Qui Bono? [To Whose Benefit?] (15 May 1981)
[Submitted as a "Readertorial" to the Holland Sentinel]

On February 20, 1981, Dr. Renze Hoeksema [a professor of political science at Hope College, Holland, Mich., at the time] wrote the guest editorial "Blessed are the Peacemakers," to which I replied on February 27th. On April 28th, in the same messianic spirit, repeating the same note on his trumpet, he printed "SALT Must Not Lose Its Savor." I want to answer his appeal, which again is simplifying the problem into American-Russian nuclear agreement, forgetting the various problems in today's complexity of international relationships which SALT alone cannot eliminate or solve.

First of all, I would like to comment on some points of Dr. Hoeksema's editorial.

It is surprising that a man with a doctorate degree (supposedly an intellectual) would make definite statements without proof as to accuracy. Dr. Hoeksema did this when he said, about President Reagan's first year in office: "1981 ... is not going to be a successful year for those who would like to see corruption, dope, delays, cost overruns, and huge sums of unspent money already in the Defense Department eliminated." He may be right because it takes time to clean up the mess created by previous Administrations, but it cannot, at this early date, be accepted as a fact. I always thought that to foresee the future is the business of fortune tellers, but not of a political science professor who should operate with facts. I also wonder if Dr. Hoeksema, who apparently is so concerned with the conditions in the Defense Department, did raise his voice when the state of affairs there first began to deteriorate under the previous Administrations?

Dr. Hoeksema is unhappy with the expected "record peacetime defense budgets" and uses as emotional argument those suffering "truly poor, elderly, and those least able to defend themselves." There is a definite difference between supporting the truly poor (which the present Administration is doing) and maintaining a welfare state (in which some of the so-called poor prefer lifetime government handouts to productive activity). In addition, Dr. Hoeksema avoids completely (probably as inconvenient to his points of view) a comparison of figures for military spending versus social expenditure. For instance:

[Percentages are of the given year's total expenditures. Source: Office of Management and Budget.] These figures speak for themselves and throw a different light on this matter.

I see a lack of accuracy (not appropriate for a man with a doctorate) in Dr. Hoeksema's statement that the SALT II process was interrupted by the invasion of Afghanistan. As a matter of fact, the SALT process was practically dead before that invasion. Also, I want to comment on the "loyal officials" who negotiated the SALT II treaty over seven years. At least one of those negotiators was considered by some knowledgable Americans to be almost a traitor to our interests, causing for sure one of the others to resign in disgust about the direction those negotiations went. I am not surprised about the resignation, considering that over 1600 retired American generals, admirals, and other military people and specialists (after becoming familiar with the details of the agreement) signed a petition to reject SALT, calling it a sellout, which is quite understandable because of the figures presented to the Senate from another source during the SALT discussion.

There is another flaw in Dr. Hoeksema's presentation. He declares that "militarily, economically, politically, and spiritually, we are ahead." At a later place he says, "the Administration believes that we have fallen behind the Russians ... we attempt to play 'catch-up'." It should be remembered that the government's information comes from specialists like Chiefs of Staff, etc., and is not just Dr. Hoeksema's personal opinion and assurance. With whole respect to Dr. Hoeksema, I rather think the Administration is right and not he.

Dr. Hoeksema is in disagreement with the two ladies observed at the Arlington Cemetery, and in indirect connection with them, he talks about "unthinking patriotism" and "ideological baggage of excessive patriotism." It seems that Dr. Hoeksema is on completely opposing poles to those ladies, juggling and bending facts and feelings as he needs them to support his personal and, oh, so different views, which make his editorial almost acceptable for printing in the Russian newspapers Pravda and Red Star. He reminds me of another "good American," former U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young, who spit publicly on America. My opinion is that "too much" American patriotism is definitely better than none!

Dr. Hoeksema admits that there should be linkage between SALT and Russian behavior. If he thinks so, how can he advocate that we resume discussions with the Russian bandits now even though the situation in Afghanistan still exists? It is the Afghanistan and other similar problems that guide President Reagan in deciding not to resume discussions at the present time. Reading Dr. Hoeksema's article where he refers to "linkage," one would assume that this is exactly what he is talking about, but then ... why does he attack the Administration for postponing new discussions?

Now to Dr. Hoeksema's last emotional appeal that "we must even take risks in our efforts to bring down the balance of forces between the Soviets and the U.S. There is no alternative to SALT." That is exactly what guided previous Administrations, and because of that, our military strength is reduced; because of that, we are inferior to Russia; because of that, we have Russian troops in Cuba; because of that, we have Afghanistan, and, and.... I pity Dr. Hoeksema that he can see only this one and indeed risky solution. There are other alternatives, and the best seems to be peace through strength.

* * *

Now, a few stories which, though not relevant at first glance, will shed a different light on the problem.

During World War II, there were Polish broadcasts from London, manned by two Jewish gentlemen. One day, the following conversation was aired:

Mr. Aprikosenkrans: Did you hear the joyful news? The Americans developed suuuuch a bomb, an atom bomb, which, when dropped, will destroy everybody!
Mr. Unterbaum: What is so good about that?
Mr. Aprikosenkrans: Don't you understand that this is the first time that not only the little people will perish, but the big shots, too?

This can very well be applied to the attitude of many nations in the world today....

Then there was, also during World War II, a professor from a Chicago university who, after thorough study, "discovered" and declared that the similarity between the American and Soviet constitutions is really amazing. But how about interpretation and application?! It is a pity that a professor, showing such mediocre knowledge, is allowed to use the authority of his title and position to poison the mind of his students and the public at large and, while collecting his salary in American dollars, works as a Russian fifth columnist....

At another time I heard about the idealistic motivation of the traitor Rosenberg, namely: he gave the atom bomb secrets to Russia because he worried that America, being the only country having the atom bomb, might decide to dictate pax Americana to the world (I ask, what would have been wrong with that?), and by giving the secrets to Russia he wanted, in the name of humanitarianism, to maintain the balance of power!

Thinking of that "humanitarian," I am reminded of the "compassionate" views of our previous peanut-farmer President, who, for instance, leaked the "Stealth" secret, sold to the American people the assurance he received from Comrade Brezhnev that the Russian troops in Cuba do not mean any danger for America, and disarmed America to a catastrophically low level....

Now I want to quote from a letter from Congressman J.L.B. [no indication of who is meant here - Webmaster], in which he repeats the teachings of one of his professors from Harvard University, the breeding-ground of liberals:

I don't give a s— about American history. I don't give a damn about facts or dates or any of that traditional crap. Hell, I don't even know what year the Civil War began. As far as I'm concerned, that type of history just plays along with the right-wing fascists who run this country ... the very people I'm dedicated to overthrowing.

Here again, such kind of professors are molding the minds of our young people. It is no wonder that they are demonstrating, not realizing that they are being used and manipulated by liberal professors in the service of Russian (and not American) interests.

* * *

After having said all the above, I am now ready to touch on the example used by Dr. Hoeksema: the destruction of Chicago. Unconsciously I draw in my mind a parallel picture from the history of churches, centuries ago. First the clergymen would draw the most gruesome pictures of hell to scare the people, and on the such-prepared ground they would then put the seeds of "God is good," and "forgiveness," etc.... Dr. Hoeksema uses this method to sell his personal point of view: First the scare with the picture of Chicago, and then the sale of SALT. By the way, I would have preferred it if he would have used Moscow instead of Chicago in his example, but maybe Dr. Hoeksema would rather destroy Chicago than Moscow?....

Now an extract from a reprint from Remnant Review:

The danger is defeat, not destruction! If the Soviet Union were to inflict a nuclear first strike upon the United States, well over 90% of the American people would read about the attack in their newspapers, or hear about it on radio or TV.

Soviet weapons are made especially to destroy American weapons — to defeat America while killing very few Americans and leaving our economy intact. Simply put, the Soviet Union is not out to destroy us, but to defeat us.

After being defeated by the Soviets, most Americans might wish that Armageddon had come instead.

The above article is not only minimizing the terror of the destruction picture painted by Dr. Hoeksema, but it is touching a completely different aspect of Russia's intention of which Dr. Hoeksema does not seem to be aware: to defeat America, and what Russia has in store for the defeated Americans. It is a pity that Dr. Hoeksema did not have an opportunity to speak with Mr. Solzhenitsyn or Mr. Sakharov. If he had, I am sure, he would have never written as he did.

I am very much for peace and disarmament, real peace and fully controlled disarmament for everybody, and I do not care if you call it SALT or whatever. But ... today, besides America and Russia, nuclear weapons have already been developed, or will soon be available, in China, France, India, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, South Africa, and probably other countries, too. It seems to me that these countries will not accept Dr. Hoeksema's prescription for world peace through an American-Russian agreement; they will not feel obliged to be bound by a treaty between America and Russia when their own freedom and interests are threatened (and that according to their own judgement and not America's opinion). Those countries, having much more patriotism, spirit, and guts than America, will not hesitate to use all means available to them and that, most probably, would automatically involve the two superpowers and also, immediately, China....

Also, there is another very important question to which I would like to have Dr. Hoeksema's straight answer: what about the Yalta agreement which America made with Russia, knowing full well that the Russians murdered in cold blood 14,000 Polish officers (their hands wire-bound in their backs, and shot in the back of their heads)? This agreement was treason committed on the Atlantic Charter, as a consequence of which about 34 million Poles, 30 million East Germans, 14 million Czechoslovakians, 11 million Hungarians and many others were given as a gift by a "great" moral(?) American President into Russian slavery. How will Dr. Hoeksema's SALT solve the consequences of that dirty agreement? If you say that SALT has nothing to do with that, I will reply that any possible (questionable) peace reached would be a "peace at any price," a peace that tramples justice underfoot. And how would any agreement, without amending the previous wrongdoings, fit into the picture of America being a leader in the pursuit of freedom and liberty? I do not believe that the spirit of the Bible teachings allows the building of one's own happiness on the unhappiness of others, especially when, like in this case, America caused the unhappiness of many other nations.

Indeed, I would rather see that political science professors in American universities would not advocate to the American youth appeasement and immorality, but teach them about moral courage and how to make America great, so that we will become again the defender of freedom and liberty not only in America, but in the entire world.

"Comrade" Brezhnev, at the Communist Party Congress in Prague in 1973, said:

We are achieving with detente what our predecessors have been unable to achieve with the mailed fist. Trust us, comrades, for by 1985, as a consequence ... we will have achieved most of our objectives in Western Europe. We will have consolidated our position. We will have improved our economy. And a decisive shift in the [balance] of forces will be such that come 1985, we will be able to exert our will wherever we need to. [Emphasis added]

Having read the above, and remembering the thousand-times-repeated Russian phrase about World Revolution (read "domination"!), does Dr. Hoeksema really believe that Russia would respect a SALT treaty?

Believe me, I am still in favor of discussion, peace, but only according to a free adaptation of a famous statement: do not be afraid to discuss peace, but do not discuss peace because "you have your pants full." I believe only in peace through strength.

I wonder why all the self-proclaimed peacemakers, SALT supporters, and demonstrators (against the military draft, defense, nuclear power, etc.) do not try to convince the Russian leadership to disarmament and brotherhood? Why do they not send their letters and articles to Pravda or [other Communist journals]? I am sure that all American peacemakers and demonstrators, after trying to make peace or demonstrate in Russia, would upon their return to America change their attitude completely (like years ago, the Black Panther "warrior" who, after his return to America from Cuba and Russia, declared that he would rather be in an American prison than to live in Russia). I am sure that those returnees, instead of poisoning the minds of our young people in the service of the enemy, would write and demonstrate for a strong America, and for Peace through Strength and justice for all.

I strongly urge Dr. Hoeksema to thoroughly reevaluate his views, and to realize that the ones he has published (and probably taught) are damaging and spiritually disarming his students, and are destructive to the future of America.

My last comment: "I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the end for your right to say it and for me to oppose it" (attributed to Voltaire). Our American Constitution allows you and me free speech, and it is in our power to preserve this freedom. Do not cut the branch on which you sit....

Return to Home Page