next month he will be the youngest judge in the State of Arkansas. He is also the first Independent candidate elected Franks to the position.

In his new post, Franks will have jurisdiction over tax matters, civil and legal cases and numerous other criminal and procedural aspects of the law. Franks ran on a strong platform of support for police in their battle against crime. He terms himself "a staunch conservative" and says he is tremendously encouraged by the political action by young people which made his election possible.

Claremont College YAF

Meyer DECEMBER 1964

The Claremont College Y A F headed by chairman Richard W. Henderson reports a full calendar of activity this fall. In addition to election work for the national ticket, they also worked for successful candidates, Congressman Glen Lipscomb and Senatorelect George Murphy. Claremont YAF is working on research into the National Student Association with a view to reconsidering the college's membership in NSA. In early Octo-

ber, Y A F was officially recognized by the college administration allowing oncampus activity for the first time. To top it all, Claremont Y A F now has a weekly 15 minute radio show on the school-operated F M station.

YAF

on Manion Forum

Last month the National Chairman of Y A F , Bob Bauman, was the guest of Dean Clarence Manion on his nation-wide radio-TV program, the Manion Forum. The program was filmed and recorded in Elkhart, Indiana, and seen around the nation on several hundred radio and TV stations. The program was also the subject of newspaper articles and editorials in such papers as the Chicago Tribune, the Fort Wayne News Sentinal, and the Indianapolis News.

Manion, former Dean of the Notre Dame Law School, told his listeners that he had been gready impressed by the growth of conservatism among young people during the past four years and quoted Norman Thomas, the perennial Socialist candidate for President, as saying that he too had seen the trend and was gready disturbed about it.

Bauman told Dean Manion and his audience: "Personality is not the important thing. We feel that conservatism, the principles that have made America great, are far more important than any individual."

Putnam County YAF Meets Some 70 young conservatives attended a recent meeting of the Putnam County (N.Y.) Y A F presided over by chairman Bruce Bell. At the meeting a resolution was passed condemning the Supreme Court decision on the reapportionment of state legislatures. A representative of the N.Y. American Legion showed the film "Operation Abolition" depicting the Communist-led rioting against the House Committee on Un-American Activities. Bell asked all members to take an active interest in community government and to keep patriotism in American their outstanding goal, thus defeating the aims of Communism.

Santa Barbara YAF Growing Under the leadership of Western Regional Vice Chairman Chuck Dozer, the Santa Barbara, Calif., area is booming with Y A F activity. The local newspaper, the Gazette-Citizen, published a two page feature article on YAF on the occasion of its official recognition by local school officials so that Y A F chapters could form at Santa Barbara and San Marcos High 21

Schools. Also active in the area is Ellen Pelissero, a senior student at the U. of California Goleta campus, and Karla Keltz, acting chairman of the Santa Barbara chapter. The Y A F leaders are planning debates, presenting speakers, distributing literature and took an active part in the recent election campaign.

Dixon YAF Organizes Continuing the constant growth of California Y A F under its new State Chairman, Lee Slaughter, a new chapter has been organized at Dixon, Calif. A teenage group, the chairman is Scott Collier; corresponding secretary, Gayle Thissell; Judy Monk, recording secretary; Pam Gill, vice chairman, and Tom Sork, treasurer.

The Dixon Tribune published an account of the first meeting and stated that the primary purpose of Y A F is the "halting of political laziness on the part of American youth." The newspaper also reprinted the Sharon Statement in full.

Bud

Is At It Again

Fulton Lewis I I I ("Buddy") is back on the road again. The former Y A F board member is once again debating and speaking around the nation as he has done for the past year, all for the good of conservatism. Although Lewis was deeply involved in the campaign of vice presidential candidate William Miller, he found time for speeches during the last two months in such places as Milwaukee and Janesville, Wis., Fort Wayne, Ind., San Francisco, Calif., Poughkeepsie and Binghamton, N.Y., and Delaware, Ohio, just to name a few. In many places he has debated Prof. James Burkhart of Stephens College in Missouri on the topic, "Conservatism vs. Liberalism.''

Spotlight

On . . .

Tom Phillips

'^Very interesting," said young Tom Phillips, as the election returns rolled in last month. Such is the typical understatement from the cool, level-headed, yet absolutely gung-ho conservative youth leader, Phillips.

As others wept openly, or sat glum and bitter while the TV commentators droned on about the conservative debacle, Tom Phillips was brightly talking about new chapters of YAF, new members, a n d how to win in '66.

This 23-year-old political efficiency expert has been temporarily snatched from the national office of Y A F by the U.S. Army. But in the short time he has been national membership director of the organization, Tom has produced a truly amazing rate of new memberships, a rate that has not dropped off even after the November election, as might have been expected.

A resident of Bethesda, Md., Tom cut his political teeth as a student at Dartmouth College, alma mater of Gov. Nelson Rockefeller. While Tom doesn't claim to have converted the students and faculty there en masse, he did succeed in putting Young Americans for Freedom on the map in New Hampshire. During the March primary election, Tom served as Youth for Goldwater chairman in the state, and was granted time off from his studies, with credit, to devote full time to the campaign.

A worrier, Tom turned out to be a better judge of the New Hampshire situation than the so-called "pros" in that state. Despite repeated warnings and pleadings from this young conservative, Goldwater forces in the state refused Phillips to be stirred to action. It soon got to the point where the ''pros," sizing up the situation too late, came to Tom for literature and manpower in the final weeks of the campaign.

YAF is not the only cause to which Tom has devoted his talents in his four years at Dartmouth. He helped defeat NSA at Dartmouth in 1963, and spent the summer of 1962 in New Hampshire as state chairman of the "Students for Bridges Committee" (Mrs. Styles Bridges for U.S. Senate). In 1963, he came to Washington to head the National Student Committee for Effective Social Welfare (formed to oppose the "domestic peace corps").

Tom is so dedicated that he makes many of us ashamed of ourselves. Tears ahnost come to his eyes as he relates the story of a girl he met at a party who really believes that a liberal Republican could have beat Lyndon Johnson! He has a deep compassion for those who have not yet "seen the light," and never tires of thinking up new ways to win converts.

Ah well, now we'll have some peace. But we shall miss him, and count the days until his return.

What Is Happening To YAF Memberships?

The past two months have seen record numbers of new members joining Young Americans for Freedom.

Why is this so? First, because the National Y.A.F. office has put additional emphasis on building membership. Second, because more and more young people are turning to conservatism. And third, because our own members, and chapter, state and regional chairmen have all worked hard to enlist more young people into our ranks.

What can you do to help? You, as an individual member, can enlist at least one new member into Y.A.F. ih'is month! If every member did this, we could double our membership. Just take this copy of The New Guard to a friend of yours, and have him use the membership card to join Y.A.F. Do if fodoy!

I DO NOT CHOOSE T O BE A C O M M O N MAN. It is my right to be uncommon . . . if I can. • I seek opportunity . . . not security. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me. I want to take the calculated risk; to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed. • I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of Utopia. • I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any master nor bend to any threat.

It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid; to think and act for myself; enjoy the benefits of my creations and to face the world boldly and say, this I have done. • A l l this is what it means to be an A m e r i c a n .

Copies suitable for framing $1.00 ea. or 10 x 12 beautifully laminated lifetime plaque $7.50 ea. Americreed Inc., P. O. Box 1921. Dallas 21. Texas.

22

THE NEW GUARD

YAF Around The Nation N a t i o n a l Y A F Board Members D i c k Derham and Jameson Campaigne, J r . recently participated in an all night radio debate on N e w Y o r k station W O R .

They tangled w i t h t w o members o f the Students for Democratic A c t i o n . . . .

F o r m e r national Y A F C h a i r m a n Bob Schuchman and N e w Y o r k Y A F member Myrna Baine appeared on D a v i d Susskind's television show "Open : E n d " last m o n t h . . . . Y A F member Richard Tausch of U . o f Texas at A u s t i n debated the issue o f V i e t n a m w i t h representative o f Students for D e m o c r a t i c Society. . . . C a r o l Mudge o f St. Charles, M o . Y A F reports members engaged i n presenting speakers such as W .

Cleon Skousen, fund raising, county fair booths. . . .

Nathaniel Weyl spoke at meeting o f St. Augustine, F l a . gg| ^ Y A F , as did State Senator C . W . Bill Young. . . . Bill lll^^ A ^^^h Hyde, c h a i r m a n o f Merced, Calif. Y A F reports that IllllM A ^^^m his chapter is ready to w o r k harder, now that the Derham election is over. . . . the Conservative U n i o n at A m e r i can U . in Washington, D . C . has announced its decision to affiliate w i t h national Y A F , reports the group's vice president, Alvin Entin. . . . Peter C a r r is the new chairman o f the B r o o k l y n Polytechnic Institute ( N . Y . ) Y A F .

John Ventech is vice c h a i r m a n . . . . Bill Wagner was elected president o f the Downer's G r o v e , i l l . Y A F . . . . The D r . Richard Dresser Y A F Chapter has been f o r m e d covering the area o f Southbridge, C h a r l t o n and Sturbridge, Mass. . . . Thomas Deslosiers of Greenville, N . H . Y A F announced the group sponsored the showing o f the film ' T h e T r u t h A b o u t C o m m u n i s m " featuring Ronald Reagan last m o n t h at Greenville T o w n H a l l . . . . Panama C i t y , Fla. Y A F viewed the f i l n " C o m m u n i s m and L i b e r a l i s m in the Churches" at a recent meeting. . . . conservative radio broadcaster, Richard Cotton o f Evanston, I I I . spoke before the M c A r t h u r Y A F Chapter there. . . . LaGrange College, Campaigne Ga. Y A F sponsored talk by Senator Strom T h u r m o n d . . . . Janice Huckins, c h a i r m a n o f Ojai, Calif. Y A F reports her group very active in recent campaign and now has 34 members. They have seen films ''Katanga—The U n t o l d Story" and " C o m m u n i s t Threat to Y o u t h . " A t the Ventura C o u n t y Fair Ojai Y A F sponsored a booth and a float entitled "Free Enterprise T h r o u g h o u t the Ages." . . . Peter Fisher has been elected chairman o f the N o r w a l k , C o n n . Y A F . . . . S. Everette A^Jams is the new chairman o f A t l a n t a , Ga. Y A F . . . .

Richard Moxley, J r . reports much activity on the part of M c A r t h u r Y A F Chapter in M e m p h i s , Tenn. T h i s includes films, literature and new members. . . . Jo Pendergraft o f Jefferson Y A F in W i t c h i t a , K a n . announces that the group w i l l soon be publishing "The Enterprise". . . . Miss Peggy Collins is the head o f Lake County, I n d . Y A F . . . . M a u r y C o u n t y , Tenn.

Y A F recently heard a talk by Hallie Hudson o f the Monsanto Chemical Co. in C o l u m b i a . . . . M o n t a n a Edwards Y A F C h a i r m a n Jim Dullenty and Eastern M o n t a n a Coordinator Mike Morrison complete a tour of Sidney, Lewiston, Billings and other cities Pat Brown, Vice C h a i r m a n o f M o n t a n a Y A F , now has his o w n weekly radio show. . . . Don P. Shearer o f W o r m l c y s b u r g , Pa. is the head o f the Central Pa. C o u n c i l o f Y A F and is leading the revival o f conservatism in that area. . . . Lee Edwards, Director o f Public Relations for the Republican N a t i o n a l C o m m i t t e e , spoke to the Pennsylvania Y A F C o n v e n t i o n i n H a r r i s b u r g on November 14th. . . . Charles Leftwich, Y A F Southwestern Regional C h a i r m a n , reports prospects for new chapters in Waco, Kingsville, M i d l a n d and Lubbock, Texas. . . . D . F . Conger, J r . chairman o f Suncoast Y A F in St. Petersburg, Fla. states that his members participated in almost every level o f state and local campaigns in the elections. . . . Phil Wyman, chairman Leftwich o f Sacramento, Calif., Y A F reports c o n t i n u i n g work by his group i n c l u d i n g a full series o f anti-communist films. . . . James V .

Morelli, vice chairman o f Kings C o u n t y ( N . Y . ) Y A F has full schedule o f speeches d u r i n g last m o n t h . . . . E m o r y University Y A F in A t l a n t a , Ga. published full i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m conservative viewpoint concerning all questions on Georgia ballot, and there were many. . . . Sue Collier o f Huntsvillc, Ala., Y A F reports twice weekly showing of Y A F sponsored films in her area. The public invited. . . .

DIALOGUES IN AMERICANISM A S E R I E S OF THREE DEBATES

STEVE ALLEN

VS.

WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY, JR.

THE

P R E S I D E N C Y a n d its

present handling of its role as the formulator and executor of American foreign policy.

ROBERT M. HUTCHINS

VS.

L BRENT BOZELL

THE

S U P R E M E COURT

and its actions in school and other c i v i l r i g h t s a c t i v i t i e s s i n c e the "Brown" decision in 1954.

JAMES MacGREGOR BURNS

VS.

WILLMOORE KENDALL THE

C O N G R E S S and its role

in 20th Century America.

$3.95 (hardcover)

Occasions And Protests

John Dos P a s s o s

These writings plunge the reader i n t o t h e m a i n s t r e a m of A m e r i c a n life and t h o u g h t .

T h e a u t h o r is deeply c o n cerned with t h e changing prosp e c t s f o r personal liberty, opportunity, and self-gove r n m e n t in t h e United States.

T h i s c o l l e c t i o n of articles, protests and a f f i r m a t i o n s w r i t t e n over the p a s t 30 y e a r s shows the gradual development of J o h n Dos Passos' o p i n i o n s a n d n oito n s a b o u t A m e r i c a . T h i s book presents no settled theory; rather it challenges accepted orthodoxies, 323 pages $4.95

REGNERY 114 West Illinois St.

DECEMBER 1964

$1.65 (paperback)

Chicago, Illinois 60610 y 23

YOUNG AMERICANS FOR FREEDOM J O I N Y A F and help stem apathy on the part of America's young people.

receive The Washington Report . . . a report of major • activities in our Capitol. receive Report On T h e L e f t . . . a monthly digest of leftwing activity in America.

• receive The New Guard . . . the monthly magazine of Young Americans for Freedom.

\Nhat Is YAF? Young Americans for Freedom was born because enough young men and women cared about the future of their nation to work for a common aim—freedom, balanced by a government of just law.

Since the founding meeting at Sharon, Connecticut, in September, 1960, the organization has grown from a handful to tens of thousands of members on college campuses and in communities in nearly every state. High school students have also joined YAF In increasing numbers, forming a vanguard of young people with a purpose.

Since YAF was formed it has: • Distributed over 1,200,000 pieces of conservative and anti-communist material on college and university campuses.

• Worked for conservative candidates in over 1,100 separate campaigns for local, state and national offices.

• Sponsored the largest conservative rally in the United States in recent years at New York's Madison Square Garden where 18,000 young people heard Senators Barry Goldwater and John Tower.

• Sponsored thousands of lectures and debates on college campuses featuring most of the well-known conservatives in the United States today.

YOUNG AMERICANS FOR FREEDOM, INC. (CUP) NG 514 C Street, N.E. • Washington 2, D.C. I wish to apply for membership. I enclose my membership dues of: (CHECK ONE) • Student $3.00 • Non-Student $5.00 (under 40) • Joint Membership for Married Couples $7.50 • I am interested in knowing more • Associate Membership $10.00 (40 years and over) qbout your organization.

NAME

(PLEASE

PRINT)

MAILING ADDRESS CITY Age

\ ZONE

STATE

School or Occupation

Great Elm, Sharon, Connecticut, where YAF was founded

514 c STREET, N. E.

YOUNG AMERICANS FOR FREEDOM

W A S H I N G T O N 2, D. C.

Bulk Rate US Postage

PAID Permit 40616 Washington, D.C.