At last Sunday, January 20, 1985, arrived (or, for two men in the world, returned) and the TV sets of the nation brought the people the Inaugural Address. Even the radio stations abandoned their usual local broadcasts of music and formed one of their very rare networks to carry this historical highpoint.
The Judge’s voice was firm, and his prose as noble as that of his dissenting or his possibly even greater majority opinions. Lanroyd and Cleve listened together, and together thrilled to the quietly forceful determination to wipe out every last vestige of the prejudices, hatreds, fears and suspicions fostered by the so-called American Party.
“A great man once said,” the Judge quoted in conclusion, “‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’ Now that a petty and wilful group of men have failed in their effort to undermine our very Constitution, I say to you: ‘We have one thing to destroy. And that is destruction itself!’ ”
And Lanroyd and Cleve beamed at each other and broached the bourbon.
From the journal of Peter Lanroyd, Ph.D.:
Sun Oct 20 85: Exactly 9 mos. Obstetrical symbolism yet?
Maybe I shd’ve seen it then, at this other inauguration. Read betw the lines, seen the meaning, the true inevitable meaning. Realized that the Judge was simply saying, in better words (or did they sound better because I thought he was on My Side?) what the Senator said in the inaugural we escaped: “I have a commission to wipe out the opposition.”
Maybe I shd’ve seen it when the Senator was arrested for inciting to riot. Instead I cheered. Served the sonofabitch right. (And it did, too. That’s the hell of it. It’s all confused . . .)
He still hasn’t been tried. They’re holding him until they can nail him for treason. Mere matter of 2 constitutional amendments: Revise Art III Sec 3 Par 1 so “treason” no longer needs direct-witness proof of an overt act of war against the U S or adhering to their enemies, but can be anything yr Star Chamber wants to call it; revise Art I Sec 9 Par 3 so you can pass an ex post facto law. All very simple; the Judge’s arguments sound as good as his dissent in U S vs Feinbaum. (I shd’ve seen, even in the inaug, that he’s not the same man in this world—the same mind turned to other ends. My ends? My end . . .) The const ams’ll pass all right . . . except maybe in Maine.
I shd’ve seen it last year when the press began to veer, when the dullest & most honest columnist in the country began to blather about the “measure of toleration”— when the liberal Chronicle & the Hearst Examiner, for the 1st time in S F history, took the same stand on the Supervisors’ refusal of the Civic Aud to a pro-Senator rally—when the NYer satirized the ACLU as something damned close to traitors . . .
I began to see it when the County Central Committee started to raise hell about a review I wrote in the QPH. (God knows how a Committeeman happened to read that learned journal.) Speaking of the great old 2-party era, I praised both the DAR & the FDR as bulwarks of democracy. Very unwise. Seems as a good Party man I shd’ve restricted my praise to the FDR. Cd’ve fought it through, of course, stood on my rights—hell, a County Committeeman’s an elected representative of the people. But I resigned because . . . well, because that was when I began to see it.
Today was what did it, though. 1st a gentle phone call fr the Provost—in person, no secty—wd I drop by his office tomorrow? Certain questions have arisen as to some of the political opinions I have been expressing in my lectures . . .
That blonde in the front row with the teeth & the busy notebook & the D’s & F’s . . .
So Cleve comes by & I think I’ve got troubles . . . !
He’s finally published his 1st paper on the theory of CK & PK-induced alternates. It’s been formally denounced as “dangerous” because it implies the existence of better worlds. And guess who denounced it? Prof Daniels of Psych.
Sure, the solid backer of #13, the strong American Party boy. He’s a strong FDR man now. He knows. And he’s back on the faculty.
Cleve makes it all come out theological somehow. He says that by forcibly setting mankind on the alternate if-fork that we wanted, we denied man’s free will. Impose “democracy” against or without man’s choice, & you have totalitarianism. Our only hope is what he calls “abnegation of our own desire”— surrender to, going along with, the will of man. We must CK & PK ourselves back to where we started.
The hell with the theology; it makes sense politically too. I was wrong. Jesus! I was wrong. Look back at every major election, every major boner the electorate’s pulled. So a boner to me is a triumph of reason to you, sir. But let’s not argue which dates were the major boners. 1932 or 1952, take your pick.
It’s always worked out, hasn’t it? Even 1920. It all straightens out, in time. Democracy’s the craziest, most erratic system ever devised . . . & the closest to perfection. At least it keeps coming closer. Democratic man makes his mistakes—& he corrects them in time.
Cleve’s going back to make his peace with his ideas of God & free will. I’m going back to show I’ve learned that a politician doesn’t clear the hell&gone out of politics because he’s lost. Nor does he jump over on the winning side.
He works & sweats as a Loyal Opposition—hell, as an Underground if necessary, if things get as bad
