Needed: A Definition of "Liberal"

To THE EDITOR:

Why doesn't it occur to more people that vast differences, such as that between Mr. Preiss and Professor Knight, can be charged in some measure to a failure on the part of our colleges, publications, and other organizations whose purpose is to disseminate information?

The failure to which I refer does not involve some vast pedagogical principle, such as might be expounded by a Hutchins or John Dewey. No indeed, it is far simpler than that, and probably more devastating in its consequences.

It is the failure to define a single word and then use it thereafter always and only in the sense as defined.

If in mathematics, a square, let us say, could mean various forms and constructions to different teachers and listeners, the science of mathematics would be in bad shape. More in character, let us suppose that in the less exact science of philosophy a "hedonist" or a "Buddhist" (or what have you) might have extremely different meanings or character from person to person, or place to place. Furthermore, let us suppose that the term "hedonist" or "Buddhist" had come through years of tradition, emotional factors and historical legend, to be a term of highest approbation. No Professor, let us imagine, could really afford to be thought other than "hedonist," for to be an anti-hedonist would automatically classify him as stodgy, not intellectual, unprogressive. And because of the emotional shadings of the term, all politicians and demagogues in our supposition also wish to be classed as "hedonist," for the magic catch-word carries assurance of millions of votes from multitudes who do not or will not think out its meaning, having inherited its spell.

In such a situation, the understanding of philosophy would be impossible. All discussion would lead further and further into confusion. Any intellectual comprehension whatever would soon be drowned in emotional juices and then evaporated in the high temperatures engendered.

An exactly similar situation is the one we are in today, through our failure to define one word which cuts across the studies, works, entire lives of all of us, and particularly of those in the liberal arts college. The word, of course, is LIBERAL.

Far fetched you say, and too simple! Well, bear with me a moment and study two quotations from Mr. Preiss' letter (which is a classic example of the pseudo-liberal approach, and really should be republished entirely by you for study and psycho-analysis).

The first quotation:

"He (Knight) seems to have forgotten that the very Englishmen whom he admires were actually the 'Radicals' of their day and that their 'ism' just happened to be liberalism. They were daring to assert the property rights of the mass of the people against the 'Divine Right' of Kings. Men like Hobbes, who were proponents (and pretty good ones too) of aristocracy and hereditary rule, had much the same dislike for these new 'liberals' as Professor Knight has for 'planners.' It all depends upon what century you happen to be livingin!" (Italics mine.)

Second quote:

"The old liberalism has now become conservative in its thinking and functioning simply because it now holds the reins." (Italics again mine.)

There you have it! Read these quotations over, think about them a bit, and you have a perfect picture of pseudo-liberalism, going back to its beginning and roots in the individual, and flowering (?) in an intellectual and philosophical dung heap in a swamp of emotional confusion.

Before we examine these quotations closely, let us grant that in our society, it is "best" to be a "liberal." Through history and legend, we have come to know that the classic liberals of old were pretty fine fellows. They were courageous, lived dangerously, daring to defy authority and power. Likewise, they were intellectually superior men who could see through the ignorance, prejudice, injustice of the time, to propose a better scheme. All of this we have learned from the cradle. What young American, reading of Jefferson, or Lincoln, or Voltaire, can fail to grow up with the desire—the compulsion—to be a "liberal"? And what fine and healthy roots for a great country to have, so universally and deeply planted. Yet, read the above quotations! We have taken this very liberalism and allowed its perversion to destroy the very thing which gave it life.

Is OPPOSITION LIBERALISM?

For is it not obvious, to be a "liberal" now, it is only necessary to be against whatever power or system is established, no matter whether the system is good or bad? No matter about principles, ideals, intellectual integrity, or what anyone does or believes. We want to be liberals and, by The Shades of Tom Paine, "liberals" have always been against the "ins." How else could we be "liberals"? How else seem ahead of our time? How else live dangerously? And all at practically no cost either, for a liberal in our society runs absolutely no danger beyond choking on his hors d'oeuvre when wound up too tight at a cocktail party!

See how easy it has become (not to say fashionable). Because the old liberals fought their system, I too can be a "liberal" by opposing our system. Liberals were innovators; ergo, innovators are "liberals." Liberals were opposition. Opposition is "liberalism." This word liberal, which meant so much, doesn't mean a thing anymore. Because, by Mr. Preiss' definition, a liberal becomes a conservative as soon as he is in power.

By this concept, Hitler and Mussolini were two of the greatest "liberals" of all time! By his standards, the men who set up the government of our country were not liberals at all, once they were elected to power, and the philosophy or intellectual ba- sis of the system they set up is not "liberal either!

What twaddle! But how interesting when it is made so plainly evident that the criterion of this new "liberalism" is not human dignity, not individual stamina and independence, not anything in fact but to roust out whoever happens to be in power. No matter if it does make millions the slaves of Dictators or Bureaucrats! No matter if, per' chance, what we oppose may be the finest social structure the world has ever known. No matter about fundamental principles, moral truths, for which the old liberals fought and died! For whatever our power or order, it is not "liberal" once it is established. We innovators are the LIBERALS.

Now Mr. Preiss professes to like an offensive attack, so I hope I have not used too many words in getting around to the following two suggestions which I think would be immensely valuable if adopted.

l. Dartmouth (and others we hope) should somehow work out definitions of "a liberal" and "liberalism." We hope that this definition will evolve from the classic one with emphasis upon individual dignity, worth, integrity, and freedom. However it goes, the definition must be made known to all and scrupulously adhered to by all, including professors, lecturers, and everyone concerned with the College. The word liberal shall thereafter, insofar as humanly possible, be used only and entirely as defined.

WANTS NO THOUGHT CONTROL

Already, I can hear the pseudo-liberals objecting to this as control of free speech, thought control, or something equally as fuzzy-brained and noxious. Absolutely not! We do not suggest or want censorship or restrictions on advocacy in the slightest.

But we do believe that in a debate, cer- tain fundamental definitions must be agreed upon if there is to be any intellectual meet- ing whatsoever. (What is college but a de- bate?)

We believe that in mathematics, you must accept certain definitions, i.e., a right angle is 90°. In philosophy, the lecturers who speak of Buddhism must not have in mind a Catholic Seminary. And so it goes in the pur- suit of all knowledge. Once you have defined your liberal at Dartmouth, anyone can say anything they reasonably like about him— for or against. An invitation to speak at Dartmouth (or be there) will carry a pro- viso to that effect; perhaps an invitation could include a card giving the definition of Liberal and Liberalism. On the reverse of the card might be printed some such state- ment as follows:

"We at Dartmouth, to avoid confusion and enhance intellectual understanding of contemporary issues, have agreed upon a definition of the basic term Liberalism. To help us in the objectives which we believe important, we ask that you use the term "liberal" or "liberalism" only and exactly in the sense as defined, and when any other meaning is intended, that you use some other word for it. Our invitation is predicated upon the assumption that you will be willing and able to do this."

Incidentally, if the classic definition of a 'Liberal" is accepted, someone is going to find new names for a lot of people who have been marching under the wrong flag. I would like to suggest that one type might well be called LIBERVERT;

2. Supplementing the above great step forward, you should have a Great Issues lecture on the Anatomy of Liberalism. This would include:

(a) An analysis of its historical attraction, and the natural psychological drive in young people to be "liberal" particularly in this time of personal frustration when the individual is flattened as never before by big business, big government, big everything.

(b) An analysis of the differences between a positive, idealistic liberalism and pathological discontent. In other words, compare the constructive versus vague emotional dissatisfaction (glandular "liberalism"), with examples taken from well-known lives.

(c) Examination of all proveable facts available regarding the nature of the word "liberal" as used in publications, public speeches, etc. Perhaps public opinion polls to find out exactly how the public now regards the word.

(d) Some study of the differences in environment of classic liberalism and "liberalism" now. For instance, it can well be argued that today the man who lives "dangerously," the man of courage and determination, is more frequently the "conservative." Being a "liberal" today requires no risk, no work, and precious little of anything except the desire to criticize.

Some "conservatives," on the other hand, risk a great deal, sacrifice unselfishly, and are devoted to the cause of their fellow man. Perhaps they are closer in spirit to the classic liberal than the pseudo-liberal. Perhaps we have come through the full circle, and not enough of us are aware of the fact.

These suggested courses of action should help in getting at the fundamentals of the great confusion of today; should help us all to be plainly labeled for what we are; and prevent us from following false labels guided by misleading and untrustworthy emotions. Once the labels are straight, no one need fear the consequences.

Schenectady, N. Y.

EDITOR'S NOTE: The comments of Professor Knight on some of the points raised in this letter and in those printed in February will appear next month or in the June issue.

"Where Do We Stand?"

To THE EDITOR:

The Dartmouth instigated action on October 21, 1949, regarding a fraternity issue for the purpose of determining where Dartmouth men stood in relation to the restrictive clauses on race and creed which serve as partial barriers to fraternity membership.

In its editorial The Dartmouth believed that "the basis for any constructive action concerning undergraduate activity was to be found in the opinion of the undergraduate body itself."

It is my humble opinion that an issue of such importance does not rest solely with the undergraduate body and any constructive action concerning it should result from the majority opinion of all Dartmouth men.

I suggest that the ballot that was handed to each undergraduate be sent to all of Dartmouth's alumni in order that the question "Where do we stand?" can be answered.

Chicago, Ill.

"Of the People . . ."

To THE EDITOR:

The article in the February issue of the DARTMOUTH ALUMNI MAGAZINE by Edward C. Lathem, Jr., entitled "Of the People, By the People, For the People was a worthy and interesting attempt to add another laurel to the brow of Daniel Webster. The line of descent of that oft-quoted phrase from Webster to Theodore Parker to Lincoln would seem, according to Mr. Lathem's account, fairly clear. I should, however, like to cavil at his final statement that, by using the expression, "... .of the people, by the people, for the pe0p1e....," Lincoln completed "the development of a group of words which may well have begun with Daniel Webster." I would submit that these famous words were first used long before Webster's time.

Shortly after the appearance of the EarlierVersion of Wycliffe's Bible, the evident need for a revision resulted in the production of a Later Version, adhering less strictly to the Latin original and veering more frankly toward the English of the time. According to the Encyclopedia Brittanica, "John Purvey, the eminent scholar and leader of the Lollard party after Wycliffe's death in 1384, is generally assumed to have written the 'General Prologue' where the principles of work adopted by the revisers have been clearly and forcibly laid down." This Later Version was completed at about the time Purvey wrote the "General Prologue," some time between February 1395 and February 1397. In any case, in that prologue there appears the statement, "The Bible is for the government of the people, by the people, and for the people. I am inclined to believe that this is the first appearance of the phrase in English.

The question is, therefore, whether Webster ever read this "General Prologue" to Wycliffe's Later Version; whether Parker read it; whether Lincoln himself ever read it; or whether some intermediate writer took it from Purvey and handed it on to Webster, Parker, or Lincoln. I am not in a position to try to track down the connection, but I believe some effort should be made to do so before finally attributing so portentous a phrase to "Black Dan," Dartmouth saint though he be.

Dublin, N. H.

Also Credits Wyclif

To THE EDITOR:

Did the writer of the interesting article concerning Lincoln's famous "of, by, and for the people" in the February issue of the MAGAZINE go back far enough in his search for source material? One of Dartmouth's most beloved professors, Charles F. Richardson, "Clothespins" to all his "boys," used to say that Lincoln's words could be traced as far as John Wyclif, the "Father of the English Reformation," who said in the foreword to his translation of the Bible in 1382: "The Bible is for the education of the people, by the people, and for the people." Was "Clothespins" wrong?

East Orange, N. J.

Adams and Marshall

To THE EDITOR:

Mr. Lathem's article on "Of the people," etc. is very interesting and well done.

It led me to look up the phrase in Burton Stevenson's Home Book of Quotations ed. 6, 1949. There I find that John Adams said in 1798 -

"The declaration that our people are hostile to a government made by themselves, for themselves, and conducted by themselves, is an insult."

Stevenson also quotes a relevant passage from John Marshall, McCulloch vs. Maryland, 1819. The passages are on pp. 431-432.

Both of these passages are older than the earliest that Lathem quotes, namely Webster's in 1830. Mr. Lathem might be interested to search for evidence that Lincoln saw either of these. Surely the decisions of John Marshall might have come to the attention of any lawyer or politician of Lincoln's time. Stevenson himself might have some evidence in his files.

Columbus, Ohio

"Antiquated Protest"

To THE EDITOR:

May I take up my quill pen in antiquated protest over the article in The Undergraduate Chair concerning Carnival during the thirties?

I have never felt so let down in all my life, for the general impression this article seems to give is that Carnival in those days was sort of a homegrown affair, festooned with popcorn and cranberries on strings and a zither in the background.

As I remember, the outdoor shows were really quite good and that local talent crack was quite inaccurate for in 1937 anyway we imported an expensive and well-known ice skater to head the show. Unfortunately her name escapes me, but I am sure a little research in Hanover would turn it up.

I suppose what really got me was the phrase "things started to look up in '39 when Walter Wanger came from Hollywood to do Winter Carnival." I remember that picture, an all-time sinker, and other than the fact that it was called Winter Carnival Dartmouth didn't get too much play. It also seems to me that if home-managed and home-designed Carnival is not preferable to a Hollywood Extravaganza, I'll eat Sam—Goldwyn or Cecum.....

Of course, the point of all this is that we are all a little touchy about our college days and like to imagine them as the best of everything. Just wait ten or fifteen years when Carnival will feature a girl show imported from Mars, and lit by exploding hydrogen bombs,—then you'll hear the present undergraduate sigh for the Good Old Days when even the chubbers had klieg eyes.

Kansas City, Mo.

First Ski Races

To THE EDITOR:

I have enjoyed reading the splendid article by Elmer G. Stevens, titled "First College Meet," in the February issue of the ALUMNIMAGAZINE.

The meet with McGill in 1914 was no doubt the first time that two or more colleges in North America met in skiing competition but the first college ski races in the United States were held four years earlier in Hanover on Saturday, February 26, 1910.

Forty years ago this month, Fred Harris '11 and one or two others organized a "Winter Field Day" and a full program of ski and snowshoe events was held with events for individuals and a snowshoe relay race between classes. This pioneer meet was held shortly after the Outing Club was organized and before the first of the Winter Carnivals.

In order to refresh my memory of the first Dartmouth ski meet, I dug from the attic an old 1912 "Mem" book. Pasted next to a program of the 1910 Fireman's Ball at White River Junction (Music by Nevers' Second Regiment Orchestra for all the new dances including the Portland Fancy, Barn Dance, and Newport Galop) and other nostalgic trivia, I found a yellow clipping from the Boston Herald of February 28, 1910, listing the results of the first college ski races, as follows:

WINTER FIELD DAY FOR GREEN

HANOVER, N. H., Feb. 26—Dartmouth's first winter field day to-day was a complete success. Ski jumping for style and distance—Won by A. T. Cobb '12; total points 214, distance 45'2"; F. H. Harris '11 second; points 188; distance 42'8". 100-yard dash on skis—Won by A. T. Cobb 'l2; F. H. Harris '11 2nd. Time 24 3/5s. 100-yard dash on snowshoes—Won by A. S. Holway '12; W. T. Jones '12 second; G. W. Wheeler '12 third. Time 20 1/5s. 220-yard dash on skis—Won by A. T. Cobb '12; F. H. Harris '11 second; V. C. Schellenberg '13 third. Time 32 1/5s. Interclass snowshoeing relay race—Won by Sophomores; Juniors second; Freshmen third. Time lm 21s. Cross-country on skis—Won by A. T. Cobb '12; H. B. Van Dyne '12 second; A. H. Lord '10 third. Time 23m. Cross-country on snowshoes—Won by W. T. Jones '12; A. S. Holway '12 second; B. B. Lyons '12 third. Time 20m 40s.

The above is copied word for word from the Herald story. How the late "Ty" Cobb could have won the 100-yard dash in 24 3/5 s. and the 230 in only 8 s. more is not clear but that is the way the Herald had it. Possibly the 220 was downhill.

Troy, Pa.

WILLIAM H. HAM '97, energetic class secretary for 1897, still has his teeth in the proposal of a face-lifting for Main Street and other sections of Hanover. In company with Vincent Merrill '33, landscape architect, he made a special trip to Hanover in February to discuss his ideas with town leaders. In this month's 1897 column he writes of his trip, certain conclusions reached, and some first-step action taken. To Dartmouth men interested in a more beautiful Hanover we recommend his column.