Out of the recent torrent of discussion and disagreement about future foreign policy has come increasing evidence of the existence of two rather clear-cut conceptions of what course it is most in the interest of the United States to pursue. One course is approved on the whole by the majority of Congressmen coming from west of the Mississippi. The other course has, with exceptions, its most vociferous supporters east of that river. Presumably both groups represent the feelings of their voters. And the division of national opinion rests on different interpretations of present world events.

The Westerners are convinced that aid through the sale of special supplies to England and France can only entangle us where we should not be. Whatever trade we have with these European countries, they feel, must rest on an attitude strictly impartial in action, if not in thought. This does not mean that supplies should be cut off from these two countries, but that they should get them at our convenience, after our interests had first been considered, if our interests allowed such sales at all. We are not to inconvenience ourselves just to sell to democracies. Thus the policy of the West consists mainly of an aloofness from anything not immediately our concern and affecting our interests. They feel that the United States should let the rest of the world go its own way. Only in this manner can this country make the best out of a bad situation.

The Easterners, of whom the President is the obvious leader, are equally convinced that the United States cannot remain isolated from the rest of the world, no matter how much it wants to. It is felt in the East that such a condition as the West would have is totally impossible,--the desire for what has not existed since the last century. The President feels that, whatever is sacrificed by mixing in world affairs, American interests are served only when such a plan is vigorously undertaken. Here is where the Easterners are sure thus they have a much more far-sighted view, that if the United States does not act now, some future time may be too late. The reason is that if England and France are forced into the position of becoming second rate powers, this country will never again be able to feel as secure from external danger as it now is. Consequently, the President believes the United States must give all aid it can to England and France, though this may entail a change of policy and some discommodity.

Here, then, are the two conflicting theories. There is no way at the present time of foreseeing which one is the correct course, nor in the future, either, for the die will have been cast, and there is no telling where the other course would have led. Unfortunately there is no set dogma from which one can choose the proper course; it remains for the President, Congress, or public opinion quite arbitrarily to decide.