For a few moments Wednesday night, Henry Wallace was all things to all men. As he stood, waiting for the prolonged applause that greeted him to subside, Mr. Wallace was a source of curiosity, hope, and fear to his 7,000 listeners, who were as yet unaware of the contents of his speech.. Even when his address was over many in the audience must still have been uncertain of their evaluation of this man whom one Harvard professor has called "the most profound social thinker in America," this man who has held high office and yet does not hesitate to criticize these with whom he shared power, this man who is proud to call himself "dangerous."

Many of his hearers must have gone away a little disappointed, feeling that Mr. Wallace is not so "dangerous" as he would like to think. Certainly it was nothing new to learn that there are large accumulations of wealth, great monopolies in America, and that these financial and industrial giants exercise a considerable degree of political power. That fact was being driven home very pointedly to shocked Americans during the time when Mr. Wallace was a college student. And Mr. Wallace's charges were far less well documented then were those of Ida Tarbell, Ray Standard Baker, and Lincoln Steffens.

Wall Street In Washington

The former Vice-President called for the resignations of Secretary Forrestal and Assistant Secretary Lovett, charging that as former investment bankers they were unfit for high office at a time when their decisions may mean the difference between war and peace. he was correct in his assumption that a banker will retain a banker;s way of thinking after he has assumed government office. But the same could be said of any other profession. The decisions of even the most scrupulously honest administrators are influenced by their economic and social interests. The most valid attack on administration policy is to refute the efficacy of the policy itself. Policy is good or had regardless of who makes it.

When he spoke of full employment, peace, and "progressive capitalism," Mr. Wallace spoke in the most general terms. But if he had attempted to present a panacea for every social ill; he could still he speaking. His address at Soldiers Field is only one of many, and there are several books and a great number of articles in 'New Republic" and else where in which Mr. Wallace deals with more specific problems. If this speech is to be viewed properly, it must be placed i context with all his other speeches and writings.

From one point of view Mr. Wallace would be making a mistake by offering specific remedies. It is a political axiom that, if he expects to attract large following, a politician must offer only the most general kind of program, to which various individuals can give their own interpretations. So long as Mr. Wallace attacks Administration policy, without proposing a particular alternative, he can appeal to all those who share his disapproval of the course currently being followed by the government. Once he offers a detailed program of his own, he will retain the support only of those who happen to prefer exactly the same policy. Mr. Wallace should not be too severely censured for adopting the same technique being used by Taft, Dewey, Stassen,and indeed every Presidential aspirant.

Unusual Politician

But Henry Wallace is, or is widely considered, more than just another politician. He is an intellectual, an educated liberal, the modern day their of the Rationality of the Progressive movement, and as such one from whom more can be expected than from some other public figures. If he is valuable as a gadfly, an irritant, a thought provoker, could he not be even more valuable if her were to back his charges with extreme documentation, and offer a positive program to replace the one he criticizes so constantly? Could not Mr. Wallace offer some plan specific enough to fill the vacuum left by the Administration policy with which he would do away, yet general enough to form a rallying point for all those who see little hope in the present course?

In asking that Mr. Wallace present a counter policy, it must be remembered that he would face difficulties far exceeding those of government policy making officials. What is refereed to as "policy" is often the sum of routine, day-by-day decisions. It is often dictated by circumstances which offer no alternative often the result of a chance decision or of inertia and unwillingness to take the most difficult path. But Mr. Wallace, as a private citizen, were to construct a policy it would have to be built without access to certain confidential material, without the impetus of immediate, necessary decisions, and with no aids other than common sense, a conception of what is just, and a facile imagination.

Furthermore, Mr. Wallace, as a possible Presidential aspirant, must weigh considerations of practical politics. His timing must be perfect, for if he hopes to succeed, he must offer any plan he might formulate at the politically "right" instant.

The Established Order

The most significant aspect of Mr. Wallace's speech, however, is not found in what he said, but in the very fact that he spoke at all, and has spoken all over the nation. At a time when orthodoxy is the order of the day, Mr. Wallace, the ubiquitous gadfly, is causing Americans to asked questions which may eventually prove quite embarrassing to the purists.

The United States has changed since Mr. Wallace's college days. We, who once ridiculed European nations for their standing armies and large military expenditures, possess one of the world's mightiest fighting forces and are seriously considering compulsory peacetime military training. In a nation where a man's freedom is his most cherished possession, government employees are subjected to "loyalty tests." Investigations are conducted by the F.B.I. and a citizen may be removed from governmental office as a result of these investigations, whose findings he does not know and whose charges he has not the opportunity to answer. Our foreign policy is based less and less on idealism and justice, and more and more on expediency and material considerations.

Perhaps these changes are necessary for survival. But they should not be accepted without deliberation and discussion. By criticizing the administration, by questioning the omniscience of the policy-makers of the moment, Mr. Wallace is fulfilling one of the most valuable functions in our society.

The historic role of the splinter, the minority, the "heretic," if you will, is a noble one in America. The heresy of today is oft the orthodoxy of tomorrow. No one is more an integral part of the American scene than is the reformer, the dreamer of better worlds, the gadfly of complacent conservatism. Henry Wallace is in the tradition of the Populists, the Progressive, the labor uprising, and the revolt of the farmers. More power to him.