╥You know, you English can probably understand Carter better than Americans can. He╒s gentry. He╒s the squire of Plains. He does not speak for the rural proletariat, but for the once impoverished gentry of the South.╙ I. F. ╥Izzy╙ Stone has closed down his Weekly, but his incisive views are readily available.
He is appalled at the ╥sentimental mush╙ which passes for serious comment on Carter even in hard-nosed publications like the New York Review of Books and impatient with the obsessive speculation about the personalities who will be involved in the succession ╤ ╥The likeliest man to follow Dr K,╙ etc., etc.
Stone has a keener instinct than many of the pundits downtown. He has not yet been to Carter╒s home town of Plains, Georgia, but has read enough to sense its economic and social structure more accurately than the authors of some of the frothy descriptive pieces in the American press. ╥Carter owns the grocery store and the warehouse and the seed establishment, and most of the land. And sure, he╒s nice to the blacks. That╒s genuine, I believe. The gentry always were nicer to the blacks than the poor whites were. But that doesn╒t keep him from exploiting them as share croppers and tenant farmers and workers. I don╒t see that Carter likes to pay them more than the minimum wage. His attitude to labour is very much that of the rural capitalist.╙
What does he think of Carter╒s team of senior advisers on foreign policy? ╥Well there╒s a little group of corporation lawyers, bankers, and ex-military men around the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. They seem to crop up as the experts on foreign policy in every administration.
╥They were the architects of the Vietnam war. Some of them very belatedly tried to get us out of there, but I don╒t think they represent anything new. They have so many Protean disguises ╤ the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, and so on. They are really branches of the Bankers╒ Club in New York City. I╒m not saying they╒re bad people or wicked or terribly benighted. But they╒re the core of American imperialism. Some are more intelligent than others; some are more flexible. I don╒t see them as very different from Kissinger.╙
To those who wonder at the speed with which the country absorbed defeat in Vietnam, Stone replies that it was a small defeat and people learnt only a small lesson. But it was encouraging that the lesson came out briefly in the debate over Angola, and Congress╒s refusal to be stampeded into war.
Carter-watchers have spilled a good deal of ink on the answers Carter gives to this audience compared with that one, what he proclaims here, what he proclaims there. Izzy Stone draws attention to what Carter does not say. He rarely mentions Angola and does not say he heartedly approves of what Congress did. ╥He might say, ╘If the Russians were fool enough to get involved in Africa, let them. They will be sorry later.╒ What he actually says really implies a variant of Kissinger╒s machismo policy. If the other great power challenges you anywhere, you either pick up the chip or look like you╒ve backed down. Carter says he would have used every means at his command, including an embargo on food, to force the Russians out. In other words he would have had a more complete confrontation.╙
Stone is afraid that Carter ╥may be another of those Democratic types that got us into war before. The Democrats tend to be more aggressive in office than the Republicans, for one thing because they╒re so sensitive to the charge of being soft on Communism. When the Republicans are in power, power sobers them.╙
Stone also finds Carter╒s use of anti-government issues disturbing. It distracts attention from what he sees as the real issue which is the enormous power of the presidency that has grown throughout the Cold War under Democrats as well as Republicans. Just saying ╥trust me╙ ╤ well, Nixon said that.
Sometimes Stone may sound like a cynic. He would like to be an optimist and join the herd of wishful thinkers on Carter but his innate scepticism is too strong. Several times he comes back to the basic point that Democratic and Republican administrations are very similar, and that it would be foolish to expect much change either way. When he was a daily newspaperman, one of his bosses pointed out a saying which he has never forgotten. The Republicans give big business 100 per cent cooperation. The Democrats can give them 95 per cent but get damned for the 5 per cent difference.
╥The Democratic Party is a vehicle for social reform in periods of great unrest. But today there is no consensus for reform. When Roosevelt spoke he referred to a nation one third ill-clothed, ill-housed, ill-fed. Now it╒s one fifth. The forms of discontent are fragmented and contradictory but the coincidence of race and poverty is terribly bad for the country. To the extent that Carter offers some hope of overcoming the racial split, it╒s good but it╒s still largely emotional and cosmetic.╙
Stone is sadly convinced that many of the country╒s problems will continue under the Democrats. ╥Tax reform was being blocked in Congress by the Democrats. They had a chance to outlaw the CIA and did not. No one really had the answer but it would be refreshing to have somebody speak with more candour instead of all that Sunday school stuff.╙
Once again Stone repeats his refrain, ╥Look, Carter may be all right, I don╒t know. It╒s a gamble. It╒s a pig in a poke. You can╒t have a campaign that costs millions of dollars without it setting limits. You can╒t stray very far off the path. All we can do is hope.╙
