Queries on Veteran Groups, Loyalty Checks

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

It must be gratifying to the CRIMSON that even its advertisements bestir the rest of the newspaper world. The MacArthur ad hit the Boston papers with a hearty "Harvard Vets Oppose MacArthur" headline. But the ad itself cannot be held responsible for what people infer. If, as in this case. Boston newsmen don't have time to do a little investigating, if they happen to interpret paid political ads erroneously, it is no fault of Chandler, Cook, and Knight.

Actually, all the ad says is that ex-servicemen have some peculiar reason why not to vote for MacArthur, else why the use of that good old word "veteran"? The ad doesn't say, for instance, "Sponsors: veteran Jonathan E. Robbin, veteran Gibb C. Taylor etc.," it merely lists the names of a number of public spirited Harvardians and others who think "vets" should not vote for MacArthur.

But why? There are obvious reasons. First, William Randolph Hearst endorses MacArthur; second, so does Jim Curley; third, MacArthur used to enjoy posing for glorifying propaganda pictures. The few arguments in his favor don't balance the equation. The successful management of the Pacific campaign and the efficient administration of Japan after V-J Day don't mean a thing. No, the irretrievable damnation of self-esteem outweighs whatever might be said for him. He likes to dress up too much; he is a propagandist; he thinks a lot of himself, like Teddy Roosevelt did. Come hell or Henry Wallace, we must have a humble man in the White House.

But who are these men who say veterans would not vote for MacArthur and who for their reasons quote that unimpeachable source, "scuttlebutt?" What do they have in common? Are they former members of the general staff which was really capable of forming a comprehensive view of MacArthur? Or are they HYD's, members of the Lampoon, or the John Reed Society? Are they members of some political action group, or do they just hold a personal grudge against the general?

At a time when international relations once again smack hellishly of war, and when the field of dynamic political leaders is so sparse, ought we to overlook any presidential candidate on the grounds of small, personal prejudice? Shouldn't we instead study the factual achievements of his case history? If MacArthur pats himself on the back, who knows, we may find he has a right to. It doesn't harm us much, and certainly a timid man won't get far with Russia. Forrest Powers '51