What I Think

It's good to see that Adlai Stevenson, despite exhortations from some of his supporters to pitch his campaign this time on a less "intellectual" and more "popular" level, is not only appearing once more as the author of a book, but that he has even dared to include the word "think" in the title. To many this will seem like political hari-kari, or cutting off one's own egghead. If Mr. Stevenson should become President this year, however, his literary activity could bring a new dimension into politics. One can envision future campaigns in which best-seller lists carry more weight than Gallup polls, and during which the Senate might be appalled to discover that political interests have been distributing $2,000 "gifts" to various book reviewers.

Mr. Stevenson's current work, however, is not long on literary orginality. What I Think is a selection of the Democratic leader's speeches and writings since 1952, and as such contains nothing that some listeners or readers in the country have not already encountered. Even the introduction, in which the author describes the role he has tried to play as "titular head" of an opposition party, and which is the only "new" piece in the book, turns out to be a rather faithful rehash of Mr. Stevenson's article in this February's issue of Harper's Magazine.

Yet What I Think easily makes up in variety what it lacks in absolute originality. Indeed, if the book does nothing else, it demonstrates Mr. Stevenson's remarkable ability to speak wisely, urbanely, and appropriately on a wide variety of topics in a wide variety of tones. To audiences ranging from the readers of Fortune to the Democratic National Committee to the senior class of Smith College, and on subjects as varied as the farm problem, the Republicans' "twenty years of treason" charge, United States relations with Canada, and "This I Believe," Mr. Stevenson is uniformly eloquent. This wide diversity of subject and approach contributes substantially to the book's readability.

So too does the renowned Stevenson with, which asserts itself primarily in the straight political speeches with quips like: "The Republicans have been in office for twenty months--or long enough to elect Maine's first Democratic governor in twenty years." There is also Mr. Stevenson's less famous but equally impressive facility with the serious metaphor, which allows him to describe the sub-standard, depressed areas of the American economy as "stagnant pools into which the tide of prosperity has failed to flow."

In general, the intellectual content of Mr. Stevenson's writings might be characterized as halfway between a brilliant social science lecture and a routine political speech: while rarely attaining the insights of the former, the author constantly displays a greater understanding and soundness of thought than is usually found in the latter. Four years after his appearance on the national political scene, Mr. Stevenson's intellect still marks him as an extraordinary politician.

The Democratic candidate's political views themselves are best described as moderately liberal. He says little that any member of the Democratic Party would oppose, and even when he attacks the Eisenhower Administration, it is a question not of what the nation's policy should be, but of whether or not the President has adhered to the course which is supported by Democrats and Republicans alike. Typically, the Stevenson solution for the farm problem is merely to try harder than the Republicans have tried, using any available means--including 90 percent price supports if necessary--to boost the farmer's income. The G.O.P. "made off with the Democratic farm plank" in 1952, Mr. Stevenson contends, but "returned it immediately after the election." On other main issues of his current campaign, such as the Administration's "giveaway" of public resources, its favoritism toward big business, and its "rattling of the saber" in world affairs, the author similarly charges that the G.O.P. has renounced the Democrat-inspired policies on which it rode into office.

The disappointing thing about Mr. Stevenson's views lies not so much in what he says as in what he leaves unsaid. Almost all his opinions seem designed to fit neatly within the currently-accepted range of alternatives and to avoid any issues that might be too unorthodox politically. Thus he says virtually nothing about the segregation problem, and gives no definite idea of whether he, as President, would recognize Communist China or support its membership in the United Nations. Similarly, his views on "Medicine and Public Policy" stress the great need for improved service but fail even to consider the advantages or disadvantages that socialized medicine might have for the United States.

Yet while Mr. Stevenson hedges on these important political issues, he is refreshingly aware and outspoken about such intellectual concerns as the threat of thought conformity--the victory of "the army of mass mediocrity, with banners flying," led by "the neo-heathens." What I Think is thus a very unusual book. Published by a Presidential candidate in the middle of his campaign, it reveals a unique combination of political realism with an unsurrendered intellectual idealism. Yet although the book reviewers may speak now, the real judgement must await next November.