Newspaper Page Text
THE SOUTHERN ISRAELITE
Friday, October 21, 1968
THE SOUTHERN ISRAELITE
FubUabed weekly by Southern Newspaper Enterprises, 1M Coert-
land St, N. E„ Atlanta, Georgia S0303, TR. 0-8240, TR. 6-8240. Sec
ond class pestace paid at Atlanta, Georgia. Yearly subscription five
dollars. The Southern Israelite invites literary contributions and
correspondence bat Is not to be considered as sharing the views
expressed by writers. DEADLINE b 6 P.M. FRIDAY, but material
received earlier will have a much better chance of publication.
Adolph Rosenberg, Editor and Publisher
Kathleen Nease, Joseph Redlich
Vida Goldgar, Harry/Rose, Betty Meyer, Kathy Wood
7
riONAl NIWSPAfJ
Georgia Press Assn.
7 Arts Features
Jewish
Telegraphic
Agency
World Press
ASSOO
The Far Right
(From page 1)
utterly dependent upon survival
of our great nation and its consti
tutional guarantees. An assault
upon liberty in general, or upon
our American form of govern
ment in particular, is quite dem
onstrably an assault upon re
ligious freedom. This is an area in
which minority religious groups
are immediately sensitive. Let
someone attack democracy as an
institution, and the antennae of
Jews invariably go up.
So tonight I would like to
briefly discuss the current threat
to our traditional American way
of life, the threat known as the
Radical Right. This is not with
any thought of suppression. For,
as Justice Robert Jackson wrote
in U.S. v. Ballard, 322 U S. 78, 95),
'The price of freedom of religion
or of speech or of the press is
that we must put up with and
even pay for a good deal of
rubbish.”
I do not intend to discuss con
servatism versus liberalism.
There is more at stake than that.
Nor shall I talk about Republi
cans versus Democrats. There is
more at stake than that. Nor
shall we debate foreign aid, or
the United Nations, the income
tax, welfare legislation, right to
work, mental health, metropoli
tan government, fluoridation, or
bomb shelters. All these are con
troversies for other forums at
other times.
We do meet tonight in support
of the democratic process. We in
tend to preserve the traditional
open discussion of an issue on its
merits, the hallmark of a free
society.
In a communist society the
state propagates The Truth.
Those who fail to see The Truth
are traitors. In Lynsenkoism the
communists attempted to bend
a biological truth to serve Marx
ian philosophy. They failed, for
such a truth cannot be bent, it
can only be denied. In recent
years we have seen the Russian
government reverse The Truth
first with respect to Stalin, and
later Khruschev.
We do not believe that truth
can be made to depend upon the
exigenciee of those in power. We
do not believe that truth can be
established by stamping out op
position, whether by death or
prison or shouts of disloyalty.
We must maintain a belief that
truth is ascertained by a patient
sifting of alternatives, by trial
and error, by the combined de
cisions of many individuals, de
cisions based upon free and open
debate of the issue on its merits—
free of emotionalism, or recrim
inations and of ad hominen argu
ments. We believe that truth—
and progress too—is best nurtur
ed in a climate which encourages
the independent thinker, the cre
ative thinker, the dissenter, the
iconoclast.
We believe that ours is a soci
ety of ordered law, achieved
through centuries of striving. It
was for orderly law that Socrates
sipped hemlock and Cicero de
bated in the Forum. It was for
orderly lew that the free men of
England met at Runnymede and
the tattered New Englanders at
Lexington and Concord. It has
been for orderly law that Ameri
ca made sacrifices in every gen
eration from Valley Forge to Viet
Nam.
Our theme tonight is the im
pact of the radical right. Al
though there will be those who
deliberately misconstrue our con
cept, so that no one may inad
vertently do so, let us make it
abundantly clear that we intend
no assault upon the right. In the
American political spectrum, we
have always had a right wing,
from Alexander Hamilton to
Robert Taft, and no opprobrium
has attached to its advocacy. Our
discussion centers upon the radi
cal right as distinguished from
the legitimate right.
Today’s radical rightist does
not believe in free and open de
bate; he name calls, he accuses
his opponent of disloyalty. If you
defend the income tax to a true
rightist or conservative he will
say: “Oh, no, it robs us of the
incentive that we need for a
prosperous America and it pre
vents the accumulation of capital
which is necessary for new in
dustries, new machines and more
jobs.” The radical rightist says:
“Don’t you know that the income
tax Idea was spawned by Karl
Marx? That we are engaged in a
death struggle with communism?
Why do you give aid and com
fort to the enemy? If you like
communism so well why don’t
you go to Russia?”
The radical rightist attacks
freedom of association. lip in
filtrates and attempts to subvert
the purposes of the organization
to his own. He sows dissension
in the group by baseless denunci
ations.
The radical rightist seeks to
destroy confidence in our gov
ernment. He calls for the im
peachment of Chief Justice Earl
Warren because he disagrees
with—and really doesn’t under
stand—decisions of the court. He
seeks to destroy confidence in in
ternational organization and
peacekeeping efforts by demand
ing we get out of the United Na
tions. If he doesn’t like our
foreign policy he tells us that it
is formulated and implemented
by traitors. In these accusations
he does not stop short of the
office of President of the United
JEWISH
CALENDAR
•HANUKA
December 8-15
Thursday - Thursday
•PURIM
March 26, Sunday
•PASSOVER
April* 25, Tuesday
(First Day)
May 2, Tuesday
(Eighth Day)
LAG B’OMER
May 28, Sunday
•8HAVTOT
June 14, Wednesday
•ROSH HASHANA
Oct 5-6, Thurs.-Fri.
•YOM KIPPUR
October 14, Sat
•HOLIDAY BEGINS
SUNDOWN PREVIOUS DAY
States. *
The radical rightist seeks to
limit the democratic community
by excluding various minorities
from full participation in the
functions of citizenship.
The radical rightist finds a
plot in mental health efforts and
brainwashing machinations in
fluoridation of water. He senses
socialism in activities of PTA
and pure communism in organ
ized labor.
The radical rightist seeks to
undermine confidence in our
churches, schools and universi
ties. He says they are laced with
communists. If he can divide a
church or association of churches
against itself his goal is accomp
lished.
The far-out radical rightist
threatens violence by organizing
into private and secret guerilla
armies, because, while professing
confidence in local police, he
really doesn’t trust law enforce
ment agencies from the FBI on
down. As Attorney General of
California I was concerned over
the Minutemen, Rangers, and
other paramilitary groups. No
thing can be more ominous, in
my view, than men who have
lost faith in our Government and
who conduct secret organized
military drills with lethal wea
pons. My concern has not dimin
ished lately in view of public
declarations of the national lead
er of the Minutemen that the
1964 election shows the failure
of ballots and that bullets are the
only way to stop communism.
Recently he retreated somewhat,
and joined with a motley group
of anti-Semites, malcontents, Ku
Klux Klansmen, and Nazis to
form “The Patriotic Party.” Four
hundred persons attended the
first meeting in Kansas City last
July, regional meetings were
held in Seattle, Dallas, Mont
gomery and Chicago in August,
and a big meeting was noticed
for Anaheim, California, Septem
ber 10. Only 225 persons showed
up, but they made up in virulence
what they lacked in numbers.
To get back to radical rightists
generally, in short they seek to
strip the federal government of
all power, eliminate most taxes,
cut the budget, diminish our mili
tary strength, break our ties
with NATO and other alliances to
lose all our friends, and having
weakened and isolated ourselves,
declare war on all the commun
ist nations of the world.
All this, of course, in the name
of patriotism. Any disagreement
with this program makes one
suspect as being unpatriotic.
The real fact is, however, most
of us recognize we have complex
difficulties, internally and ex
ternally, in this final third of the
twentieth century. Most of us
try to find solutions for our
problems. The radical right tries
to find problems for its solutions.
What kind of a movement is
the current radical right? I sug
gest to you that it is insidious,
clever, well-financed and more
dangerous than any we have had
in the past. McCarthylsm was, in
my opinion, rightly named. It was
largely a personal movement. It
was bom on that day in West
Virginia when Senator McCar
thy held aloft a piece of paper
which, he alleged, contained the
names of X number of commun
ists In the State Department. It
suffered a mortal blow when he
and hb tactics were exposed for
all to see In the televised Army
hearings. It died when he died.
Yet if the leaders of the current
radical right were removed from
the scene others would spring
up to fill their places. The cur
rent radical right movement
seeks its support in grass roots.
When it moves into a community
it is too frequently successful in
its efforts to procure the spon
sorship of local prominent peo
ple. Its groups and cells are
organised In local communities.
The entire program of the
radical right is being advanced
under the flag of anti-commun
ism. The orators of the Far
Right tell us that communism is
evil—and that is true. Because
communism is evil these orators
attack it with a blind hatred—
and that is folly. A boxer who
loses his temper, who rushes at
his opponent flailing his arms
wildly is a boxer who will lose.
The boxer who coolly sizes up
his opponent, who knows when
to feint, when to strike the tell
ing blow is the boxer who will
win. In these nuclear times it is
not a boxing match which could
be lost by foolish blind hatred;
it is mankind itself. In such a
time we must summon all the
intelligence, the resolve, and pa
tience and understanding we can
command. Although the radical
rightist would rather be dead
than Red, we would rather be
neither than either.
Who are the radical rightists?
First, there are The Leaders.
They range from the subtle
sophistries of Rev. Carl Mclntire
to the obscene ravings of a Wil
liam Gale. In methodology they
range from the program of
Robert Welch which may be de
scribed as action without faith to
Fred Schwarz’s which may be
described as faith without action.
These men have found a calling
which pays well—not only in
money but in prestige and power.
How many United States Sen
ators have the political power of
Robert Welch or Billy James
Hargis?
Next there are The Driven.
These people respond fervently
to The Cause out of emotional
needs. They need an object to
hate. The movement gives them
this object and they respond
lavishly with time, energy and
treasure for the cause. Only
psychiatry can help them.
Next there are The Followers.
These are healthy, sincere and
loyal Americans. They are frust
rated in our failure to win an
immediate and total victory over
communism and they have a
shakable faith in democracy.
They come to The Cause because
it seems to offer a panacea.
Lastly there are The Suscep-
tibles. These people live in a
perpetual value vacuum. Since
they don’t understand democracy
they don’t understand the radical
right and are likely to drift to
either.
These last two groups can be
reached.
I am reminded of a lawsuit de
cided back in ’49er days. It in
volved a pedestrian who fell into
an uncovered hole dug in the
street. The defense was that in
toxication had been a contribut
ing factor to his fall. Our Cali
fornia Supreme Court, in its
pragmatic wisdom, permitted the
pedestrian to recover, holding,
“A drunken man is as much en
titled to a safe street as a sober
one, and much more in need of
it.”
So it may be with these two
groups which have imbibed too
much of the heady radical right
ist stuff. They have somehow
missed the point of our educa
tional system. John Ruskin once
observed that “education does
not mean teaching people to
know what they do not know; it
means teaching them to behave
as they do not behave.”
Let me be specific for a mo
ment or two, to give you a few
names and figures for our dis
cussion.
In 1961 Governor Brown asked
me as the Attorney General of
California to give him a report
on the John Birch Society. I de
clined to conduct an investiga
tion because of my civil liber
tarian belief that any group,
however distasteful to me, has a
right to engage in peaceful poli
tical activity. I did note, however,
that the cadre of the Birch Soci
ety seemed to be composed pri
marily of “wealthy businessmen,
retired military officers, and
little old ladies in tennis shoes.”
This latter expression became ac
cepted as part of our American
lexicon.
I do not think I would be quite
as flippant in dealing with the
Birch Society today. Although
it maintains communist-1 ike
secrecy regarding Its member
ship, it has unquestionably in
creased during the past year. The
Gold water campaign gave It im
petus and it has claimed a sub
stantial increase even after the
November election fiasco.
The Birch membership in 1963
was estimated at 20,000, early in
1964 it reached 50,000 and it may
be now, as claimed, “in the
neighborhood of 100,000.” There
are now 60 paid full-time Birch
Society coordinators compared
with 25 two years ago. There are
now 230 Birch-type book stores
compared with 125 a year ago.
The circulation of its publica
tion, “American Opinion,” is
over 27,000. There is an obvious
concentration pf Birch activity
among law enforcement officers,
with resultant public controver
sies in New York, Philadelphia,
Newark, Santa Ana, California,
and other communities.
The Birch Society has become
big business. Its gross income was
$200,000 in 1960, $535,000 in 1961,
and $737,000 in 1962, and some
where between on and a half
and three million dollars in 1964.
We must not make the mistake
of assuming the entire radical
right is wrapped up in the John
Birch Society. It is, in fact, only
the most socially acceptable
phase of the radical rightist
movement.
Billy James Hargis of the
Christian Crusade made a mark
ed comeback in 1964 after several
years of adversity. He now has
over 400 radio outlets.
Fred Schwarz seemed to be
going into eclipse in 1963, a cir
cumstance for which he frequent
ly blamed me after we tangled
in California—I accept the
compliment—but shortly before
the November campaign last year
Pat Frawley of Technicolor Inc.
and the Schick Safety Razor Co.
paid for a series of large ads
across the country. Frawley’s
business associate, George Mur
phy, is now our junior United
States Senator from California.
Other radical right organiza
tions are thriving, such as Rev.
Carl Mclntire, Twentieth Cen
tury Reformation Hour, who has
600 radio stations as an outlet;
Clarence Manion, who is heard
over 350 stations; Dan Smoot,
who reports from Dallas over
some 110 radio and TV stations;
Kent Courtney, who publishes
shrill pamphlets and newspapers;
and H. L. Hunt, who is appearing
with increasing frequency as a
leading financial angel and more
recently as a spokesman for the
radical right through his Life
Line Foundation.
A conclusion must be reached
that the radical right emerged
from 1964 unshaken by the Gold-
water defeat. The campaign it
self was a boon to these groups
for they were able to win the
respectability of association with
a major political party, they un
covered vast new financial re
sources and they exposed mil
lions of Americans to the virus
of their propaganda, many of
them for the first time. It may
still be too soon to offer a prog
nosis on whether the virus will
incubate into thousands of new
members and activists for radical
right organizations.
It is an ill wind that blows no
body good. Perhaps we ought to
be grateful to the radical right.
It has brought us together today
to consider those basic principles
which undergird our nation.
Perhaps the cowardly anony
mous letter attacks upon a school
teacher or upon a minister have
some value if the community or
the church is aroused to the
danger and defends against it.
Perhaps the efforts at censor
ship of libraries or infiltration
of local school boards have been
valuable in that the citizens of
the affected communities have
had a close look at anti-demo
cratic forces in action and know
better now how to combat them.
Perhaps even the wanton
savagery of bomb attacks on
churches and synagogues and
meeting places are valuable in
their very savagery. And inci
dentally no one is quicker to de
plore these attacks than the ora
tors of the radical right. They
hasten to disclaim responsibility.
But can the responsibility be
easily disclaimed? Can these
orators so facilely pump out
hatred and then be surprised that
some of their more disturbed
followers resort to terrorism in
an effort to put down what they
have been led to believe is trea-
(Continued on page 8)