Anything for votes, for votes are power. That's the American way. Roosevelt offers a stick of candy, while Willkie promises Churchill's "Sweat, tears, and blood". People prefer taffy.(1)
The foreign policy of each is essentially the same because both serve the same masters. One must go to Lord Lothian's British quarterly, The Round Table, to find in advance a forecast of what American policy and opinion is to be. (cf Buls #7, 22, 41, 44)
In the September issue, just arrived, the suppositious American writes, "Roosevelt or Willkie . . . will go just as far in the direction of aid to Britain as public opinion will permit him. . . . The larger mass of national opinion is still . . . strong enough to block really forthright and speedy action in aid of Britain. The sale or transfer of the destroyers . . . would be a bold step, only slightly behind actual belligerency. . . . American policy flows along and responds primarily to events in Europe, secondarily only to domestic politics. The same will be true after election day. . . . Suppose we decide to transport and convoy refugee ships; suppose one is sunk."
Sinkings, after all our scares, have failed to bring us in. But when the flag is fired on, that's another thing. Political considerations may determine whether this will be before or after election. It is within the President's power to put the flag where such an incident is sure to occur. Roosevelt croons, "I hate war now more than ever",(2) Willkie chants, "I'll never lead the U. S. into war".(3) Wilson entered upon war expecting to offer moral and economic aid, but prepared to send a million men. "It was not necessary to desire the war in order to bring it to a head, if only care was taken to make the preparations so complete as to make war unavoidable", Veblen sapiently observed.(4)
Promoting this war with Roosevelt are his once hated 'economic royalists'. Their press is all for war, and ominously is more completely for Willkie, 90%, than it was for Landon, 80%. Working for war, paradoxically, they prevent Willkie's election, insure Roosevelt's.
Newspaper and radio commentators have been given the same slant. In a symposium of Washington correspondents, only one, Kenneth Crawford, declared the election would go as in 1936. The others wrinkled their brows, dodged the issue, or plumped for Willkie.
Scribner's Commentator almost alone is countering Washington and