William Howard Taft is an amiable gentleman. There is so much to agree with in the world that he seldom finds it possible to disagree with anything. It is a very comfortable attitude for one to assume, but it doesn’t push the world along. Real harmony is wrung out of discord by laboring against disagreeable facts; it is not achieved by mere pit-pats on the back of untoward conditions.
There is no doubt that had one approached William Howard Taft a year ago and said: “Mr. Taft you know there are evil forces in the world which ought to be resisted,” he would have replied, “Certainly, by all means.”
If one had said, “Mr. Taft, some of this evil is just ignorant inclination, which can be dealt with by various means of enlightenment, but some of it represents a deliberate philosophy which has gathered about itself a definite organization for action,” he would have responded: “I am afraid it is true.”
And then had one said: “Mr. Taft, the people should be made aware of this, given a key to it, that they may keep their eyes open and learn the meaning of certain tendencies that have puzzled them,” he would in all likelihood have replied, “I believe in enlightening the public mind that it may take care of itself.”
Suppose you had added: “Mr. Taft, if you found a written program setting forth the steps to be taken to fasten a certain control on society, and if on looking about you observed a definite set of tendencies which seemed to parallel the program at every point, would it appear to you significant?”
Mr. Taft would, of course, answer, Yes. There is no other answer to make. No other answer has been made by anyone who has compared the two things.
If Mr. Taft had been approached first on that side of the question, he would have uttered words very valuable to those who would attach value to his words.
But what has Mr. Taft’s “testimonial” to do with either side of the case? Does his support strengthen it, or does his opposition weaken it? If it came to a battle of names, THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT could present a very imposing list of men who acknowledge the importance of the studies being made, and who agree with most of the observations presented. But such a list would add nothing to the facts in the case, and facts must stand on their own foundation regardless of the attitude of Mr. Taft, or even Mr. Arthur Brisbane.
But there is a very interesting story about Mr. Taft and the Jews. Mr. Taft knows it and can verify it. A number of American Jews also know it. And it may perhaps be useful to tell it now.
However, that we may not seem too desirous of evading Mr. Taft’s latest defense of the Jews, we shall begin with that.
Unduly stirred by this series of studies, the leading Jews of the United States indicated by their perturbation that the truth in these articles made it impossible to ignore them. Perhaps as many people have been inclined toward agreement with the articles by the attitude of the Jews themselves as by the statements made in the articles. Jewish defense has been made with great formality and show of authority, but without the hoped-for effect. The Jews of the United States, evidently finding that their own statements have failed to carry, are making a wholesale conscription of Gentiles for the purposes of defense. As in Russia, the Gentiles are being pushed into the firing lines.
Mr. Taft was therefore approached with a proposition. That was some time ago, probably about November first.
Now, according to Mr. Taft’s own signed statement made on November 1, he had not even read THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT’s articles but was taking the Jews’ word for their character and contents. And yet, on December 23, we find Mr. Taft in Chicago at the La Salle Hotel, delivering an oration before the B’nai B’rith, uttering his statements with all the finality of a man who has made a deep study of the Jewish Question and had at last attained a mature conclusion.
On November 1, Mr. Taft wrote to a New York Jew deprecating these articles as “a foolish pronouncement which I understand has been issued through THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT.” The expression, “which I understand,” is equivalent in ordinary speech to “which I have heard.” He had not read them. He was taking hearsay on which to base his opinion. There are signs that he had not read them even at the time of his speech in Chicago, for he did not so much as allude to one of the startling parallels which have weighed on the minds of many important men in this country.