The U.S. national defense program has its roots in hysteria and will have its fruits in war. The present European conflict has been built up to such a degree that now it has assumed in the eyes of America the appearance of the greatest crisis in the past 2,000 years. The country has been told insistently that a German victory will threaten our way of life. For years we have been educated to look upon Germany as anti-Christian and uncivilized, bent on world domination. We have come to see the situation too much in black and white, and are thus incapacitated for any realistic appraisal of the problems of Europe. As a result, even some of our coolest heads are now saying, "We have given up the idea that by fighting we can advance democracy, and we see the dangers in making ourselves an armed camp, but we must do all we can to save our own skins. We have to make ourselves secure. Rearming means risking war, yes, but not rearming is a worse risk. There is nothing else to be done."

Those who advocate such "preparedness" feel they are being wholly objective, weighing coolly the threat of a German victory, and acting only in our best military interest. Most of them do not stop to think that by backing such a program, by crying helplessly that there is nothing else to be done, they are taking one of the most familiar and predictable steps toward war. If a historian were to draw a hypothetical picture of a nation being dragged into war, a defense program like ours and the state of mind of those who are backing it would certainly figure prominently in the outline.

Actually, this defense program is only an extension of the false idea that we can sit back and ignore Europe. Nothing makes this clearer than the way isolationists are now rushing into the arms of those conservative military experts who say this hemisphere can easily be defended by a very limited defense program. The old cry was "3,000 miles of ocean will make us safe." Now it is "50,000 planes will make us safe." Neither one will do it. We cannot live in peace and security behind planes any more than behind water if the war is allowed to go on spreading misery, poverty, and hatred in Europe.

Despite the reasoning of those who support our huge preparedness budget, there is something else that we can do, something that is not only the sensible, but the only way to insure our own security. That way is to return to a policy of genuine neutrality, and wage an impartial diplomatic campaign to stop the war, and make a general, all-round settlement.

This is no proposal to wait for a lull in the fighting. If one side is losing, it might welcome a chance to make peace now rather than suffer defeat. If one side is winning, it might be influenced by proof that there are those who will consider its claims in an atmosphere far removed from the frenzy and hatred of the warring nations' capitals. Both sides should see that the saving of suffering, poverty, and death by stopping the war now will make it easier to work out their problems. And active cooperation between the United States, the Catholic Church, and all neutral nations would have a strong influence in revealing these facts to the belligerents.

It is always hard to make peace; it was hard to do it even in the last weeks of the World War. But it is impossible to get it when we are not even trying. It is impossible to get it when our retreat from strict neutrality has angered both sides, one because we profess moral sympathy but balk at active aid, the other because we sit behind a Neutrality Act hurling curses and threats. It is impossible to get it when we have given up hope and resorted to a huge program of preparedness.

To many Americans this proposal will sound like a man talking in a dream. They will say, "It is insane the President will never do it. It means changing the deepest convictions of 130,000,000 people." It is not a dream. Actually, the so-called "deepest convictions" of America are the insanity, the nightmare that is drawing us down into the quicksand of hopelessness, desperation, and war. A clear voice speaking with the strong tone of leadership will wake the people from their delirium. Only a daring and challenging new approach to the problem can clear the air.