Dear
Monsignor McCarthy:1 I have been privileged to read the very thoughtful letter you wrote under date of April twelfth to our distinguished Vice President, Dick Nixon.2 The penetrating good sense of your letter so impresses me that I am moved to ask you about one item in it that I do not understand. It is contained in your fourth paragraph and implies a philosophical resignation on the part of the present Administration to accept defeat in its purpose of leading the country toward greater internal and external strength and security. Were we so resigned I would have to admit a readiness to leave to history the right to decide whether or not the general ideas of the Administration in this year of Our Lord 1954 were eminently sound and correct.3
Possibly, of course, it is difficult for a person in my position to be completely objective, but if I am as aware as I think I am of what is going on around me, the exact opposite of your suspicion is correct. While current thinking and planning within the Federal government must necessarily be guided by long range estimates, objectives and aspirations--and, to this extent, influenced by our visualization of the future--this certainly does not imply a passive attitude toward the problems of the day. Should we not rather conclude that the ultimate attainment of the legitimate aspirations of our people should be the almost exclusive preoccupation of the people who are the responsible officials of government?
Of course I am pleased at the tribute you pay to John Foster Dulles; your opinion agrees exactly with mine.4 But you talk about "waiting for Joe to subside." Actually the firm intention--even if at times poorly executed--of the Administration and of a considerable group of close legislative supporters, is to ignore sideshows and irritating individual efforts to gain the spotlight while they proceed to develop a program designed to increase the spiritual, intellectual, economic and military strength of America. In spite of unworthy claimants for the headlines, our hope is to convince the world, at least that part of it that is still classed as free, that only through cooperative action characterized by fairness, justice and determination can humankind achieve its legitimate goals.5
This work goes on day by day behind the scenes, in public statements, and in formulation of legislative recommendations. It is not the work merely of one man, but of a devoted group of men and women. Admittedly it does not achieve the predominance in the public press or in the statements of the commentators that its importance would indicate, but the participants in the work seek results for America rather than publicity for themselves.
In view of this belief of mine, I would truly value an explicit statement of the incidents and items on which you base the conclusions reached in your paragraphs three and four. I would hope that, if you give me the favor of a reply, you will be completely frank. I assure you that honest and thoughtful criticism is something on which I place the highest value.6
With best wishes, Sincerely
