On the Right

New York, Sept. 24—The concern of our leaders for the state of South Vietnamese democracy shows that the old Wilsonian virus continues to run in our veins. It is partly the fault of Lyndon Johnson and (less so) Richard Nixon. Mr. Johnson was forever talking about how it was America’s goal to secure the right of the South Vietnamese to have a government of their choice, and there are echoes of the same kind of thing in the Presidential rhetoric of his successor. In fact Mr. Nixon was telling people long before he became President, that the United States had no business in South Vietnam except insofar as our presence there related to American security, and it is of precious little bearing on American security whether President Thieu runs against one or a dozen opponents.

It was a dozen candidates (by the way) that he ran against the last time around, and of course the critics were dissatisfied with that performance. They kept saying that he was a minority President, which is true: so was Abraham Lincoln and so, for that matter, is Richard Nixon. If you have enough contenders, the chances are that the winner will come in with a plurality instead of a majority. But then the White House sent over some observers from the American academy, who came back and reported that the election had been run fairly, in the sense that the votes had been fairly counted. The exclusion of candidates who were judged to be unqualified in a time of civil war because they failed to declare their solidarity against the enemy was not held to be a democratic travesty. Winston Churchill, in England’s hour of crisis, would not have shared an election with a Quisling. In fact, Mr. Churchill’s government simply did away with national elections during the War.

About the Author

William F. Buckley Jr.

William F. Buckley Jr. founded National Review magazine in 1955.

Featured Tags

New York, Sept. 24—The concern of our leaders for the state of South Vietnamese democracy shows that the old Wilsonian virus continues to run in our veins. It is partly the fault of Lyndon Johnson and (less so) Richard Nixon. Mr. Johnson was forever talking about how it was America’s goal to secure the right of the South Vietnamese to have a government of their choice, and there are echoes of the same kind of thing in the Presidential rhetoric of his successor. In fact Mr. Nixon was telling people long before he became President, that the United States had no business in South Vietnam except insofar as our presence there related to American security, and it is of precious little bearing on American security whether President Thieu runs against one or a dozen opponents.

It was a dozen candidates (by the way) that he ran against the last time around, and of course the critics were dissatisfied with that performance. They kept saying that he was a minority President, which is true: so was Abraham Lincoln and so, for that matter, is Richard Nixon. If you have enough contenders, the chances are that the winner will come in with a plurality instead of a majority. But then the White House sent over some observers from the American academy, who came back and reported that the election had been run fairly, in the sense that the votes had been fairly counted. The exclusion of candidates who were judged to be unqualified in a time of civil war because they failed to declare their solidarity against the enemy was not held to be a democratic travesty. Winston Churchill, in England’s hour of crisis, would not have shared an election with a Quisling. In fact, Mr. Churchill’s government simply did away with national elections during the War.