To the Editor:
Hans J. Morgenthau’s “Our Thwarted Republic” [June] presents a good example of the strength and weakness of impressionistic writing. . . .
Little of what Morgenthau says is new. Perhaps the forcefulness he uses to express his views can be regarded as unique. The virtue of this kind of writing is that it raises questions about reality which might be susceptible to intensive and conclusive confirmation through research. The weakness, apart from an overly dogmatic style, is that Morgenthau presents to the reader conclusions which at best should only be regarded as personal impressions. Do groups in fact behave as he says they do? Is the Presidency as weak an organ for control of the executive departments as the Eisenhower years have led us to believe? Is revolution in mid-century no longer possible? Morgenthau says that everything he asserts can be empirically tested. Yet he has not done this for us and I seriously question whether, as presented by him, we approach a deeper understanding of the problems of big democracy.
South Bend, Indiana