MCCARTHY v. EISENHOWER:

VIEWS OF FIVE PAPERS

Long Island's NEWSDAY :

IT would be impossible for a sane man to attack President Eisenhower for being soft to Communism. The inescapable conclusion must be that Senator Joseph R. McCarthy is deranged--the end of the trail for a mind that could once have been considered shrewd and alert. We are, of course, shocked that such an intemperate attack could be made by a member of the United States Senate. But it does not greatly surprise us that McCarthy made the attack. His case history shows a steady deterioration of reason.

In the pro-McCarthy HEARST CHAIN :

SEN. MCCARTHY has done nothing to close the breach within the Republican Party by accusing President Eisenhower of being soft toward Communism. Moreover, his surprising blast at the President has given aid and comfort to his enemies and distressed many of his friends. If we think Sen. McCarthy was off-base in asserting that the Eisenhower Administration has failed to move against the Communists at home while placating them abroad, we likewise believe there were some grounds for his intemperate attitude toward the President. It is perhaps too late to heal the breach between the White House and the man who has contributed so mightily to the nation's awareness of the Communist danger. We can only deplore the latest example of political incapacity shown by the Republican leadership.

The Buffalo COURIER-EXPRESS :

MCCARTHY, club in hand, facing Eisenhower, is less dangerous than McCarthy, knife in hand, at Eisenhower's back. Neither the President nor, we believe, a majority of the American people, can forgive or forget McCarthy's outrageous charge that General Eisenhower "urges patience, tolerance and niceties to those who are torturing American uniformed men." If you want to realize the full contemptibility of McCarthy's misrepresentation of the President, just compare the World War II records of the two men.

The pro-McCarthy New York DAILY

NEWS:

PRESIDENT Eisenhower and Sen.

McCarthy are now even, we think, in an unfortunate conflict. The President has pulled the prize boner of going out of his way to congratulate Sen. Arthur V. Watkins for the hatchet job Watkins' committee did on McCarthy. Sen. Mc Carthy in turn has pulled the boner of questioning, by inference, the President's enmity to Communism. Now that these two eminent fighting cocks have given each other their lumps in public, how about a reconciliation, followed by a joint and sustained effort to unify their party? Neither Eisenhower nor McCarthy may believe this in the heat of the present moment, but we think they both owe at least that much to the G.O.P. and to their country.

The Los Angeles TIMES:

WE have consistently supported McCarthy when he worked at routing Communists and their sympathizers from the bureaus which were reluctant to fire them. But like many superior specialists, McCarthy has been guilty of the sin of pride. In his deliberate challenge to President Eisenhower, McCarthy made a false political assumption. Unquestionably he is convinced that he can take over the leadership of a conservative faction and perhaps make headway with a third party. But McCarthy has shown no talent whatever for party leadership.

BIPARTISAN POLICY REQUIRES G.O.P. CHANGES

Arkansas' Democratic Senator J. W. FULBRIGHT, in the biweekly Reporter: THE President wishes to develop a bipartisan foreign policy in the Eighty-Fourth Congress. Without being unduly partisan, I feel that this desire for bipartisanship, although welcome, is a bit sudden. It is not easy, nor would it be wise, for Democrats to forget the appalling degree of venom shown by the Republicans during the campaign. Bipartisanship in foreign policy requires the exercise of restraint in a field where demagogy is inviting and comes easy. It is an ancient practice and a large temptation to exploit people's local prejudices for political advantage by associating their prejudices against foreigners with one's political opponents. What are the conditions that must be met by the administration?

First of all, it must seek to maintain a clear and consistent foreign policy worthy of our support. After the election in 1952, the new Administration felt called upon to develop a "new" and "bold" and "dynamic" foreign policy. For a time, we heard much about "liberation of the enslaved peoples" and "massive retaliation at times and places of our own choosing." Containment, it would appear from the way the President is talking now, is not such a bad policy. The more difficult area for agreement will be in pushing through measures to prevent the subversion of free peoples by means other than force. Here the President must be prepared to back noble words with deeds and dollars. Just as important as the prevention of subversion abroad, there must be a cessation of the subversion at home that masquerades under the name of security. The Republican Administration must put aside the numbers racket in security dismissals and all the other-devices by which it could create an impression that loyalty is the prerogative of one party. As part of this, there must be a cessation of the unrelenting warfare being conducted against our foreign service. Bipartisanship is not a goal in itself. Foreign policy will not receive the support of Democrats unless they believe it worthy of their support and likely to succeed.

BRITAIN'S LABORITE DAILY NOW LIKES IKE, TOO

The Laborite London DAILY MIRROR, world's largest daily newspaper (circ. 4,535,687):

An important change has taken place in the attitude of America to world affairs. Recent statements by President Eisenhower and Mr. Dulles have spotlighted several vital issues. Many Americans have urged an aggressive policy towards Communist China. When China recently imprisoned thirteen Americans there were renewed calls that America should "go it alone"--to the extent of blockading China. But President Eisenhower has squashed these suggestions. He has made it plain that he will not consider steps that might lead to war and divide America from her allies. All America's efforts are now to be exerted to achieve peaceful co-existence with Russia and the Communist Powers.

President Eisenhower calls for patience in the face of Communist provocation. He rejects suggestions that America should break off diplomatic relations with Russia and calls instead for more talk with the Russians to try to reach understanding.

This change of emphasis in the American outlook is welcomed in this country because it fits in with the views of the British people.

IKE SHOULD RUN IN 1956 ELECTION

Colonel Robert R. McCormick's Administration-hating Chicago TRIBUNE:

President Eisenhower should be nominated for President in 1956--by the Democrats. If he is so nominated, he will get most of the Democratic votes, all of the Demi-Rep votes and if Sen. Watkins is their leader, all of the Mormon votes unless Jimmie Roosevelt runs. The Americans will have to look elsewhere for their candidate.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.