Westbrook Pegler

North Adams Transcript/December 19, 1944

By a strange route which I cannot pretend to follow, a number of interesting individuals over there on the left have arrived at the conclusion that the boycott Is unfair, un-American and, in round numbers, evil, if it is employed by their political and ideological opponents against actors, writers and radio entertainers who took part in the recent campaign on the side of the New Deal.

That it is either unfair or un-American I deny. It has long been used as a weapon by the very people who now object most vehemently, and, of course, we all know that not all things American are necessarily nice. A method or practice may be many degrees off the beam of righteousness and still be, unfortunately, American. Bigotry. for example, is deplorable, but nevertheless American, as recurrent waves in our history show.

That the boycott, carried to its logical conclusion, is dangerous I do not deny, however, and I would like to say that I was being more ironic than serious when I gently touched upon the possibilities of a boycott. My purpose was to point out that our Supreme Court and Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt have endorsed this dangerous weapon and I hoped I made it clear that I was not endorsing their endorsement but warning of its possibilities.

Our Supreme Court endorsed it in two Frankfurter opinions which held that it was legitimate for unions not only to boycott the merchandise of innocent, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens who are entitled to the protection of their government but do so for illegitimate purposes and by false and malicious propaganda.

I do not understand Frankfurter at all and I Insist that his reputation as a liberal and valuable citizen is undeserved. I think we are the worse off for his service and influence among us because in his most conspicuous moments I have been unable to find him on the side of law and order, which is the side for a Justice of the Supreme court. In the historic Bisbee deportation case he ignored the imminent peril of armed revolution in an American community and condemned the Americans who beat the revolutionists to it by rounding them up and shipping them off into New Mexico. Had they not done this there might have been a terrible battle in which innocent Americans, residents of the town and countryside, and including women and children, would have fallen. In fact that is what the jury did decide in acquitting the defendant in the test case.

Twice more, in the so-called carpenters’ case and the so-called cafeteria case, we found Frankfurter deciding in favoring of unions which admittedly lied against unoffending citizens with intent to destroy them if they persisted in their refusal to yield to unfair demands. In each case, the boycott was a bludgeon and the Supreme Court gave it a resounding cheer.

Mrs. Roosevelt’s endorsement was not a matter of mere words. She acted out her boycott in refusing to enter a theater which was being picketed in the interests of a rank, reeking racket without even considering the facts and merits of the dispute.

Now there are many other precedents and horrible examples, but these will do to justify counterboycotts which could produce some terrible results in our country. For example, if all the citizens who voted Republican in the last election were to organize to boycott all the movies and plays in which Communist and other New Deal actors, writers, and producers were implicated and all merchandise advertised on the air by similar characters, we would be divided into two big mutually hateful families of Hatfields and McCoys.

Nevertheless, if you extend the reasoning of Frankfurter and Mrs. Roosevelt that is where you find yourself and it is not up to me to say whether that is where they would like to find us. If it isn’t, they are being reckless in pointing that way, as though some beautiful promised land lay down the rough road.

In practice, boycotts usually are ineffective unless they are enforced by law.

One of the few hilarious moments of the campaign of the Communists in the Newspaper Guild of which Mrs. Roosevelt is a member, although she is not qualified for membership, was the boycott against a famous line of alcoholic beverages whose owners refused to violate certain contracts and withdraw their advertising from a paper which the guild had struck by a vote of a tiny minority of the whole number of workers.

The advertiser tried to reason with the Communists, which was a waste of effort, by pointing out that he would be violating the principle of the free press if he used his box- office power in this manner. If he could legitimately use it for this purpose then, with equal right and justice, he could use it to make the editor comply with his political beliefs. Then the advertisers would, indeed, control the press.

The boycott and the strike both failed but the humor of the boycott lay in the fact that the two prime agitators in the strife were notorious moochers who never bought a drink and were always on the cuff even at hotels and unfailingly in night clubs and would never refuse a free drink, boycott or no.

Generally, boycotts flop even when declared by unions because the members find it inconvenient and expensive to comply. Of course if a mob pickets a store or are known to be planted there to report union members who enter, the thing is effective for just that long.

I suggest that the objections to the boycott as a mass weapon and discussions of the dangers involved be addressed to Frankfurter and Mrs. R. They have been really serious about it. They mean it. I was only pointing out something.