rtwngAvngr
Senior Member
- Jan 5, 2004
- 15,755
- 513
- 48
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #81
http://lamar.colostate.edu/~grjan/jost_conservatism.html
Political Conservatism, Classical Liberalism and
Social Democracy
G. Richard Jansen
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO, 80523
In the May issue of the Psychological Bulletin Jost and his colleagues published a paper on political conservatism that has justifiably stirred up a hornets nest of controversy. In the same issue of the journal Greenberg and Jonas challenged the authors and in a third Jost et al responded.
First to the hypothesis. Jost and his colleagues put forth the argument that political conservatism is characterized by, among other variables, dogmatism,, intolerance of ambiguity, a lack of openness to experience, uncertainty avoidance, and a need for order and structure(1). This hypothesis was tested and in their view confirmed by carrying a meta-analysis involving these and other psychological variables in 88 studies carried out in 12 countries and involving 22,818 subjects. The authors further concluded that the core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality, and can best be explained a theory of motivated social cognition.
In the second paper Greenberg and Jonas take issue with the broad conclusions of Jost, and especially the definition of the core ideology of conservatism(2). These authors demonstrated conclusively that, rather than being resistant to change, conservatives are clamoring for change. They acknowledge that conservatives do not favor equality of condition but are, in contrast, strongly for equality before the law and equality of opportunity. Greenberg and Jonas also demonstrate that left-wing governments have historically exhibited a high tolerance for inequality, the Nomenklatura in the old Soviet Union comes to mind, and that there is also ample evidence and human experience that demonstrates that political leftists are easily as dogmatic and unchanging as political conservatives. The contention of Jost that Stalin is a figure of the political right, not the political left is laughable on its face. What is true, of course, is that the extreme political left, exemplified by Stalin, and the extreme political right exemplified by Hitler, ended up in much the same place and indeed admired each other prior to the attack on the Soviet Union by Germany in 1941. As Greenberg and Jonas pointed out, on a scale ranging from libertarianism to totalitarianism, conservatives are closer to the libertarian pole than are either moderates or liberals. Jost and colleagues in their rejoinder accept most of the points made by Greenberg and Jonas but claim they are the exceptions that prove the rule(3). Nonsense. Although the authors cited Popper they should read Karl Popper more carefully. What Greenberg and Jonas did was falsify the Jost et al hypothesis, i.e. reduce it to rubble. Jost and his co-authors saw 22,818 trees and missed the forest completely. However much more needs to be said on their controversial claims.
Methodology
Jost and his colleagues carried out a meta-analysis of 88 studies involving 22,818 individual subjects in which approximately 27 discrete psychological variables were examined, according to the authors, in terms of the political orientation of the subjects. However the political variable in these diverse studies included fascism, authoritarianism-rebelliousness, onservatism-radicalism, general conservatism, economic conservatism, right-wing political orientation, conservative voting record, conservative orientation, RWA scale, SDO scale, C scale, and Economic System Justification scale. The methodology and software employed were not described, indeed in this paper there is not even a section entitled methodology or methods. Meta-analysis to be even valid much less successful should be based on a systematic review of the available literature, definition of terms, and a complete unbiased collection of original high quality studies that examine the same, not 27 variables in terms of 12 other variables.
This clearly was not done. As mentioned a hodgepodge of variables were examined in studies involving mostly undergraduate students. The subjects, other than undergraduates were not adequately described, either qualitatively or quantitatively. Gender, age, race or ethnicity were not addressed The authors describe no efforts to attest to the quality of the studies examined, or the biases potentially involved in the studies themselves or by the investigators, not to mention their own biases. Many of the studies quoted apparently were not peer reviewed since they were in monographs book chapters and conference papers.. The impression of statistical rigor is more apparent than real, and may lead un-critical readers into unjustified acceptance and an unwillingness to examine the myriad of studies cited.
Definitions of Terms
Jost and his co-authors do not adequately define terms. Indeed in the meta-analysis they use such terms as conservative, right-wing, authoritarianism, and fascism without distinction or definition. For example the title refers to political conservatism as the subject of the paper, but in the first paragraph the emphasis switches to the political left and right, and then to authoritarianism and fascism. As we will see, the political right is not necessarily or even mainly conservative and it is clear that the political left is no longer liberal in the classically and historically correct sense.
Conservatism can be contrasted with liberalism, the political right with the left, collectivism with individualism, a constrained with an unconstrained vision or understanding of human nature, and finally todays Republican Party with todays Democratic party in the United States. Historically liberalism stood for liberty and freedom from coercion by the State in the political and economic realms under the rule of law. Jefferson said it well when he said that that government is best that governs least. Conservatism historically was based on a tradition and social stability under established institutions, especially the family and the church. As is now well understood, while conservatism per se has changed relatively little liberalism since Marx and the Fabians has changed much and now increasingly emphasizes larger governments, higher taxes and more government regulation especially of business and commerce at the expense of individual freedom. Historically the political left stood for greater freedom and well being of the common man and the right for duty and obedience to lawful authority combined with the ideal of moral propriety and a moral order to society. In the 20th century the extreme left was represented by communism and socialism, and the moderate left by social democracy and the New Deal. The extreme right was represented by Naziism and fascism and the moderate right by a advocacy of market economy combined with limited government and protection of private property, i.e. pretty much the classical liberalism abandoned by the left.. The poles at the extremes have come together when one compares the actuality of communism with fascism and Stalin with Hitler.
F. A. Hayek, in his seminal book The Road to Serfdom emphasized the crucial importance of individualism over collectivism(4). In communist and socialist States the collective control of the means of production and distribution is accomplished by government ownership while in social democracies by taxation and government regulation. Thomas Sowell in his equally seminal book A Conflict of Visions (5) divided political visions into unconstrained and constrained. Briefly the unconstrained vision sees people as infinitely malleable and improvable by societal conditions and government policies while those holding the constrained vision see people constrained by the realities of human nature. For example when Madison said we wouldnt need government if men where angels this is a classic expression of the constrained vision which was pretty much held by most if not all of the Founders at the Constitutional Convention.
Now for the political parties. Since the New Deal the Democratic party has stood for social democracy more than classical liberalism, collectivism more than individualism, an unconstrained vision of human nature and is clearly on the political left as the term is generally understood. The Republican party is more difficult to categorize. There remains some classical conservatives in the traditional sense. However since Reagan the Republican party is increasingly attracted to individualism and the classical liberalism of Hayek. While compared to the Democratic party it is placed on the political right, its policies are strongly Hayekian in terms of limited government, lower taxes, less government regulation of commerce and business, and protection of private property rights. Reagan, Thatcher and now George W. Bush are followers of Hayekian political economy which Hayek considers to be classical liberalism and who considers himself to be an Old Whig.
These distinctions and definitions, while somewhat tedious and pretty much ignored by Jost are crucial to any discussion of conservatism and liberalism and an evaluation of the variables examined in the paper under consideration. In the following discussion rather than using such poorly defined terms as conservative and liberal which have, as considered above, changed substantially with time we will compare the political right with the political left which, after all, is
the thrust of both Jost et al(1) and Greenberg and Jonas (2).
Resistance to Change
The political, left of today , whether the Democratic party in the United States, the Labour Party in the U.K., or one of the Social Democratic parties in Europe are resisting change and desperately trying to conserve failing Welfare States in Europe and what remains of the New/Fair Deals in the United States. The political right, mainly Republicans still known, if somewhat inaccurately as conservatives, are working to get rid of these failed political and economic systems that have held sway through much of the 20th century. Liberals do not want to try vouchers for private schools as a means to rescue failing schools , especially in the big cities. Liberals are resistant to change in respect to preferential employment policies and college student admissions which are way past their time of usefulness. It is conservatives such as President Bush who are trying to change the world order for the better by taking the war on Terror to the enemy including Iraq with the liberal left fighting the President every step of the way. In spite of graphic pictures of babies developing in the uterus, liberals refuse to change from their absolutist position including opposing partial birth abortion which is opposed by a strong majority of the public. No matter whether there are issues where conservatives are indeed resistant to change such as the sanctity of marriage and its reality of being exclusively between a man and a women, the thesis that todays conservatives are more resistant to change than todays liberals simply cannot be sustained.
Justification of Inequality
In this case also, clarity and definition of terms are important. It is clear from the history of the last several hundred years, certainly since the French Revolution, that maximum equality and maximum liberty are not compatible with each other. As Madison observed in Federalist 10
The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties. In other words all men are not equal in condition or outcome but are equal before the law. Maximum liberty will inevitably increase inequality of condition or outcome. The only way to force equality of condition and outcome is to restrict liberty. In this equation todays political left favors equality over liberty and equality of condition over equality of oportunity. In contrast, the political right favors liberty over equality, and equality of opportunity over equality of condition.
Dogmatism and Intolerance to Ambiguity.
A better way to compare the political right with the political left is to look at publications and individuals that best represent these respective views to the American people. On the right we have, for example; The Wall Street Journal, National Review, Commentary, Charles Krauthammer, Joe Scarborough, Cal Thomas, George Will, Bill Kristol, Pat Buchanan, Brit Hume and President George W. Bush. On the political left the New York Times, The Nation, The New Republic, Chris Matthews, Paul Krugman, Paul Begala, Dan Rather, Nome Chomsky , Robert Scheer, James Carville and Al Gore. It would be pretty hard, indeed impossible to claim that the political right, as exemplified by these representative voices is more dogmatic and intolerant to ambiguity than the left. Take any of the important social, political, economic or national defense issues of today and the argument of Jost and his co-authors falls apart as soon as it confronts the real world of opnion and ideas as contrasted with social theory.
Lack of Openness to Experience.
What has the experience of the 20th century taught us?
1. Communism was not the wave of the future but rather an evil and failed political and economic system that, as the Black Book of Communism detailed (6) was responsible for the life of over 100 million innocent people.
2. Lenin, Stalin and Mao were brutal, evil men presiding over oppressive totalitarian systems.
3. Socialism has failed as a political and economic system all over the world, especially in less-developed countries.
4. The social democracies of Scandinavia and Western Europe are failing as productivity and national income can not keep up with social costs.
5 Collectivism, must and does, by its very nature inevitably lead to a loss of liberty and personal freedom.
6. A market economy is demonstrably superior to a command economy.
On all these issues, the dominant political and economic issues of the20th century, the political left was not only resistant to experience and on several of them still is to this day, but was wrong and on the wrong side of history.
Communism cannot be written off as an aberration of socialism. It is indeed socialism, and in its day it was much admired by the non-Communist intellectual left as exemplified by the following quotes from Hollanders book Political Pilgrims (7)
On Visiting Communist Russia
Lincoln Steffens; I am a patriot for Russia; the future is there; Russia will win out and it will save the world.
Hewlett Johnson, Dean of Canterbury; Stalin is no oriental despot. His new Constitution shows it. His readiness to relinquish power shows it. His reluctance to add to the power he already possesses shows it. His willingness to lead his people down new and unfamiliar paths of democracy shows it.
Lion Feuchwanger; The air which one breathes in the West is stale and foul. In the Western Civilization there is no longer clarity and resolution.......One breathes again when one comes from this oppressive atmosphere of a counterfeit democracy and hypocritical humanism into the invigorating atmosphere of the Soviet Union. The realization of socialist democracy is Stalins ultimate goal.
Corliss and Margaret Lamont; The direction in the soviet, both from the material and cultural standpoints, seems steadily and on the whole upward, and the problems those of growth. Elsewhere in the world the direction seems downward and the problems those of decay.
John Strachey; To travel from the capitalist world into Soviet territory is to pass from death to birth.
Edmund Wilson; "One gradually comes to realize that, though the peoples clothes are dreary, there is little, if any, destitution; though there are no swell parts of the city, there are no degraded parts either. There are no shocking sights on the streets; no down and outers, no horrible disease, no old people picking in garbage pails.
John Dewey; As it is, I feel as if for the first time I might have some inkling of what may have been the moving spirit and force of primitive Christianity.
George Bernard Shaw; Stalin has delivered the goods to an extent that seemed impossible ten years ago; and I take my hat off to him accordingly.
Henry Wallace on visiting the notorious gulag at Kolma, where the annual death rate is now known to have reached 30%, The Kolma gold miners are big husky young men, who came to the Far East from European Russia. I spoke with some of them.
Sidney and Beatrice Webb (nee Potter); Stalin is not a dictator....he is the duly elected representative of one of the Moscow constituencies to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. By this assembly he has been selected as one of the thirty members of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, accountable to the representatives for all activities.
Joseph Davies, U.S. Ambassador to Russia, author of Mission to Moscow. His (i.e. Stalins) brown eye is exceedingly wise and gentle. A child would like to sit on his lap and a dog would sidle up to him.
On Visiting Communist Cuba
Saul Landau; Cuba is the first purposeful society that we have had in the Western Hemisphere for many years- its the first society where human beings are treated as human beings, where men have a certain dignity, and where this is guaranteed to them. To Saul Landau, Castro was a man who has been steeped in democracy.
Elizabeth Sutherland, art editor from The Nation; He (Castro) seems, first of all, utterly devoted to the welfare of his people- and his people are the poor not the rich. When he speaks, it is as if his own dedication and energy were being directly transfused into his listeners with an almost physical force.
Susan Sontag; It seems sometimes as if the whole country is high on some benificent kind of speed, and has been for years.
Jonathan Kozol; There is a sense, within the Cuban schools, that one is working for a purpose and that purpose is a great deal more profound and more important than the selfish pleasure of individual reward. The goal is to become an active member in a common campaign to win an ethical objective."
cont
Political Conservatism, Classical Liberalism and
Social Democracy
G. Richard Jansen
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO, 80523
In the May issue of the Psychological Bulletin Jost and his colleagues published a paper on political conservatism that has justifiably stirred up a hornets nest of controversy. In the same issue of the journal Greenberg and Jonas challenged the authors and in a third Jost et al responded.
First to the hypothesis. Jost and his colleagues put forth the argument that political conservatism is characterized by, among other variables, dogmatism,, intolerance of ambiguity, a lack of openness to experience, uncertainty avoidance, and a need for order and structure(1). This hypothesis was tested and in their view confirmed by carrying a meta-analysis involving these and other psychological variables in 88 studies carried out in 12 countries and involving 22,818 subjects. The authors further concluded that the core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality, and can best be explained a theory of motivated social cognition.
In the second paper Greenberg and Jonas take issue with the broad conclusions of Jost, and especially the definition of the core ideology of conservatism(2). These authors demonstrated conclusively that, rather than being resistant to change, conservatives are clamoring for change. They acknowledge that conservatives do not favor equality of condition but are, in contrast, strongly for equality before the law and equality of opportunity. Greenberg and Jonas also demonstrate that left-wing governments have historically exhibited a high tolerance for inequality, the Nomenklatura in the old Soviet Union comes to mind, and that there is also ample evidence and human experience that demonstrates that political leftists are easily as dogmatic and unchanging as political conservatives. The contention of Jost that Stalin is a figure of the political right, not the political left is laughable on its face. What is true, of course, is that the extreme political left, exemplified by Stalin, and the extreme political right exemplified by Hitler, ended up in much the same place and indeed admired each other prior to the attack on the Soviet Union by Germany in 1941. As Greenberg and Jonas pointed out, on a scale ranging from libertarianism to totalitarianism, conservatives are closer to the libertarian pole than are either moderates or liberals. Jost and colleagues in their rejoinder accept most of the points made by Greenberg and Jonas but claim they are the exceptions that prove the rule(3). Nonsense. Although the authors cited Popper they should read Karl Popper more carefully. What Greenberg and Jonas did was falsify the Jost et al hypothesis, i.e. reduce it to rubble. Jost and his co-authors saw 22,818 trees and missed the forest completely. However much more needs to be said on their controversial claims.
Methodology
Jost and his colleagues carried out a meta-analysis of 88 studies involving 22,818 individual subjects in which approximately 27 discrete psychological variables were examined, according to the authors, in terms of the political orientation of the subjects. However the political variable in these diverse studies included fascism, authoritarianism-rebelliousness, onservatism-radicalism, general conservatism, economic conservatism, right-wing political orientation, conservative voting record, conservative orientation, RWA scale, SDO scale, C scale, and Economic System Justification scale. The methodology and software employed were not described, indeed in this paper there is not even a section entitled methodology or methods. Meta-analysis to be even valid much less successful should be based on a systematic review of the available literature, definition of terms, and a complete unbiased collection of original high quality studies that examine the same, not 27 variables in terms of 12 other variables.
This clearly was not done. As mentioned a hodgepodge of variables were examined in studies involving mostly undergraduate students. The subjects, other than undergraduates were not adequately described, either qualitatively or quantitatively. Gender, age, race or ethnicity were not addressed The authors describe no efforts to attest to the quality of the studies examined, or the biases potentially involved in the studies themselves or by the investigators, not to mention their own biases. Many of the studies quoted apparently were not peer reviewed since they were in monographs book chapters and conference papers.. The impression of statistical rigor is more apparent than real, and may lead un-critical readers into unjustified acceptance and an unwillingness to examine the myriad of studies cited.
Definitions of Terms
Jost and his co-authors do not adequately define terms. Indeed in the meta-analysis they use such terms as conservative, right-wing, authoritarianism, and fascism without distinction or definition. For example the title refers to political conservatism as the subject of the paper, but in the first paragraph the emphasis switches to the political left and right, and then to authoritarianism and fascism. As we will see, the political right is not necessarily or even mainly conservative and it is clear that the political left is no longer liberal in the classically and historically correct sense.
Conservatism can be contrasted with liberalism, the political right with the left, collectivism with individualism, a constrained with an unconstrained vision or understanding of human nature, and finally todays Republican Party with todays Democratic party in the United States. Historically liberalism stood for liberty and freedom from coercion by the State in the political and economic realms under the rule of law. Jefferson said it well when he said that that government is best that governs least. Conservatism historically was based on a tradition and social stability under established institutions, especially the family and the church. As is now well understood, while conservatism per se has changed relatively little liberalism since Marx and the Fabians has changed much and now increasingly emphasizes larger governments, higher taxes and more government regulation especially of business and commerce at the expense of individual freedom. Historically the political left stood for greater freedom and well being of the common man and the right for duty and obedience to lawful authority combined with the ideal of moral propriety and a moral order to society. In the 20th century the extreme left was represented by communism and socialism, and the moderate left by social democracy and the New Deal. The extreme right was represented by Naziism and fascism and the moderate right by a advocacy of market economy combined with limited government and protection of private property, i.e. pretty much the classical liberalism abandoned by the left.. The poles at the extremes have come together when one compares the actuality of communism with fascism and Stalin with Hitler.
F. A. Hayek, in his seminal book The Road to Serfdom emphasized the crucial importance of individualism over collectivism(4). In communist and socialist States the collective control of the means of production and distribution is accomplished by government ownership while in social democracies by taxation and government regulation. Thomas Sowell in his equally seminal book A Conflict of Visions (5) divided political visions into unconstrained and constrained. Briefly the unconstrained vision sees people as infinitely malleable and improvable by societal conditions and government policies while those holding the constrained vision see people constrained by the realities of human nature. For example when Madison said we wouldnt need government if men where angels this is a classic expression of the constrained vision which was pretty much held by most if not all of the Founders at the Constitutional Convention.
Now for the political parties. Since the New Deal the Democratic party has stood for social democracy more than classical liberalism, collectivism more than individualism, an unconstrained vision of human nature and is clearly on the political left as the term is generally understood. The Republican party is more difficult to categorize. There remains some classical conservatives in the traditional sense. However since Reagan the Republican party is increasingly attracted to individualism and the classical liberalism of Hayek. While compared to the Democratic party it is placed on the political right, its policies are strongly Hayekian in terms of limited government, lower taxes, less government regulation of commerce and business, and protection of private property rights. Reagan, Thatcher and now George W. Bush are followers of Hayekian political economy which Hayek considers to be classical liberalism and who considers himself to be an Old Whig.
These distinctions and definitions, while somewhat tedious and pretty much ignored by Jost are crucial to any discussion of conservatism and liberalism and an evaluation of the variables examined in the paper under consideration. In the following discussion rather than using such poorly defined terms as conservative and liberal which have, as considered above, changed substantially with time we will compare the political right with the political left which, after all, is
the thrust of both Jost et al(1) and Greenberg and Jonas (2).
Resistance to Change
The political, left of today , whether the Democratic party in the United States, the Labour Party in the U.K., or one of the Social Democratic parties in Europe are resisting change and desperately trying to conserve failing Welfare States in Europe and what remains of the New/Fair Deals in the United States. The political right, mainly Republicans still known, if somewhat inaccurately as conservatives, are working to get rid of these failed political and economic systems that have held sway through much of the 20th century. Liberals do not want to try vouchers for private schools as a means to rescue failing schools , especially in the big cities. Liberals are resistant to change in respect to preferential employment policies and college student admissions which are way past their time of usefulness. It is conservatives such as President Bush who are trying to change the world order for the better by taking the war on Terror to the enemy including Iraq with the liberal left fighting the President every step of the way. In spite of graphic pictures of babies developing in the uterus, liberals refuse to change from their absolutist position including opposing partial birth abortion which is opposed by a strong majority of the public. No matter whether there are issues where conservatives are indeed resistant to change such as the sanctity of marriage and its reality of being exclusively between a man and a women, the thesis that todays conservatives are more resistant to change than todays liberals simply cannot be sustained.
Justification of Inequality
In this case also, clarity and definition of terms are important. It is clear from the history of the last several hundred years, certainly since the French Revolution, that maximum equality and maximum liberty are not compatible with each other. As Madison observed in Federalist 10
The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties. In other words all men are not equal in condition or outcome but are equal before the law. Maximum liberty will inevitably increase inequality of condition or outcome. The only way to force equality of condition and outcome is to restrict liberty. In this equation todays political left favors equality over liberty and equality of condition over equality of oportunity. In contrast, the political right favors liberty over equality, and equality of opportunity over equality of condition.
Dogmatism and Intolerance to Ambiguity.
A better way to compare the political right with the political left is to look at publications and individuals that best represent these respective views to the American people. On the right we have, for example; The Wall Street Journal, National Review, Commentary, Charles Krauthammer, Joe Scarborough, Cal Thomas, George Will, Bill Kristol, Pat Buchanan, Brit Hume and President George W. Bush. On the political left the New York Times, The Nation, The New Republic, Chris Matthews, Paul Krugman, Paul Begala, Dan Rather, Nome Chomsky , Robert Scheer, James Carville and Al Gore. It would be pretty hard, indeed impossible to claim that the political right, as exemplified by these representative voices is more dogmatic and intolerant to ambiguity than the left. Take any of the important social, political, economic or national defense issues of today and the argument of Jost and his co-authors falls apart as soon as it confronts the real world of opnion and ideas as contrasted with social theory.
Lack of Openness to Experience.
What has the experience of the 20th century taught us?
1. Communism was not the wave of the future but rather an evil and failed political and economic system that, as the Black Book of Communism detailed (6) was responsible for the life of over 100 million innocent people.
2. Lenin, Stalin and Mao were brutal, evil men presiding over oppressive totalitarian systems.
3. Socialism has failed as a political and economic system all over the world, especially in less-developed countries.
4. The social democracies of Scandinavia and Western Europe are failing as productivity and national income can not keep up with social costs.
5 Collectivism, must and does, by its very nature inevitably lead to a loss of liberty and personal freedom.
6. A market economy is demonstrably superior to a command economy.
On all these issues, the dominant political and economic issues of the20th century, the political left was not only resistant to experience and on several of them still is to this day, but was wrong and on the wrong side of history.
Communism cannot be written off as an aberration of socialism. It is indeed socialism, and in its day it was much admired by the non-Communist intellectual left as exemplified by the following quotes from Hollanders book Political Pilgrims (7)
On Visiting Communist Russia
Lincoln Steffens; I am a patriot for Russia; the future is there; Russia will win out and it will save the world.
Hewlett Johnson, Dean of Canterbury; Stalin is no oriental despot. His new Constitution shows it. His readiness to relinquish power shows it. His reluctance to add to the power he already possesses shows it. His willingness to lead his people down new and unfamiliar paths of democracy shows it.
Lion Feuchwanger; The air which one breathes in the West is stale and foul. In the Western Civilization there is no longer clarity and resolution.......One breathes again when one comes from this oppressive atmosphere of a counterfeit democracy and hypocritical humanism into the invigorating atmosphere of the Soviet Union. The realization of socialist democracy is Stalins ultimate goal.
Corliss and Margaret Lamont; The direction in the soviet, both from the material and cultural standpoints, seems steadily and on the whole upward, and the problems those of growth. Elsewhere in the world the direction seems downward and the problems those of decay.
John Strachey; To travel from the capitalist world into Soviet territory is to pass from death to birth.
Edmund Wilson; "One gradually comes to realize that, though the peoples clothes are dreary, there is little, if any, destitution; though there are no swell parts of the city, there are no degraded parts either. There are no shocking sights on the streets; no down and outers, no horrible disease, no old people picking in garbage pails.
John Dewey; As it is, I feel as if for the first time I might have some inkling of what may have been the moving spirit and force of primitive Christianity.
George Bernard Shaw; Stalin has delivered the goods to an extent that seemed impossible ten years ago; and I take my hat off to him accordingly.
Henry Wallace on visiting the notorious gulag at Kolma, where the annual death rate is now known to have reached 30%, The Kolma gold miners are big husky young men, who came to the Far East from European Russia. I spoke with some of them.
Sidney and Beatrice Webb (nee Potter); Stalin is not a dictator....he is the duly elected representative of one of the Moscow constituencies to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. By this assembly he has been selected as one of the thirty members of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, accountable to the representatives for all activities.
Joseph Davies, U.S. Ambassador to Russia, author of Mission to Moscow. His (i.e. Stalins) brown eye is exceedingly wise and gentle. A child would like to sit on his lap and a dog would sidle up to him.
On Visiting Communist Cuba
Saul Landau; Cuba is the first purposeful society that we have had in the Western Hemisphere for many years- its the first society where human beings are treated as human beings, where men have a certain dignity, and where this is guaranteed to them. To Saul Landau, Castro was a man who has been steeped in democracy.
Elizabeth Sutherland, art editor from The Nation; He (Castro) seems, first of all, utterly devoted to the welfare of his people- and his people are the poor not the rich. When he speaks, it is as if his own dedication and energy were being directly transfused into his listeners with an almost physical force.
Susan Sontag; It seems sometimes as if the whole country is high on some benificent kind of speed, and has been for years.
Jonathan Kozol; There is a sense, within the Cuban schools, that one is working for a purpose and that purpose is a great deal more profound and more important than the selfish pleasure of individual reward. The goal is to become an active member in a common campaign to win an ethical objective."
cont