As the Democrats prepare for the Great Drama of 1956, it is evident that the party playwrights are already hard at work. Especially on questions of foreign policy, Democrats are beginning to hit the Republicans, and hit them hard. Two top echelon Democrats, both foreign policy experts, have recently written works which, if considered together, offer a coherent plan that could well form the basis for a party policy.

Dean Acheson, in A Democrat Looks at His Party, offers not so much a policy as a prologue to a policy. As Secretary of State at the height of the Cold War's intensity, Acheson uses his wit and acumen to analyse the underlying assumptions of U.S. foreign affairs under President Truman.

Acheson, of coarse, deal with more than foreign affairs. In vigorous prose, he traces two traditions he feels are fundamental to the Democratic Party--conservatism and pragmatic experimentation. He also launches into a forceful attack on the Government's security investigations--both under the Truman and Eisenhower Administrations. Despite these important subjects, however, Acheson, as prime author of the Containment Policy, perhaps speaks most authoritatively and most controversially in the sphere of foreign affairs.

He argues the underlying purpose of U.S. foreign policy should be "to avoid and prevent a situation in which we have to make a choice between surrender and a nuclear war," for a nuclear war would bring about almost total devastation.

The horrors of a nuclear war prompt Acheson to criticize sharply Dulles' policy of massive retaliation, which could have resulted in a "fatal miscalculation." He feels that nothing would reassure U. S. allies more than a blunt statement that this country will use nuclear weapons only if a "desperate death struggle" is forced upon us by a surprise atomic attack.

Acheson's analysis of massive retaliation is clear and strong, although not particularly new. In fact, very little in the book is new at all, although the authors gives us an incisive discussion of past policy.

If Acheson in a sense looks backward with an historical perspective, Chester Bowles, in The New Dimensions of Peace, looks forward to a new American foreign policy required by a period of "competitive coexistence." The former Ambassador to India also strongly criticizes the policy of massive retaliation, but he goes on to outline a policy that is a challenge for any party--in or out of power.

Bowles brings to his book an acute awareness of the economic problems of Asia, as well as of the revolutionary forces now sweeping both Asia and Africa. He is not interested in detailed historical discussion; instead, he shows how ideas--new and old-are having a deep effect on what may be "an unparalleled change in world relationships." Unlike some Democrats, he does not minimize the "new look" in Soviet foreign affairs. He feels that Russia's new strategic smiles "may turn out to be more revolutionary and more dangerous than anything Stalin ever envisioned."

To meet the new Soviet policy, the U.S. must do more than prepare militarily. It must also do more than help finance world economic development, although increased economic aid must be an important part of U.S. policy. The main task facing the U. S. is to makes the continuing American Revolution of political democracy and a broad division of wealth meaningful to the rest of the world. This entails not mere talk--but showing willingness to come to an understanding with Red China, helping to make Formosa a democratic outpost, stepping up an information program in Africa, opposing colonialism clearly and publicly, and working for an eventual abolition of war itself.

Some of Bowles' historical observations may be open to question, and his policy proposals certainly demand full debate before acceptance. But his ideas are imaginative and bold--reasonable extensions of Acheson's incisive insights. The prologue and the play, together, could make powerful drama.CHESTER BOWLES