Discontent of Right and Center – Folha de S. Paulo, July 21, 1978
by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
In a previous article, I promised to inform readers about multiple attacks in the US against widespread leftism.
Today I fulfill that promise. From the outset, I note that I will deal here with an offensive not only from the right but also from the center (and, if we take into account the preponderant importance of the means that the latter has launched into the struggle, even less from the right than from the center) against what would be a “new look” of leftism.
In fact, “leftism” here is not merely a set of socioeconomic reforms aimed at establishing complete equality among men in the short or medium term. It is also everything that corrodes, corrupts, or dissolves Christian morality, the foundation of Western civilization. The omnipresent permissiveness of our days can and should be considered a genuine expression of the leftist mentality and doctrine, for it is as characteristic of communist regimes as state and economic totalitarianism.
President Carter’s extremely conciliatory policy toward Russia and its satellites must also be considered leftist.
In short, leftism encompasses everything on the path to communism, which, in turn, is the current destination of the various forms and tendencies of leftism. I say ‘current’ because communism tends to flow into anarchism.
That said, let’s get to the facts:
The Coalition for a Democratic Majority, an influential organization within the Democratic Party, played a significant role in drafting Carter’s presidential platform. Now, the Coalition has published a strong criticism of the president’s foreign policy, calling it “a revival of a dangerous model in the formulation of foreign policy … rejected by the Platform” (Battle Line, Washington, April 1978).
Mr. Paul Nitze, former Deputy Secretary of Defense and a negotiator of SALT I in 1974, revealed at a press conference that unacceptable concessions had been made to the Soviets on national defense. He said such negotiations would give Russia an “overwhelming” nuclear superiority over the US (Battle Line, April 1978).
Retired General Daniel Graham, former director of the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency and current advisor to the American Conservative Union, asserted that “the government’s claim that the Soviets made significant concessions in the SALT talks is fraudulent.” According to that high-ranking military officer, the Russians are gaining enormous advantages in the SALT talks. Among the concrete data provided by the general, it is striking that the proposed restrictions on the range of missiles that can be carried on warships would allow Russia to threaten 100% of the population and industry of Western Europe and Japan with nuclear-armed cruise missiles (the number of which is not limited in the SALT agreements), and 69% of the US, while the US, under the same conditions, can reach only 15% of the Soviet population and industry. Congressman Phil Crane and Senator Jake Gar, who were present at the interview, also sharply criticized Carter’s policy. According to Crane, it “increases the prospect of nuclear war, rather than improving the chances for stability and peace.” (Battle Line, April 1978).
In an editorial on Carter’s foreign policy, The Wall Street Journal (November 4, 1977) said that if we were the Russians, “we would begin by making concessions on the remaining points (of the disarmament agreements) in order to keep the ‘détente’ alive, keep Carter in power, and make him comply with the agreements he has already signed, sealed, and delivered to us.” It concludes: “Hats off, here comes the boss (Brezhnev)!”
Democratic Representative Charles Wilson, who served as an observer from the House Armed Services Committee during the SALT talks in Geneva, said he was “shocked by the spectacle offered by the team of American negotiators, who seemed to ignore the reality of Soviet power and were determined to obtain the signature of a treaty just for the sake of having a treaty in hand” (Imperial Valley Press, May 19, 1978).
Carter initiated a series of criminal proceedings against FBI agents, accusing them of violating the rights of certain terrorists and wiretapping suspects’ phones. The dirty laundry was laid bare in public. J. Wallace LaPrade, the FBI director in New York, told the press that, with Carter’s express authorization, US Attorney General Bell was conducting investigations similar to those for which FBI agents were being pursued. This response was interpreted as a sign to the president that the case would have unpredictable consequences if he continued (The New York Times, April 17, 1978).
Dissatisfied with Carter’s foreign policy, a group of senators and senior government officials wants to clarify relations with Moscow: if the Soviets continue meddling in nations outside the communist bloc, the US, contrary to what its current president has been doing, will spread propaganda in Eastern European countries and among nationalist groups within the Soviet Union. In addition, they will develop a policy of closer ties with Communist China (The New York Times, April 26, 1978).
The 38 Republican senators signed a lengthy manifesto accusing Carter’s foreign policy of being “incoherent, inconsistent, and inept” and therefore dangerous to the country’s security (Time magazine, May 15, 1978). The document, which received very little publicity in Brazil, caused such trauma in American opinion that the president has since taken successive diplomatic steps that have partly rectified his previous conduct, thereby proving the Republican opposition’s categorical criticism correct.
Carter undertook a trip to revive his popularity in California, Colorado, Washington, and Oregon. On that occasion, people in the West expressed their indignation at the president’s elimination of nineteen planned dams from the budget and at his attempt to implement a socialist and confiscatory land reform based on a 1902 law. Colorado Governor Richard Lamm declared that “the entire region is particularly angry about this case.” In Colorado, Senator Haskell described this policy as among the most hated of the Carter administration. Only 200 people attended a public meeting at which Carter was to speak. At a convention of lawyers in Los Angeles, California’s Democratic governor, Jerry Brown, turned his back on President Carter and engaged in conversation with another guest until the chief executive had finished speaking (Time, May 15, 1978).
There is a silent revolt in the Navy against Defense Secretary Harold Brown’s decision to drastically cut the shipbuilding plan. The Secretary of the Navy, Graham Claytor, made his displeasure clear in a speech. The undersecretary, Admiral James Woolsey, publicly declared: “It was a mistake.” In Congress and among organizations specializing in defense issues, there is also strong opposition to the cuts approved by the president. The Senate Armed Services Committee recommended a $1.7 billion increase in the budget, and many congressional experts believe the increase could exceed $2 billion (The New York Times, April 4, 1978).
In testimony before the Senate, General David Jones, Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, confirmed this body’s opposition to withdrawing American troops from South Korea. President Carter ignored the decision and announced the withdrawal, which drew such opposition that the government reduced the number of troops to be withdrawn from 6,000 to 3,400 (Los Angeles Herald Examiner, May 2, 1978).
Congressman Larry McDonnald (elected by the Democratic Party, Carter’s party, in Georgia, Carter’s home state) and leaders of veterans’ associations went to court to overturn the pardon of Vietnam War deserters. McDonald told the press: “After fifteen months in office, the direction taken by Mr. Carter is, unfortunately, quite clear.” He then lamented Carter’s disastrous foreign policy (The Review of the News, May 17, 1978).
The reader should note that I have chosen to mention statements made by representatives and senators from the party that elected Carter, the Democratic Party, or by holders of public office subject to Carter’s authority. Both groups, therefore, are interested in stating precisely the opposite of what they have said.
All this is far from insignificant.
Yet, how far all this is from being everything… In my next article, I will show how American discontent extends to other aspects of the leftism spreading nationwide under the Carter administration.
