The American nation was born of the struggle between colonial legislatures elected by the people as their direct representatives and the executive power of the English king. It was to the colonial legislatures that the people of the Colonies looked for the defense of their liberties, and it was from their membership that most of the outstanding leaders of the American Revolution came. The Declaration of Independence was the work of the Continental Congress, an essentially legislative body, and until the formation of the Constitution the government of the American Republic consisted of that legislative body and of it alone. The deepest concern of the majority of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, as well as of the people whom they represented, was that the Constitution might set up toe strong an executive. They feared that such an executive might, as executives had done so frequently in the past, rob the people of their liberties and take unto himself powers inconsistent with the ideals for which the Revolutionary War had been fought.

In 1798, three years after the third partition of Poland, George Washington wrote to a friend of Thaddeus Kosciuszko: “That your country is not as happy as her efforts were patriotic and noble, is a misfortune which all the lovers of sensible liberty and rights of men deeply deplore; and were my prayers during that hard struggle of any good, you would be now under your own vine and fig tree, to quote the Bible, as happy in the enjoyments of these desirable blessings as the people of these United States enjoy theirs.” These words of the first President of the United States are the best possible introduction to this article written in 1945, on Washington's birthday.

Distrust and suspicion cloud the views of many on future relations with Soviet Russia. The perfunctory general praise of the Red Army and its successes cannot counteract or even eliminate this distrust which may, in the long run, exercise an important influence in world affairs. There are even some who believe that a war with Russia is at least probable, and whose minds are consciously or unconsciously obsessed by the fear of the Russian threat. They argue: in 1939 England went to war in order to prevent German domination in Europe; we were driven into the war by our help to England and by Japan's plan to dominate Asia—but what will be the result? The rise of a power, the USSR, which will try to dominate Europe as well as Asia—and perhaps even other continents. Prime Minister Churchill is simply not believed when he claims that we can trust the Soviet leaders. The causes of this lack of confidence in Russia must be frankly stated; for only considering first the proofs for that pessimism which does not believe in the possibility of a lasting cooperation with Russia, can a solidly optimistic attitude be justified.

At The present time, reason is not held in any too great esteem; “rationalism” is deprecated in most intellectual circles. “To believe in reason” is to be behind the times, to give evidence of a mode of thinking that is out of date, out of contact with what today is called “progress.”

The “belief in reason” is now replaced by all sorts of psychological and sociological sciences: the psychology of the unconscious, of the subconscious, of behavior, of suppressed desires and conditioned reflexes. The variety of sociologies is no less disconcerting—not should we forget the sociological psychologies and the psychological sociologies. Formerly man was considered to be an animal rationale, a rational being; now he has become simply a vital being, not further qualified. Since man lives in community with his fellows, it was formerly the practice to inquire into the structure and organization which society ought to have in order to correspond to the rational and human nature of its members. But today no such question is raised; it is taken for granted that man, as a social animal, must adjust himself to his environment or suffer the consequence to his well-being and his happiness. It is no longer a question of whether one may or one should adjust oneself to certain social conditions: it is now only a question of what is the most effective means or technique of adjustment.

Is There a philosophy behind what we call Nazism? Humanists addicted to progress will resent this question as a sacrilege against the dignity of the human spirit. H. J. Laski seems to speak from the heart of the majority of anti-Nazis by refusing to look at Nazism and Fascism as anything else than a spiritless system of oppression in the service of monopolistic capitalism.

An Account of Newman's political thought must explain a paradox. Newman declared that the principal aim of his life was to combat religious liberalism; and however novel may have been his approach to many problems, no charge against the orthodoxy of his theological writings has ever been sustained. Yet Newman was considered dangerously liberal by many. A few years after Newman had been made a Cardinal, Lord Selborne, during an audience with Pope Leo XIII, chanced to mention the name of Newman. The Pope's face brightened. “It was not easy; no, it was not easy. They said he was too liberal; but I was determined to honour the Church by honouring Newman. I have always felt a deep veneration for him. I am proud that it has been given me to honour such a man.” In what sense could it be said of Newman that he was too liberal? A study of his political thinking will, I think, take one far toward an answer to the question.