(3 of 6)
"A people may prefer a free government; but if, from indolence, or carelessness, or cowardice, or want of public spirit, they are unequal to the exertions necessary for preserving it; if they will not fight . . . when it is directly attacked; if they can be deluded by the artifices used to cheat them out of it; if, by momentary discouragement, or temporary panic, or a fit of enthusiasm for an individual, they can be induced to lay their liberties at the feet even of a great man, or trust him with the powers which enable him to subvert their institutions—in all these cases they are more or less unfit for liberty; and though it may be for their own good to have had it for even a short time, they are unlikely long to enjoy it."
This pertinent thought might well have sprung from the political philosophy of Wendell Willkie. But, as a matter of fact, it didn't. It might have been voiced by any of Mr. Willkie's contemporaries. In point of fact, it wasn't. Quite possibly it came from the mind of one who viewed with considerable alarm the current events in Europe. Frankly, it didn't. It is not beyond belief that it should have come from any lover of the American form of government whose beliefs included an honest repulsion of Hitler and any other threat to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. It might have, but it didn't. It was John Stuart Mill, who, in an essay on Representative Government published in 1860, warned us against laying our "liberties at the feet of even a great man" and not to "trust him with powers which enable him to subvert their institutions." Whatever the source, whenever the date of original publication, the words are worthy of serious consideration during a Presidential campaign in which the choice is between a President who wields unprecedented power and a candidate who believes that is wrong.
EDWARD M. BRAINARD
Hartford, Conn.
Difficulty
Sirs:
Like some of your other readers, I have had a little difficulty in determining which horse you are riding in this campaign. As well as I can make out your position, you stand for all aid to Mr. Roosevelt short of election.
EDWARD C. WATSON
St. Petersburg, Fla.
Rooter
Sirs:
It's very strange what variety your political preferences assume in the eyes of various readers. Now, I really believe you try to be fair, and, far from favoring President Roosevelt, it seems to me that you tip the scales slightly for Mr. Willkie. Perhaps that's because I am a hearty Roosevelt rooter and suffer twinges when you criticize him. But, Roosevelt or Willkie, I definitely endorse TIME.
WINIFRED O'SHAUGHNESSY
Cleveland, Ohio
Lopsided
Sirs:
. . . Your lopsided issue of Sept. 23 has convinced me that TIME is for the continuance of Mr. Roosevelt in office for a third consecutive term and is seeking to bring about his reelection, which I believe would wreck our Federal Constitution under which our people have so signally prospered for nearly 150 years and so far outstripped all the other peoples on the globe. . . .
R. A. MEEK
Black Hawk, Miss.
Unfunny Campaign
Sirs: