Left of Muddle

Off-year elections traditionally lack focus. The decisions of the voters are normally made on state and local issues and consequently embody no national mandate. This year, however, the Republican Party has supplied a focus: attempting to equate Democrats with radicalism and socialism, it has condemned its opponents in Cassandrian accents, warning of the disaster that will befall a Congress and a nation dominated by such men.

The Democrats are radicals, the electorate is told; they are "hare brained spendthrifts;" they lack the "straight-forward, honest, sound and sane principles which make America great." By making radicals and liberals appear one and the same, the President of the United States is trying to make "liberal" a dirty word.

"Liberal," however, is an adjective that Webster defines as "befitting a man of free birth; openhanded; broad-minded; independent in opinion." It is only to the Republicans that a liberal Democrat becomes a dangerous radical.

In their effort at semantic contortion, the Republicans would classify most non-Southern Democratic candidates in the same political category as Lenin. The image, however, will not stick when applied to Clair Engle of California, Prof. Gale McGee, Wyoming; Eugene McCarthy, Minnesota; Ernest McFarland, Arizona; Thomas Dodd, Conncticut; William Proxmire, Wisconsin; and Philip A. Hart, Michigan. These Senate candidates are no more radical than the President himself. The difference between the Democrats and Mr. Eisenhower is the difference betwen vigorous, imaginative administration and stand-pat, muddle-of-the road government.

In concrete terms, the choice lies between the extension of the civil rights legislation or painfully slow change in the status quo; between a needed, though expensive Federal Housing Act, on a permanent basis, or no housing law amendment; between a philosophy of constructive relief for economically depressed areas or a faith in the recuperative nature of economic cycles. To us the choice is obvious.

Aside from the Senate candidates, there are Democrats running for the House of Representatives who might fit the GOP's Procrustean definition of radical, but are really no more than garden-variety liberals. Among these men are Chester Bowles of Connecticut, Joseph Freehill in Virginia, Anthony B. Akers in manhattan, John A. Saltonstall and James MacGregor Burns in Massachusetts.

It is only through the election of such liberals that the 86th Congress can achieve a constructive record. A preponderance of so-called "left-wing" Democrats in both Houses can break the old GOP-Southern Conservative coalition which has obstructed so much worthwhile legislation. A liberal majority would lower many of America's outrageous tariff barriers, would work for cheaper public power installations where private enterprise cannot do the job, and would advance more effective foreign aid programs, particularly in the field of economic aid for underdeveloped nations.

Only to a Neanderthal mind would these proposals seem radical. They are, on the whole, necessary to the revival of strong government in a country which has suffered too long under a feeble executive leadership and a frequently "me-too" Congress.

To complete a record of good legislation already begun by the 85th Congress the country needs the election of Mr. Eisenhower's radicals. In one sense they are radical--their entrance into the government will assure an atmosphere of action and irreverence that has been sadly lacking in politics.

For the vigor which they will bring to Congress we endorse the Democratic "radicals" running for the 86th Congress.