Search

Almost two years ago "The Nation" called for a "new politics." While the phrase continues to echo among the politically alienated, little substance has been added to convert the phrase from a plea into a direction. The disjuncture between the present style of politics and the requirements of the contemporary scientific - economic - organizational structure of society has been made clear, but the content of a new style of politics is still unspecified. Most discussions center on the question of what issues a new politics should deal with and how these issues--civil rights, unemployment, peace, etc . - should be resolved.

The article focuses on the crisis in Cuba because of the offer of missiles by Soviet Union to Fidel Castro, Prime Minister of Cuba. Russians were merely creating a bargaining position by giving missiles to Castro. The American response, in turn, also involved a very serious risk of nuclear war had there been the slightest miscalculation by either side. It is plain that considerations of the utmost seriousness for the whole cold war were involved. Some commentators suggest Russians aimed at creating a bargaining position in which they might trade Cuba for Berlin, Germany or at least for American bases in such countries as Turkey.

The period since mid-1961 has seen the greatest proliferation of peace activities since the 1930's perhaps in the history of the United States. Reasons are not hard to find: Berlin, Germany crisis, the deterioration in the United Nations, and the Soviet test resumption. But the author thinks the major reason is the realization, yet hazy for many, that powerful elements in American society are mentally and morally capable of starting a nuclear war, or at least of knowingly taking actions involving the highest risk of one. Until this recent period, the peace movement had consisted of in-group stimulations by disparate groups ranging from pacifists to one-worlders.