THE WEEK

The other day, Friend Zhukov expressed his suspicion, in India, that Friend Eisenhower is no longer what he used to be. This, if one considers the underpinning of Mr. Eisenhower’s foreign policy, is tantamount to an earthquake. For all the President ever had to offer as a rationale for the coexistence binge of Geneva was his fond recollection of the toasts he had shared, in the golden days of World War Two, with that upright soldier, that hearty scholar, that sentimental family man, Marshal Zhukov. The following two years, until yesterday in fact, Mr. Eisenhower based his cherubic serenity about world peace on his reassuring intimacy with Zhukov. Now this is gone. Zhukov has begun to speak of Mr. Eisenhower as if the latter were President of the United States. May one hope that Mr. Eisenhower will start to speak of Zhukov as if he were the highest officer of the rapacious Red Army?

The distinctions between ideas, principles and expedients prey upon the mind of Maryland’s Governor Theodore R. McKeldin. In a speech before the Queens Village Club he charged that the only thing Republican that is worth the nation’s while is Eisenhower; that the Party suffers from a deficiency in new ideas; that, therefore, the Party must wholeheartedly adopt Eisenhower’s ideas. Then the Governor entered into the knottiest of all the problems involved: the marks by which Eisenhower’s ideas can be recognized. First, Eisenhower’s ideas do not deny traditional Republican principles; they deny “the outworn junk that outworn minds mistook for principles.” Second, Eisenhower’s ideas are not necessarily incorporated in his program; for the President’s expedients must not be confused with his principles. Third, “native American realism” (or expediency) is what the Party needs and what Eisenhower has. So, the Governor concludes, in quest of the Eisenhower idea, the Party should grow expedient. Well, there’s an idea for you!

Featured Tags

The other day, Friend Zhukov expressed his suspicion, in India, that Friend Eisenhower is no longer what he used to be. This, if one considers the underpinning of Mr. Eisenhower’s foreign policy, is tantamount to an earthquake. For all the President ever had to offer as a rationale for the coexistence binge of Geneva was his fond recollection of the toasts he had shared, in the golden days of World War Two, with that upright soldier, that hearty scholar, that sentimental family man, Marshal Zhukov. The following two years, until yesterday in fact, Mr. Eisenhower based his cherubic serenity about world peace on his reassuring intimacy with Zhukov. Now this is gone. Zhukov has begun to speak of Mr. Eisenhower as if the latter were President of the United States. May one hope that Mr. Eisenhower will start to speak of Zhukov as if he were the highest officer of the rapacious Red Army?

The distinctions between ideas, principles and expedients prey upon the mind of Maryland’s Governor Theodore R. McKeldin. In a speech before the Queens Village Club he charged that the only thing Republican that is worth the nation’s while is Eisenhower; that the Party suffers from a deficiency in new ideas; that, therefore, the Party must wholeheartedly adopt Eisenhower’s ideas. Then the Governor entered into the knottiest of all the problems involved: the marks by which Eisenhower’s ideas can be recognized. First, Eisenhower’s ideas do not deny traditional Republican principles; they deny “the outworn junk that outworn minds mistook for principles.” Second, Eisenhower’s ideas are not necessarily incorporated in his program; for the President’s expedients must not be confused with his principles. Third, “native American realism” (or expediency) is what the Party needs and what Eisenhower has. So, the Governor concludes, in quest of the Eisenhower idea, the Party should grow expedient. Well, there’s an idea for you!