And none so poor to do him reverence.”
Several times McNeil referred deferentially to Cheng, who is one of the greatest living Chinese philosophers, as “Mr. Ambassador.” At length, the gentle old man asked politely, “How can you still call me ‘Mr. Ambassador?’” McNeil replied, “Once an Ambassador, always an Ambassador.” The Chinese scholar hesitated a moment and then said, “In my country, we have a similar saying, ‘Once a friend, always a friend.’ Homage to force and violence is a dangerous thing. If you worship Caesar, you will die by Caesar. Why must you bury us while we are still very much alive? One day you will need us again.”
Chapter IX
Quo Vadis?
The dangers facing the United States and the countries friendly to us are becoming increasingly serious. We must recognize the fact that, as individuals, we are as responsible for what is happening today as were the people living peacefully at one time under Hitler, Hirohito and Stalin, and whom we heartily condemn for having allowed disastrous conditions to develop and get beyond their control.
Concerning the forces building up around us and the world today, we are still far too apathetic and complacent. Much of the responsibility for this must, of necessity, be placed upon our leadership. We know that America is the one bastion of freedom left in the world today, and that continued strength in it reflects the hope of the world—that is, of the free peoples of the world as well as those behind iron curtains everywhere who now know the true meaning of slavery which was sold to them in the guise of “security.”
Remaining strong entails a price. What is it? To me, above all, it requires faith in God, faith in our fellow man and faith in ourselves and other individuals of personal integrity. Meanwhile, we must first keep strong our foundations of initiative, self-reliance and individual responsibility for our actions with respect to our duties to our own country.
Unfortunately many people in America have believed the Henry Wallace theory that it was an “over-abundance” or “excessive production” which brought on the depression of the Thirties, or that has or ever could, cause any depression. But this is not true. Economists tell us today that “misdirected production, plus misdirected and over-stimulated consumption” aided our previous downfall, and that it was an abuse of our credit, both at home and abroad. But what does this mean? Was part of our trouble then, as now, caused by too many loans to foreign countries for goods bought here, and an abuse of credit to consumers (you and me) here at home? This did bring on the boom of the late Twenties and also the terrific maladjustment which the depression of the Thirties should have corrected, but which it could not, under the circumstances existing then. The “over-abundance” or “excess savings” theory—that we had so much that we could well afford to give it away—is dangerously misleading. It was invented to justify unwise, if not calculated, giving to foreign countries with the resultant weakening of our own country to a point where Social Security and many other “social laws,” including the limitation of productive effort were adopted as expediencies here at home. Outright charity to people has, throughout history, tended to destroy their moral fiber. Proud people will not, moreover, accept charity and will be determined to work out their own salvation. Finland is just such an example. Contrast that country’s attitude with France today, and even with England.
Our country, America, has always been a philanthropic one. No one, in his right mind, could or ever has, questioned the humanitarian feelings of the American body politic, but unless our assistance is selective and well timed, it cannot bring permanent relief, nor can it accomplish worthwhile objectives.
There are some who say that America has always had a hit-or-miss approach to most of her problems, and that Lady Luck has been on our side. This also is not quite so. In the 19th Century, we had a relatively free competitive society—not perfect, of course, but the best we’d ever had. The laws which govern human nature under a government of limited powers, such as we had under the Constitution before we began changing it, operated then. During that period these laws governing human nature were patterned on a system of checks and balances, remarkably similar to those dictated by God to Moses at Mount Sinai. The hit-or-miss approach became apparent only when we began to turn to government “to relieve us from our mistakes under freedom.”