The seizure of the government by Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat in September, 1957, was more than the assumption of political power by another military leader in Thailand, and the overthrow of the former regime headed by Field Marshal Phibun Songkhram marked a definite turning point in the evolution of the Thai political system. After experimenting with constitutional democracy for almost twenty-five years, Thailand turned to a new form of political rule. The purpose of this article is to survey briefly the development of the Thai political system since the beginning of the constitutional regime in June, 1932, and to assess the present trend of the Sarit government in a country where military officers have long played a pre-eminent role in the political life of the nation.

Notwithstanding the manifold activities of the Soviet Government in world affairs since Nikita Khrushchev took over the heritage of Stalin, there is still a wide-spread lack of understanding in the non-communist world of the international aims and policies of Stalin's successor. This situation islargely due to the image of Khrushchev's goals and policies which communist propaganda has built up throughout the world — an image which is a pretty complete misrepresentation of the reality. A very effective role in this propaganda has been played by the term, policy of peaceful coexistence, which Khrushchev has chosen to describe his new course. The selection of this term was a master strokeon the part of the communist leader in view of the great success which this slogan has had in blurringand confusing the thinking of Western writers and commentators on Soviet foreign policy.

With all the volumes that have been written about Marx and Marxism in recent years, there has beenlittle or no attempt, in the English-speaking world at least, to relate his thinking to the general development of modern European philosophic speculation. Fundamentally this is because Marx has received short shrift as a philosopher. Both English and American commentators have been almost entirely concerned with his role as “social scientist” and polemicist, and hence have concentrated their attention upon his historical materialism and his critique of capitalist society.

On october 5, 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt aroused the democratic world by calling for a quarantine of the aggressor nations. Since that morning in Chicago there has always been uncertainty as to how the President meant to implement his speech. A review of the available documents concerning the aftermath of the quarantine speech provides four additional notes which help clear up this uncertainty. The first demonstrates that Roosevelt instead of backing down before seemingly overwhelming opposition from the American public, believed he could persuade not only his fellow countrymen but “90 percent of the population of the world” to quarantine the aggressor nations. The second shows that the President looked upon the Nine Power Conference which met in Brussels during November, 1937, as an opportunity to initiate positive action in the Far East. The third, by an analysis of the activities of Norman Davis, the American delegate to that conference, indicates the extent to which the President was willing to go in imposing a quarantine against Japan. The last note attempts to explain briefly why by mid November Roosevelt finally “pulled in his horns” and permitted the Nine Power Conference to disintegrate. From these notes comes further support for the conclusions that the man who met defeat at Brussels was President Roosevelt and the policy which failed to be adopted was that of a quarantine, of containment, of the aggressor nations.

Political theory never stands by itself. Any theoretical explanation of politics depends on attitudes and positions which stem from metaphysics, theology, ethics, or science. An understanding of the political thought of a man, then, will require some insight into the relationship between his politics and the presuppositions on which it is based. To write about the political theory of Descartes, however, presents special difficulties, for Descartes cannot be considered an important political thinker in his own right. His actual references to politics are scant. His influence on later thinkers did not arise from his thought about politics. Nevertheless, in political theory Descartes must be considered, for it was Descartes who set the patterns of speculative thought after him, including thought about politics. After Descartes the scientific and mechanical orientations of thought replaced the traditional Christian and Aristotelian molds in which politics had been considered.