When those of us who are now middle-aged were in school, we took specific courses in history, government, civics, and the like. Today the "specifics" are fre­quently merged into an all-embrac­ing category called "social stud­ies." The loss of precision and definition is important, for as the elastic band stretches, basic prin­ciples become vague, and even facts cease to have weight. One learns that the UN is "where the nations cooperate" (my ten-year-old son’s description), not that co­operation depends on finding a common objective (as in the case of a military alliance).
 

Since it seems to be the prime intention of a vast number of American "educators" to keep the young in a state of suspended ani­mation insofar as learning the principles of international politics is concerned, a book such as Kenneth Colegrove’s Democracy Versus Communism, edited by Hall Bartlett for the Institute of Fiscal and Political Education (Van Nostrand, 424 pp., $4.95) is an extremely welcome interruption of an all-too-pervasive trend. This book is an excellent introduction to the facts of international life in the epoch of the Cold War. After reading it and digesting it, no teen-ager with a slightly better­ than-average IQ will ever be de­luded by a speech of Khrushchev or the propaganda of some of our more vociferous "peace" societies. If UNESCO were a living force for education, it would have this book translated and distributed in many countries.

Democracy Versus Communism makes it indelibly plain that the world is divided; that communism and freedom are irreconcilable concepts; that communists en­gage in falsehood on principle; that words as used by communists are frequently distorted to cover a reality that is quite opposite to what the words themselves actu­ally mean; et cetera, et cetera. All this is very much to the good. The illustrations (cartoons, drawings, models) are sprightly; the little boxes (see the one on "The Sick Chicken Case" which tells about the Supreme Court’s invalidation of price-fixing codes) make for a refreshing variation of the main text. As for the body of the writ­ing, it is pitched to the supposed mentality of boys and girls of high school age. Whether one ought to purge high school texts of the literary pleasures of suggestion, allusiveness, irony, humor, and sheer good spirits may be ques­tioned. But if the prime virtue of good high school teaching is lucidity, Democracy Versus Commu­nism must stand high on the list.

Doubts About Democracy

The book is, of course, "intro­ductory." Right here there arises an important question: just what was the full intention of its author, its sponsors, and its numerous "advisory" editors (including Dr. Erling M. Hunt, chairman of the Department of Social Studies in Teachers College, who contributes an introduction)? Considered as a preparation for future courses on international relations, Democracy Versus Communism could hardly be bettered. It tells why Moscow is bound to be a continuing menace. It is only when one thinks of the book as an introduction to the history or principles of the American Republic that certain shortcomings begin to bulk large. The author has fully understood the meaning of "communism." It cannot be said that he has reached a fundamental understanding as to the meaning of "democracy."

He starts out bravely enough when it is a question of dealing with the origins of free govern­ments in the West. He knows what Locke and Jefferson said. He knows that John Adams approved of the Massachusetts State Consti­tution because it provided for a "government of laws, not men." He knows that the property right is just as much a human right as freedom of religion or of the press. He knows that minorities should be protected — which means that he is not for "majoritarian" de­mocracy.

But when the book, in its his­torical aspects, approaches the present, its acceptance of the Benthamite theory that law should promote "the greatest happiness of the greatest number" tends to introduce a note of confusion. Who can really know anything about "happiness" in respect to "num­bers"? What, to cite an extremity, if 51 per cent of the people were to define their happiness as can­nibalism? The "greatest happi­ness" test, since it must be a sub­jective guess where it is not a crude matter of plebiscite, can lead to all manner of tyrannies. The author of Democracy Versus Com­munism is clear on the point that Jefferson posited some unalienable natural rights, but he is not at all clear that a right should not be subjected to the Benthamite test. An "unalienable right" must be beyond the reach of numbers, or it is no right. It is merely a convenience that is sanctioned for the moment by the positive law of majoritarian legislators.

Are There No Limits?

The test of the author’s convic­tions (or lack of convictions) is his treatment of the idea of the "general welfare." He asks: "How far should government go?" But in the case of such things as com­pulsory union shop, the TVA prin­ciple, and the right of government to limit the cut of timber in a privately owned forest, he has no answer to his own question. Is "democracy," then, anything that "democracy" cares to do?

The question becomes important to any consideration of what it is that we are supposed to be defend­ing against the Moscow-directed drive to take us all over. If, as the author says, "there is no exact dividing line between individual liberty and government author­ity," how are the students who read this book to know where their own fortress of freedom is vulner­able? "The line," so the author insists, "shifts with the need of the times." And he quotes that hoary old chestnut of Mr. Justice Holmes that the "right of free speech" does not include the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater.

Mr. Justice Holmes was, of course, quite correct in his obser­vation. But what the author of this book fails to perceive is that the quotation of the Holmes’ dic­tum usually leads to a confusion of categories. A theater may be a public place, but it is also private property. And the owners of prop­erty are privileged to formulate the rules of behavior which are to govern its use by those who pay rent or fee. Clearly any theater owner who would give his patrons permission to cause a stampede by shouting "fire" on the premises should be put under sur­veillance as a potential menace to the right to life and limb.

Again, the author of Democracy Versus Communism justifies state intervention in the economic proc­ess by observing that "we have traffic laws to regulate automobile and truck travel." Here, once more, is a confusion of categories. Roads are owned by the state, or the community, and the owners have the right to formulate rules to cover the use of their property.

"Necessity" versus Rights

If we are sharp enough to dis­tinguish between such things as the right to free speech and the right to formulate rules for the use of property, there should be little difficulty in determining such larger issues as the "dividing line between individual liberty and government authority." There will, inevitably, be twilight zone areas and twilight zone questions, such as the right to take unlimited oil from an underground pool which is not contained by property boundaries. But when the editors of Democracy Versus Communism justify the TVA on the ground that the government has the right to engage in business activity "when private enterprise lacks the resources for … a huge develop­ment," they are clearly crossing the proper dividing line between individual liberty and government authority. Private enterprise might be reluctant to undertake the job of leveling the Rocky Mountains and dumping the earth into the Gulf of Mexico to make new land. Is this any reason why the people should be taxed to do it?

On page 303 the author says that "public housing for small-in­come families has become a neces­sity." Well, such housing may seem a "necessity" if the govern­ment has made costs prohibitive by inflating the currency, or by allowing a painters’ union to limit the size of paint brushes, or by insisting that the thickness of ply­wood walls shall be governed by building codes designed originally for brick. But if one is to use "necessity," not rights, as the gauge with which to test govern­ment economic activity, where does one stop? And by what standard does one have a right to complain when the communists seize the kitchen gardens of the peasants? Khrushchev has just done that in the name of "neces­sity."

It may seem ungracious to single out certain passages of Democracy Versus Communism for attack. But the book is so good as an introduction to contem­porary international affairs that one wishes it could be commended as a proper introduction to the practice of government at home.