Subj: Washington needs diplomacy
overhaul
Date: Tue, Nov 7, 1995 4:37 PM EDT
From: cato@cato.org
X-From: cato@cato.org (Cato Institute)

STUDY RELEASE: Washington needs diplomacy overhaul

November 8, 1995

Contact: Robin Hulsey, public affairs, Cato Institute, 202-789-5293

Administration should eliminate embassies, agencies

Because of the end of the Cold War, the advent of new communications technologies, the worldwide trend toward decentralized government, and the increasing importance of economic—rather than political—relations, Washington needs to overhaul its approach to U.S. diplomacy, a new Cato study argues. In "Changing the Way We Do Business in International Relations" (Policy Analysis no. 245), former U.S. Foreign Service officer Charles Schmitz argues that the conduct of U.S. foreign policy needs to be streamlined and that more of the business of international relations should be conducted by regional or local authorities, businesses, and private citizens.

Embassy operations

One of the main candidates for reform is U.S. embassy operations, Schmitz contends.

Extraneous foreign policy institutions

Schmitz also argues that a number of foreign policy institutions could be eliminated, including

Diplomacy for the 21st century

As the dominant player in international relations today, Washington should take the lead in modernizing the conduct of world diplomacy to better meet the challenges of the post Cold War world. Instead of relying on foreign policy traditions that date back to the 19th century, the United States should take advantage of new communications technologies and the increasing role of the private sector in global affairs to ensure that its conduct of international relations truly serves the American people.

Let me start by assuring you that I always enjoy the Truth Seeker, and read each issue as soon as it arrives. Your libertarian and economic articles, full of acetylene insights, are always great ammunition for debates (and how I wish I'd read this recent Financial Independence issue ten years ago!). William Lindley's piece on Quantum Mysticism, a favorite topic, was well-marshaled. l look forward to the next installment.

But it was not always thus. When I first encountered the Truth Seeker, a bit over twenty years ago—well, surely it was the same journal; there couldn't have been another freethought magazine of the same name out of San Diego then, could there? But that Truth Seeker was nothing like the Truth Seeker today! It was a White Power rag. l remember smiling at the smudgy mimeography, the poor spelling and syntax, then rolling my eyes at the frenetic editorial tirades against blacks and Jews. l tossed the copies that had come to me anonymously in the mail; if "this" was what freethought was about, count me out.

So I have wondered — how and when did the change occur? How did the Truth Seeker, founded, I believe, as a progressive publication opposing slavery and all religious dogma, ever fall into such a racist rut? And how did it pull itself out? Was it a gradual change, or sudden? Was there a power struggle within the Truth Seeker Company? Did it ever officially repudiate its old views?

I sense a story. And like many of your readers, I'd love to learn more about freethought history, in particular, the history of the oldest freethought journal in the world.

Perhaps the Rod Bradford video answers some of these questions. But an in-house article would be even better, I think. As an idea for a future issue, l suggest a retrospective piece, putting a microscope to this rather embarrassing episode in the Truth Seeker's history.

As freethinkers, after all, we should never be afraid to look critically at ourselves, or to examine our past, warts and all. Please consider it.

Sincerely,

Kenneth E. Nahigian

This is a reply to your e-mail of Oct. 19, asking about the racist period of Truth Seeker, when & how it began and ended.

Charles Smith founded the American Association for the Advancement of Atheism in 1926, and is thus mentioned in George Macdonald's Fifty Years of Freethought (1931), a history of Truth Seeker to that time. Smith took over Truth Seeker in 1940, running it until his death in 1964. Racist material began appearing in it in the late 1950s. (If I remember right, I saw some Smith TS issues from the late '40s or early '50s, and they were free of racism.) James Hervey Johnson (JHJ) began helping Smith in this period, and Smith moved the publication to San Diego, a few months before his death. JHJ took over and ran it until his death in 1988. The poor quality of the magazine in the early '80s is a mark of an old, physically weakening man, trying to keep TS going all by himself. Bonnie Lange was JHJ's "gal Friday" during the last decade of his life, and took over TS on the day of his death. The racism ended that day. She appointed Ralph de Sola, a Humanist writer of Sephardic Jewish ancestry, as editor. You can ask Bonnie whether TS "ever officially repudiate(d) its old views." I think the record shows that they're gone. The history of how TS began publishing material we now consider racist is an examination of Charles Smith's mind from 1945 to 1960. I hope this can be done.

—WBL

Dear Ken:

Thank you so much for your letter We certainly appreciate the positive fee' back. I'm grateful to have the opportunity to address your inquiry regarding the change of tone of the current journal, particularly at such a timely moment, as we are formulating the direction for next yea We envision a publication worth saving and endeavor to continually improve i] readability. All the while we will concurrently expand our reach into cyberspace with our Freethought Forums on AOL an Cornpuserve and our homepage on the World Wide Web.

First of all there was a bit of arm twisting necessary to convince Bonnie that your letter needed to be published in order to speak to those readers who may be only partially aware of our rich history. While we are extremely thankful to Mr. James Hervey Johnson for providing an endowment to continue publishing Truth Seeker, as you point out, there was a time when Mr. Johnson used the journal to promote his racist views. Yes, WE would rather just forget about that brief period, but it is worth mentioning that in 1981 arson destroyed Mr. Johnson's home/office and along with it, all the old copies of Truth Seeker. At this time we have no copies of the journal, and I admit, I personally have never seen it. It most certainly would have turned me off to freethought.

My involvement with Truth Seeker is a result of meeting Bonnie Lange, who sparked my interest with her passionate goal of bringing together the many factions of freethought by providing an open forum for rational discussion of both religious and political issues. Bonnie wants to reach beyond atheism and acknowledge that freethought is not for the closed-minded. It is a search that allows the individual to come to their own conclusions independent of authority. Bonnie's version of freethought allows for full freedom of inquiry. If one is not open to new information, new possibilities and new conclusions, how can one really be a FREE thinker?

Inasmuch as we support choice, you can be sure we will not be choosing to run articles that take on a racist approach. The Truth Seeker of the "New Age" will be one with a strong foothold in our original intent. We prefer to return to our roots—the writing of D. M. Bennett. From there, we will continue our exploration of what freethought can be in the new millennium. Just as D. M. Bennett worked so hard to do over 120 years ago, Truth Seeker will be defending our liberties against the moral dogma of religion and the political coercion of government.

We are fortunate to have an eager student in Rod Bradford. I highly recommend ordering his video The Truth Seekers. He has proved to be quite good at scratching our historical surface, and we look forward to working with him as he digs deeper into freethinking and the early history of this publication. Look for his upcoming book, D. M. Bennett—A Truth Seeker. In the meantime, we'll publish tidbits, such as his brief introduction in this issue's Freethought Forum section.

As far as answering the question of what happened between then and now, it is a long and interesting story. We are sending you a copy of Setting the Record Straight which was published in April, 1995 and was sent only to our subscribers. It is a historical perspective written by our attorneys covering the controversy and litigation between Mr. Johnson and Madalyn Murray O'Hair and her attempts to wrongfully take control of the Truth Seeker Company and Mr. Johnson's personal wealth. Perhaps it may inspire you to consider delving further into the subject to write your own perspective for us.

One thing is certain. Those of us at Truth Seeker do not agree with everything we publish. Our ideas are as varied as our personalities. But we do agree on one thing: allowing others to express their current position. We try to listen with an open mind and publish material that is thought-provoking. We're not afraid to explore topics that are controversial or contrary to popular (or even unpopular) belief systems. We challenge our readers to think for themselves and by all means let us know what you think!

We cannot, in good conscience have one standard for Americans and an entirely opposite one for the other people and nations with whom we share the world. We are seen as arrogant bullies, yet afraid, on the same principle at issue to right the world's wrongs in Cuba, Bosnia, Mexico, Idaho, Ireland, Israel/Palestine, Tibet, or Texas. We were not afraid of Grenada, Panama, Iraq or Haiti. We intervened, before all the facts were known, in Korea and Viet Nam and killed nameless millions, killing almost a hundred thousand of our own in both undeclared wars.

We were able to unlawfully imprison one of our own stooges, Panama's General Noriega, after a Soviet-style show trial. Where are the accused aggressors named from all of the other conflicts? Where are American justice and the sense of fair play where the poorest and the most defenseless sovereign nations are concerned?

How would our citizens react to a platoon of Mexican Marines sent by a Mexican Monroe to "protect" native Hawaiians in Hawaii? Fair is fair. Remember Nuremberg 1946? "Orders are orders" is not a valid defense; there is a higher law. Are we acting in accord with that law? Remember that the Monroe Doctrine is a unilateral United States

Visit our Freethought Forum on AOL in the Capital Connection (Keyword "Politics"). On some IBM plafforms you'll find us under PACs, Lobbies Think Tanks & More. On CompuServe's Issues Forum you'll find us in the Politics and Religion section.