In historical retrospect,* the period between the last great formations of European nationalism, German unification and the Italian Riorgimento, and the second world war, must appear as among the most crucial and decisive eras in the political life of the West. The single, but ultimately all-embracing, phenomenon which gives this period its special character is the emergence of the ethical and monistic lay state—the state which, from the sociological point of view, and hence ethically, juridically and politically, seeks the effective subordination to itself of all forms of social life. In Italy, this process, as the result of conditions prevalent there, was especially articulated; and the logic of the new state was developed almost hyperbolically in certain of its dimensions and aspects. In that same country, also as a result peculiar to its conditions, the diagnosis and the contraindications of the monistic state emerged simultaneously with the emergence of that state itself. The ideas and the forces which were effectively to stabilize and then to reverse the process of the lay state were present and active from the moment that state made its effective appearance. For this reason the history of Italy must possess as especial interest during this period. The man who has been, perhaps beyond all others, the expressive and dynamic symbol of those ideas and forces, is Don Luigi Sturzo. As a consequence his career, like the history of his country, has arresting, if not unique, interest.

Jacques maritain is firmly convinced that every philosopher has some primary intuition that permeates his whole doctrine, and that, consequently, his philosophy can be understood only if one is aware of that primary intuition. For Maritain, as for St. Thomas Aquinas, that primary intuition is the intuition of being (ens) in which both recognize the primacy of esse (the act of existing), and therefore its primacy for the philosopher who studies being. Maritain is constantly aware, from the very beginning of his philosophical reflections, that the philosopher who studies being, starts from the being that is given to him through the senses. This being, which is given to him, actually is but need not be. It is, in short, composed of that which is and the act whereby it is, or, if you will, of essence and existence. Existence must be recognized as having primacy over essence; and the philosopher will be true to reality, and therefore will be in a position to solve problems of reality, only if he respects that primacy.

Since the early 1930's but especially during and since the war of 1941–1945, the Kremlin has made increasing use of symbols and terms designed to elicit “patriotic” responses in the population under its control. While never completely abandoned, the ideology of “proletarian internationalism” has receded ever further into the background in Soviet doctrine and propaganda. The concept of the “Soviet fatherland” was developed in connection with Stalin's program of “socialism in one country” and of rapid industrialization and the formation of a new Soviet bureaucracy. This process was expressed most vividly in connection with the adoption of the “Stalin Constitution” in 1936, and the claim, maintained ever since, that a new type of “socialist” democracy and citizenship had been established and embodied therein.

The Russian-Ukrainian controversy over the status of the Ukraine dates as far back as 1654. In that year, Bohdan Khmelnitzkyj, Hetman of Ukraine, taking into account the constant dangers of Polish and Tartar aggressions, concluded a mutual assistance treaty, called “Perejaslavka Uhoda,” with the Moscovite Tsar Alexej. The treaty provided for stationing a small military detachment of Tsarist forces in the Ukraine. The Russian Tsar pledged to respect the sovereignty of the Ukraine by not interfering in the internal, political and social life of the country. However, after the occupation of strategic military bases, these solemn vows were gradually ignored and forgotten. Tsarist agents, sent to the Ukraine under various pretexts, conducted themselves as conquerors rather than as allies of an independent power. Recognizing his historical error in voluntarily submitting the Ukraine to Russian rule, Khmelnitzkyj mad vain preparations to drive out the Tsar's forces. His sudden death on August 6, 1657, interrupted his plans, and gave the Russian officials the opportunity to impose, without consulting the local government, more and more of the Tsar's laws and decrees upon the Ukraine. After Khmelnitzkyj's death, the Moscovite rulers found themselves in a very favorable situation. There was no leadership in the Ukraine capable of combatting the Russian occupation policy and of inspiring the Ukrainian people, exhausted in wars with the Tartars and Poles, to resist the forcible restrictions governing the Ukraine's independence.

Political thought in the United States certainly bears out the truth of the observation that infancy impressions are the determining factor of a nation's as well as of an individual's outlook. Americans had to wrest their independence from an imperialistic British government headed by a king. This became the source of three indelible notions: first, crowns are all suspect; secondly, imperialism is something specifically British; thirdly, since British foreign policy has been imperialistic, its methods stand condemned, and one of them is known as the balance-of-power. Conclusion: away with that balance!

So it happened that the second half of the twentieth century had to dawn before American statesmen and generals realized and proclaimed the necessity of the balance-of-power and before the American public was ready to be told so. On May 29, 1951, there occurred a significant exchange in the Senate inquiry on the MacArthur ouster.

Republican leaders have always sought to “crack” the Democratic South in the hope of making their party a majority one in all of the major sections of the country. The current proposals of Senator Karl E. Mundt of South Dakota for uniting northern Republicans and southern Democrats are not new; they have been tried in the past with little success. This was especially true of the post-Reconstruction years when the memories of Republican ascendancy in the South during die early years of Reconstruction were still fresh and vivid.