Political Investment

Bostonians remember Charlie Ponzi. He was the little man's financeer, the one who promised an impossibly high interest rate to anyone who would entrust their money to him, spent a little cash paying off the first installments, and then sat back while the public, its good sense overawed by its desire to be millionaires overnight, magnified his initial pittance into an imposing fund of capital. The inevitable bust left many scars, but apparently it all happened so long ago that people have forgotten what this sort of charlatanism looked like.

We say they must have forgotten, for, if not, they would recognize Senator McCarthy's telegram crusade for what it is. Like Ponzi, the Senator advertised of the big things to come. Like Ponzi, he invested a little something--the small effort required to elicit extremist telegrams from roughly .0002 percent of the nation. And like Ponzi, he now sits back while the public blows up this gaggle of telegrams into political support for him.

The most unsettling aspect of this similarity is the degree to which both depend for success on the same fact: the fact that a large portion of the public is so obsessed, in one case with the prospect of quick riches and in the other with detestation of Communism, that the baldest schemes and the wildest charges pass without a question. McCarthy's treatment of the China trade, his initial investment, is a good example. Understanding very well that the people are naturally troubled by the idea of one's allies trading with one's enemy, McCarthy has built himself a cover for exaggerating what arguments he has and ignoring all others.

As with all his charges, this one contains some truth. No doubt the China trade does help support the Chinese war effort. But to suggest, as McCarthy suggested, that China would be crippled by the withdrawal of this commerce is fatuous. It ignores Russia's ability to help China and China's ability to help itself. Worse, the Senator ignored with impunity the fact that this trade is a must for the Western nations which engage in it. Certainly there would be no such trade if those nations could do without it. If they were deprived of it, their war efforts in Malaya and Indo-China would be impaired or altogether barred, and America would either have to assume these burdens itself, pour more financial aid into England and France, or risk the loss of those vital Asian areas.

This is the least of it. McCarthy's policy of treating allies as satellites could only increase the willingness of those nations to cut loose from the United States to remove their industries, and above all, their man power, their skills and abilities, their industries, and above all their devotion to freedom into the neutral camp. Laying aside the moral wretchedness and the short-sightedness of such a course, it is still fool-hardy: for, while increasing the drain on America's men and money, it would not deter the China trade in the slightest.

For all of this, however, the fact remains that McCarthy's telegram crusade has become an issue and will probably remain one. Can anything be done to counter it? Unlike the case of Ponzi, there can indeed--if only moderate elements, the people who do not ordinarily rip off letters at the drop of a charge, will make an effort. It is a simple matter for everyone who approves of the Administration to set down their "I Like" and mail it. One would prefer that the matter not be further blown up by a handful of "I Like" and "I Don't Like" letters; but, that being impossible, the least one can do is use the distortion against the distorters.