Not since the court-packing bombshell of 1937 has there been in Washington an explosion comparable to that threatened today. Around the issue of foreign policy, posed by the two snarling, but temporarily caged, European wildcats, battle line are forming; and soon Messrs. Nye, Borah, and Clark are sure to declare war. When that happens, there will be a hot time in at least one old American town.
Preliminary sparring again surged into the nation's headlines yesterday. In another of a series of carefully calculated moves--serving the double purpose of educating American public opinion and presenting Hitler and Mussolini with solid food for thought--President Roosevelt endorsed a strongly worded Washington Post editorial. Smarting under this newest blow to his cherished isolation, Senator Nye termed the presidential statement "a splendid evidence that we are inviting ourselves into another European war." That his statement is illogical will not have much bearing on the real issue, for there is still a large number of persons who would "protect themselves by closing their eyes," as the Post so aptly put it. But by his statement he has helped to define the issue as one between realistic, constructive policy and wishful thinking.
Actually--and unfortunately--there is no question of "inviting ourselves" into anything. The alternatives are not isolation and war. For those with eyes to see, the evidence that America cannot be isolated is overwhelmingly convincing. Were it possible to discard the psychological element, the inevitable unncutrality of thinking, it would not be politically possible to crect the foreign trade controls, the internal industrial and agricultural management, and the price fixing, that would be necessary to prevent our economic system from involving us in the conflict. It is not "war mongering," as Hitler and American isolationists insist, for the President to point out this fact. It is enlightened common sense.
Words are of use, but they are not enough. With congress lies the next move--casting off of the shackles of the neutrality act. It will mean a fight to the finish with the isolationists who, though well intentioned, would prevent America from taking steps in her own defense; but it will be worth the effort if some enactment along the lines of the recent Stimson suggestions--combines, perhaps, with certain of the Pittman cash-and-carry provisions--can be made. Only thus, ion fact, can America make more likely her chance of remaining at peace.
