Last Sunday, Bill Cunningham lashed out in a vicious attack on "those mighty minds who are already telling us what sort of a peace we should have," in a language which is remindful of Hitler's newspaper stooges at their worst. While he probably meant well, his copy is nevertheless stimulating to those whose patriotic spirit is only as deep as their war paint. These people represent as dangerous an element in the long run as the enemy agents who even now may be planning the sabotage of the Watertown arsenal. And his hysterical arguments will serve only to convince others that our war effort should be devoid of constructive purpose. The present is almost too late for us to begin thinking about a world order after the war.

Those who believe it is "vital that we take no thought for the morrow" are as blind as the selfish senators of 1920 who savagely ripped the staging from under Wilson's plans and let the whole structure of Versailles collapse like a house of cards. The trouble with 1920 was that the obsolete principles of Washington's Farewell Address still guided the thinking of our leaders. The universities are to blame for projecting these principles into the post-war era.

Cunningham and his ilk represent the tear-it-down school of superficial journalism. We can have no victory without some sort of positive program for the future. To beat the Japanese and destroy the Nazis is not enough in itself, because once we have done that we shall be back in 1919 again. Another generation of nationalistic hypocrisy and steam-roller aggression may be inconceivable to some, but that's what we're in for unless a better solution than the last is worked out and put into practice. Not only do we have to produce enough planes, tanks, and guns to win in every theater of the battle, but we have to redirect the thinking of the American people onto the road from which it strayed after the first world war. This does not mean that we must overload them with detailed plans for a reconstructed League of Nations, a federation of the Danube Valley, a partitioned Germany, or any such specific and controversial blueprint. Let the wise men squabble over that.

But if any lasting political and economic edifice is to come from this conflict which we did not want and stubbornly refused to enter until we were lashed into battle, then the time to start planning is now and not ten years hence. If all our efforts are concentrated toward a military victory, we may lose the solution of the problem amid the wreckages of war. This looking-forward attitude does not indicate a complacent belief that we have already won or are even winning. But an understanding of the fundamental peace aims will make us even more fighting mad, and whip up our spirit by pointing out for what we are fighting.

Thus Cunningham, blasting his own hot air at the "hot air" of the architects who are working toward a more secure world community after the guns cool off, is as backward in his own way as the irreconcilables of twenty years ago. Americans are now giving their lives in Java, the Philippines, and North Africa for a cause upon which no one is agreed. Only if we can give their children a chance to enjoy a life safe from bombings, international anarchy, and moral regimentation, will their death have been justified.