PART THREE

The Value of Dissent, Culture and

Nonconformity

THE VANISHING

AMERICANS

I recently had occasion to give a dinner party in London

for a rather widely assorted group of friends and acquaint-

ances. Among the guests was an outspoken Socialist I’ve

known for many years. When the table conversation lagged,

he seized the opportunity to deliver a political monolog, ex-

pressing views which were more than slightly left of center.

To my amusement, one of my other guests, a vacationing

American businessman, later felt constrained to ask me

how I, a “leading Capitalist,” could tolerate the presence of

such a wild radical at my dinner table.

“Aren’t you afraid to have a man like that around you,

spouting all those dangerous theories?” he asked.

Keeping a straight face, I tried to explain that Socialism

is an entirely respectable political ideology in Great

Britain, adding, for what I hoped was proper snob-

appealing emphasis, that Socialists are even received at

Buckingham Palace by Her Majesty, the Queen.

I assured my worried fellow countryman I didn’t really

consider the theories we’d heard expounded at all

dangerous. I said I hoped my own convictions weren’t built

on such shifting foundations that a ten-minute tirade by a

Socialist zealot could undermine them or corrupt me.

My arguments did not appear to make very much of an

impression. I strongly suspect the jittery businessman went

away thinking that at best I had been contaminated by ex-

posure to a subversive alien ideology and at worst had

turned into one of those parlor pinks he’d heard so much

about. Quite plainly, the man is one of the unfortunately

far-too-numerous Americans who seem to have lost their

perspective and sense of humor and fair play in recent

years. They’ve developed a tendency to automatically

equate dissension with disloyalty. They view any criticism

of our existing social, economic and political forms as

sedition and subversion.

Now, I am most certainly neither parlor nor any other

shade of pink. It hardly seems necessary for me, of all

people, to say that I’m vigorously opposed to government

ownership of industry, that I’

m an energetic exponent of

the free-enterprise system. I can’t imagine myself

comfortable under a Socialist regime. Nor can I imagine

such a regime looking upon me with much tolerance.

The political implications of the anecdote I’ve cited are

purely incidental and coincidental. I used it solely to il-

lustrate a manifestation of what I, for one, have observed to

be a contemporary American phenomenon and which, to my

mind, is disturbing, deplorable and truly dangerous. I’m

referring to the growing reluctance of Americans to

criticize, and their increasing tendency to condemn those

who, in ever dwindling numbers, will still voice dissent,

dissatisfaction and criticism.

Let me make it quite clear that I hold no special brief for

any particular ideology, party, group or school of thought

which might want or seek to bring about changes of any

kind in our manners, mores or institutions. I am not a

reformer, crusader, social philosopher, political or economic

theorist. I do, however, consider myself enough of a realist

to appreciate that this is not—and never has been and

never will be—the best of all possible worlds. The concept

that any

status quo

is perfect and permanent, that one

must under no circumstances raise questions, voice doubts

or seek improvements can only produce complacency, then

stagnation and finally collapse. It does no good to pretend

there is never anything wrong anywhere, for there is

always something—be it big or little—wrong everywhere.

Individuals and civilizations ca

n only strive for perfection.

It is highly unlikely that they will ever achieve it.

Very often it remains for the dissenter to point out that

which is wrong. He is a skeptic who doubts, questions and

probes—and hence is more likely to recognize lacks, weak-

nesses and abuses than are his complacent neighbors. The

dissenter is also more alert and sensitive to the winds of

impending change. He is thus frequently a prophet of the

inevitable, who cries for action or change while there is yet

time to take action and make changes voluntarily.

Such famed American dissenters of the past as Ida Tar-

bell, Lincoln Steffens, William Allen White and H. L.

Mencken were labeled muckrakers and much worse by

some of their contemporaries. Yet, they were given fair

hearing. No one seriously suggested muzzling them. No one

felt afraid of being exposed to their views. Their biting

commentaries, hard-hitting denunciations and exposes

helped bring about many needed changes and

improvements which even the most antediluvian

conservative of today will admit had to be made and, once

made, were universally beneficial.

But even if the dissenter is a false prophet and cries of

perils or problems which do not really exist, he still per-

forms an important and valuable service to society. He adds

spice, spirit and an invigorating quality to life. He may

create naught but controversy, but if he is allowed to speak,

is heard and answered, he has served to stir the

imaginations of others.

Years ago, there were many ruggedly individualistic dis-

senters on the American scene. They were never hesitant to

disagree with minorities or

with the majority. They aimed

their barbs at vital questions of the day. They expressed

their opinions fearlessly, no matter how unpopular those

opinions might have been. The voice of dissent has died

away to a barely audible whisper. Present-day specimens of

the vanishing breed are generally timorous and

emasculated parodies akin to the medieval pedants who

debated the question of how many angels could dance on

the head of a pin.

Today’s dissenters mainly focus their attention and ex-

pend their energies on the mo

st inconsequential of trivia.

Where the Ida Tarbells and H. L. Menckens made frontal

assaults on fortresses, they snipe at houses of cards. Al-

legedly serious intellectuals quibble endlessly over such ri-

diculous trivialities as the artistic merit versus the political

implications of a mural on the wall of a rural post office. In

the meantime, the public is lulled into a perilous

somnolence, spoon-fed pap and palpable untruths, many of

which are turned out by special-interest and pressure

groups and well-organized propaganda machines.

It is hardly surprising that the public mind is dulled and

forced into a narrow mold which allows no room for

consideration of the day’s important issues. Let a

semiliterate disc jockey’s contract be terminated—for

however valid the reason —and his former employers are

promptly deluged by furious letters, telegrams and

telephone calls expressing protest at the “injustice” and

“persecution.” On the other hand, if a pressure group of

dubious motive forces the resignation of a distinguished

public servant, there are very few protests from the

citizenry.

If a motion-picture fan magazine casts aspersions on the

dramatic talents of some glandular starlet, the result is in-

stant, widespread reaction from a partisan public. But

when a vital piece of legislation is pending before a state

legislature or the United States Congress, the matter is

usually ignored by the overwhelming majority of citizens. It

remains for self-seeking pressure groups and professional

lobbyists to inform the lawmakers of the public’s attitudes

and opinions on the bill in question. The stagnant waters of

indifference and apathy are deep.

Some of our newspapers and magazines are more con-

cerned with the welfare of their advertisers than they are

with the dissemination of news and the discussion of

matters of lasting importance. I recall a recent edition of

one well-known newspaper that devoted two fully and

lavishly illustrated pages to an article purporting to prove

that

Happier Gelatin Molding Makes for a Happier Home

Life

The same issue gave a three-paragraph report on a

government crisis in a Latin American Republic, dispensed

with a far-reaching change in Civil Defense policy in 11

lines, and allotted a scant half column to a resume of

legislative action taken that week in the state capitol.

Editorial policies? “It’s rapidly reaching the point where

you’re allowed to take a strong stand in favor of mothers,

babies and stray dogs, and against crime and spitting in

the streets—and that’s about all,” a veteran newspaper edi-

tor complained bitterly to me not long ago. This, of course,

is obviously an angry man’s extravagant overstatement.

Nonetheless, it should be painfully apparent to any regular

newspaper reader that there is at least some truth to what

he says.

But newspapers and magazines are by no means the

only —nor even the worst—offenders. Radio, television,

motion pictures, popular books—all contribute their very

considerable share to the conditioning process that leads to

the stultification of thought and

the stifling of dissent on all

but the most banal levels. The extent to which some of

these media will go to avoid controversy and to protect their

own narrow interests is often incredible. It is graphically

illustrated by a story I heard recently from a disgusted

radio network executive. It appears that a large radio

station killed a broadcast by a noted clergyman who was to

have delivered a 15-minute talk on

The Sanctity o f

Marriage.

Why was the cleric ruled off the air? The president of a

firm which bought considerable advertising air time from

the station was then involved in a noisy divorce scandal.

The radio station’s management was terrified lest this

sponsor think the clergyman’s remarks were directed at

him!

It is, perhaps, significant that some of the most incisive

and devastating commentaries on our contemporary

manners, mores and institutions are being made today by

nightclub comedians of the so-called sick school. This would

seem to indicate that, to be heard, the present-day critic

must sugar-coat his bitter p

ills, but that, even when he

does, there is at least implied disapproval of his dissent.

Otherwise, why would the public label his cutting, ironical

commentaries as “sick”?

I contend there is nothing sick about dissent and criti-

cism. There is a great need for both in our present-day

society. I firmly believe that now, as never before in our

history, it is essential that not only our intellectuals, but

also our average citizens question, doubt, probe, criticize

and object. The stifling of dissent is not only a negation of

our constitutional guarantees of free speech, but also a

renunciation of the most basic and precious of democratic

principles. Only if there are open discussions and

arguments based on uninhibited criticism can there be an

end to the growing trend toward complacency. And only

when complacency disappears will it be possible for the

United States to fully exert and exploit its vigorous, in-

dividualistic drive to achieve progress, betterment—and

world leadership.

In a free society, nothing that in any way affects the

lives or welfare of the public at large should ever be

immune from examination and criticism. Be it our foreign

policy, labor-management relations, educational system, or

whatever, there is always justification and need for

continuing, critical scrutiny.

As long as I’ve mentioned th

ree specific areas of public

interest, let’s use them as examples and give each a quick

glance. Let’s begin by taking a single facet of our foreign

policy to illustrate my point. Much time, money and energy

are being expended in efforts

to spread the American credo

and to sell the American way of life abroad. Huge sums

have been spent to build roads in countries that have few

automobiles. Our Government has paid for the erection of

giant office buildings in lands where the people live in mud

huts. Costly exhibitions have

been held in underdeveloped

countries to show American refrigerators, television sets,

electric ranges and wall-to-wall carpeting. We accept all

these things as everyday commo

nplaces of our lives; but the

average citizen of the countries in which we boast about our

material wealth looks upon all such objects as unattain-

able—and often incomprehensible—luxuries.

This does not appear to be a very sensible mode of

making friends of people who are underfed, poorly clothed

and badly housed, unless we offer them definite,

immediately workable programs whereby they can obtain

these luxuries. It is almost inconceivable that some of our

foreign-aid administrators have failed to see these self-

evident truths. Nonetheless, there were many who failed to

see them and, for all I know, there still are those who are

constitutionally unable to view the problem in proper

perspective.

This and other forms of blindness have handicapped

America’s ambitious and commendable programs for

making friends and helping less fortunate people in foreign

countries. Instead of giving those people hope and

confidence, our representatives have frequently done

nothing but emphasize the contrast between the host

country’s poverty and America’s riches. Thus, the net result

has been to increase resentment and to widen the gulf

between backward nations and ourselves.

These situations and conditions have existed for quite a

number of years. Yet, until very recently, it was considered

at best very bad taste and at worst subversive to raise any

questions about the omnipotence of those who directed our

overseas aid programs.