Harvard's dominant majority, however, stand firmly behind the "moderate liberalism" of both major parties. As "Northern Democrats" or "Modren Republicans," they silently support the stock solution to a growing list of problems: call on Washington. Of course, Federal action may be the best (and in some cases, the only) solution to many modern-day challenges--but this is not the point. That this stock answer and similar slogans are passively accepted by many "moderate liberals"--often without intellectual study of the economic and political implications involved for our society, but in smug and self-satisfied silence --this is the danger. By his willingness to "go along," the "moderate liberal" in name becomes the Respectable Radical in practice.
Stated briefly, reaction to the political challenge has divided undergraduates into two distinct groups: Blissful Indifference, and Ineffective Desperation. No one takes the latter group very seriously. In response to the conservative plea, most students assert simply that "you can't turn back the clock"; in reply to the radical demand, the majority insist that it is dangerous to "upset the applecart." This leaves the potent majority of the Center, the drifting "moderates."
Of course, the prevailing state of Blissful Indifference is not entirely the student's fault. Finding himself confronted with intellectual dilemma, he can either assert without adequate knowledge, or remain silent and ineffective. In addition to appearing the lesser of these two evils, silence is also easier.
If the student hopes to speak--or even think--about politics intelligently he must face three baffling problems. First, the fact that politics is becoming increasingly complicated, and second, its effects are becoming more and more explosive. As a mode of debate, argument-by-slogan is more dangerous than ever before, and as a mode of operation, policy-by-experimentation is less feasible. Thirdly, as the magnitude of political problems multiplies, the authority responsible for their solution becomes progressively concentrated. Faced with complex, crucial issues, and an imposing, impersonal government, students are at a loss to understand how they can act, if at all.
Perhaps this explains why most student groups for political study end in quick failure. After one or two enthusiastic meetings, most members realize that they lack both the time and the special competence to gain an adequate understanding of, say, the disarmament issue--the variety of plans involved, their implications, the history of negotiations, the forces at work on the participants.
Moreover, some of the most serious young students of politics hesitate to commit themselves to any proposal, platform, or program. It is well said of most College petitions on national matters that "those who sign don't read, and those who do read the don't sign." Though the the scattered remnants of McCarthyism account for some of this fear, it is both childish and self-deceptive to place even most of the blame on the late demagogue from Wisconsin. A large number of students remain politically naive, and of those who have studied the issues, many prefer to keep silent until they have learned more.
Faced with these compound difficulties, Harvard's political clubs offer a variety of programs--education in political technique, research on a prominant issue, an attempt to gain "influence within the body politic," and group discussion of a mutual political stand. But at least four-fifths of the College, ignoring these programs, stays away from the network of political clubs. Of the remaining one-fifth who belong, only a minority are active.
Uninterested in defending an imaginative political position, and perhaps largely unable to do so, the overwhelming majority assume the only political stance that needs no defense--that of the "moderate liberal." Haughtily denouncing conservatives as "crackpots" and radicals as "fanatics," these squatters in the "middle-of-the-road" bestow their silent blessing on almost any proposal that carries the "liberal" label. Some of these proposals are wise, but others the not.
It is difficult not to admire those "middle-of-the-roaders" who have, by serious intellectual effort, earned for themselves a place in the camp of the genuine "moderate liberals." But for squatters there is little defense