My mission here today is to present the case for the Democratic Party. I am the advocate - you are the jury - and your verdict will be rendered on the sixth of November. The political advocate, like the trial lawyer, necessarily operates under certain limitations. He presents the case for his client as persuasively as he can, in what we all hope will be a factual and truthful manner. But he does not present the case for his opponent nor point out to the jury the weaknesses in his own client's cause. Consequently, a political campaign does not always furnish the best foundation for a wise verdict at the polls. The oratory is too often exaggerated; the promises are too often meaningless; and the appeal to emotions and personalities too often confuses the substantive issues. I would ask you to judge the Democratic Party therefore not on its promises for the future but on its record of the past - not only on the personalities of its current leaders but on the realities of its past leadership.
Many political analyists have written in recent times that 1956 presents a race between a party and a man - between the solid strength of the Democratic Party and the immense personal popularity of President Eisenhower. But it seems to me that, however this may describe the motivations of the electorate, this is not, or should not be, the actual choice facing the country. For one man, however popular and however powerful, cannot control his party in the Congress, or, as we have seen, even in his own administration - and this will be particularly true during his last term in office. We must therefore compare party against party, not party against man. And I am confident that once that comparison is made upon the basis of the past record, the people will again turn to the leadership of the Democratic Party.
But before we examine more closely the record of the past, let us consider one pertinent aspect of the future - the Republican claim that they are the party of the future. For the question is: who in the future is going to lead that party? In contrast with the Republican Convention in San Francisco, the Democratic Convention showed to the Nation dozens of young and vigorous Senators, Governors, Congressmen and others in position of leadership. When Adlai Stevenson talks about the New America, he can point to the many able young leaders of the Democratic Party - including those here with me tonight - who will be able to build that New America, to meet its challenges and seize its opportunities.
But when, on the other hand, President Eisenhower talks about "the party of the future", we must ask ourselves: where is it? Where are the "Young Turks" who were to sweep to power with President Eisenhower in 1952? Where are the young men who were going to reform the party once the Republicans gained control? They are not in the Cabinet - they are not in the leadership of the Senate - they are not in the leadership of the House - they are not in the Governors' Manions. Who is left to lead the party of the future? Certainly not poor, old, brainwashed Harold Stassen. No, they are all gone - all, that is, save one - the Vice President of the United States. In short, when Mr. Eisenhower talks about "the party of the future", he is talking about the party of Richard Nixon. And I cannot believe that the majority of American voters would want to entrust their future to Mr. Nixon.
The Democratic Party, on the other hand, is today emerging under a new leadership, with new vision and new ideals. In a sense, the Democratic Convention at Chicago represented a contest for supremacy within the party between these new forces, led by Adlai Stevenson, and the older ways of the party symbolized by former President Truman. The decision of the Convention by an overwhelming margin was in favor of Mr. Stevenson and his philosophy - a philosophy of moderation that did not yield to irresponsibility on either the left or the right - a philosophy of candid and conscientious courage, that did not believe in a campaign of vilification or oversimplification. This, I believe, is the philosophy of the future - and by its decision at Chicago, the Democratic Party resolved to become the party of the future - a role for which it is richly endowed with leaders, programs and enthusiasm.
The two issues of this campaign, if we think for a moment in terms of Republican slogans, are Peace and Prosperity. I would ask you in judging these issues to look beneath the labels and to examine the record.
First, with respect to Prosperity, let us ask: Prosperity for whom? Where is the prosperity for our farmers who have seen their prices and income go steadily down as their debts go steadily up? Where is the prosperity for our small businessmen who have seen their profits decline while business failures jumped? Where is the prosperity for our working men and women whose average earnings have increased less than 1/6th the increase of big business profits? Where is the prosperity for the consumer who sees prices at an all time high, his installment debt increasing and his personal savings declining? What kind of prosperity is it that sends children to overcrowded schools, that sends the sick and disabled to overcrowded hospitals and that maintains pockets of chronic unemployment in at least 20 states?
Permit me to mention in particular this problem of small business. Since Inauguration Day 1953, the profits of our largest corporations have increased 61 per cent. But small business profits have declined 52 per cent, business failures have increased, and new business starts have declined. In Virginia, for example, the rate of business failures which had been steadily declining during the last three years of Democratic Administration increased by 9 per cent during the first three years of Republican rule.
Little or nothing has been done by the Republican Administration to meet these problems. Little or nothing has been done to stop the growth of monopolies, with mergers at their highest point in history. Little or nothing has been done to give more defense contracts to small businessmen, with 68 per cent of all contracts going to the 100 largest firms. Little or nothing has been done to replace the credit opportunities taken away from independent businessmen by the Republican tight money policies. For government loans from the Small Business Administration having been shockingly few while the interest rate has been shockingly raised.
We Democrats refuse to agree with the Republican official who said: "Let's face it. Big business is going to get bigger and small business is going to get smaller and there is nothing we can do about it." We think we can do something about it. We can give small business an agency that will really represent them and really help them - help them get working capital and long-term credit - help them get a fairer share of government contracts - and help them in other ways to survive a world of economic giants. We can tighten up and enforce our anti-monopoly and restrictive trade legislation. And we can revise our corporate tax laws to give small businessmen the relief they deserve. Small business has been the neglected stepchild of the Republican Administration, and we Democrats propose to bring it back into the family.
Secondly, what about the question of Peace? Many have said in recent times, including the President at his last press conference, that the outcome of the campaign would be determined by domestic or pocketbook issues, rather than foreign policy. There are several reasons for this. In the first place, some say there are no major differences between the Republican and Democratic Parties on this matter. It is true, and fortunately true, that the dominant majorities in each party are in general agreement on the long-range goals of American foreign policy. Republicans and Democrats alike do agree that we want world peace, prosperity and justice, not war, power or glory. We do agree that the principle of collective security has replaced the outmoded concept of isolationism. But where we differ, and sometimes differ sharply, is on the manner, methods and the tactics of implementing those goals and principles - in our approach to the problems of collective security, international trade, foreign aid, the UN and her affiliates, our defense budget and so on.
Still another obstacle to the proper consideration of foreign policy as a campaign issue is the traditional argument that politics should stop at the water's edge and all Americans should support their nation's actions abroad. Thus it is said, foreign policy issues should be ruled out of the campaign. It seems to me that the Democrats were more emphatic about this four years ago, when they were in office, than they are today - and the Republicans, who exploited the issue of Korea to dangerous extremes in 1952, now take just the reverse position. Moreover, this tradition of bi-partisan support abroad was never intended, in my opinion, to prevent healthy discussion at home. True, care must be taken to avoid bitter political splits that will make subsequent bi-partisan support impossible - party policies must be so shaped as to prevent extreme fluctuations with each change of administration - and responsible candidates must of course refrain from undermining by their headlines any delicate and difficult negotiations being conducted abroad. But to eliminate all such discussions from the campaign, as was suggested earlier in the year, would be, in my opinion, the height of folly.
Yet let me make it clear that I would prefer no foreign policy discussion at all to a campaign characterized by partisan distortion, exaggeration or oversimplification. Despite the obvious invalidity of the boasts contained in the 1956 Republican platform - that in the past four years the spread of Communist influence has been checked, the danger of war has receded and the position of the free world has become much stronger - the level of foreign policy debate will be primarily determined by the Democratic Party as the party of opposition. I hope and pray that my fellow Democrats will not look upon the Republican strategy of 1952, however successful, as a guide for re-winning control of the Government in 1956. I trust that the Democratic Party will not speak as intemperately of Suez and Indo China as the Republicans did of Korea - that we will neither make a deceptively meaningless promise to "go there" or seek, with such slogans as "win or get out", to appeal at the same time to those desiring more aggressiveness and those desiring less. I trust that we will not, in order to win their votes, exploit the hopes and miseries of millions of Americans looking in vain for the "liberation" of their iron curtain relatives. And I trust that we shall make no assertions concerning the use of our military forces, such as those made regarding use of the Seventh Fleet in the Formosan Straits, that confuse the issues, alarm our Allies and endanger our own security.
On the contrary, I have high hopes that 1956 will offer the voters a far saner, a far sounder discussion of foreign policy issues than 1952. By any fair standard, Yalta, the loss of China and our entry into Korea, for example, should not be campaign issues today; and neither should the Republican isolationism of 1940, or the old battle of Asia-first versus Europe-first. Let us all agree that neither party is a "war party"; and that neither party's errors in the conduct of foreign affairs were motivated by sinister designs or by a softness toward Communism. Let us also agree, for example, that the Republicans do not deserve the blame for the instability of French Governments; and neither do they deserve the credit for Stalin's death or the hydrogen stalemate and basic changes in Soviet foreign policy that followed that death as a matter of course. The sooner we clear out all such nonsensical charges and claims by both sides, the sooner we can get to the real issues.
The Democrats, and particularly our standard-bearer Adlai Stevenson, are determined to discuss the real issues, and to approach them with hard reason and accurate statements. We want to avoid, on both sides, the use of emotionally loaded but meaningless terms like appeasement or co-existence. We want to avoid the use of slogans and catch-words that promise everything while promising nothing. And we admit that the problems we face are difficult problems indeed - difficult to solve, difficult sometimes to even explain, difficult in the burdens they require the voters to bear.
We heard enough in 1952 of frantic boasts and foolish words, enough painless superficial solutions. Words, we know, will not stop wars; intemperate criticism will not bring constructive action; and cruel disillusions at home and bitter misunderstandings abroad are too high a price to pay for the empty promises of magic solutions.
And that is why I am not impressed by the continued Republican talk about peace. For a peace without security, without preparation for the future, is no peace at all. And the last four years have made it abundantly clear that we could lose the cold war and imperil our security without a shot being fired.
For there are two pathways to peace - one of weakness and one of strength. The Republican Administration, and the Republican Party traditionally have followed the pathway of weakness - weakness in our defensive strength, so that our enemies know we are unwilling and unable to fight local "brushfire" wars; weakness in our diplomatic position, so that the Soviets can take advantage of us, particularly in an election year, weakness in our Western alliances, corroded by our vacillations on foreign aid and by the continuous threats and misstatements of our wandering Secretary of State, and finally a deplorable moral weakness, caused by our failure to speak up clearly on the great moral issues of the day such as colonialism, equality of nations and disarmament. Indecision, compromise and halfheartedness characterize too many of our actions. We back the British and French in Suez, but only so far - we support British policy in Cyprus but do not vote for it - we proclaim our sympathy to the end of Colonialism but abstain from voting on specific issues - we are neither members nor non-members of the Bagdad Pact but some kind of half-member - in short we try to play the game both ways and hopefully antagonize no one. That is one kind of peace.
The other pathway to peace is the pathway of strength - and this is the pathway which we Democrats have followed in the past and will follow in the future. We followed that pathway when we resisted Republican cuts in the Air Force that set back our air buildup by at least two years. We followed it when we resisted Republican cuts in the Army that left us, according to General Ridgeway, unable to meet our military obligations. We believe in peace through strength, not weakness - the strength of our allies, strength of our leadership, the strength of our ideas and of our bargaining position abroad.
Perhaps most important of all, in the field of foreign policy, we believe in the strength of moral leadership. It is here that I believe our nation and world desperately need the ability and the courage and the compassion of that uniquely qualified statesman, Adlai E. Stevenson.
For the major crises facing us abroad today are not simply matters of anti-communism. The security and leadership of the United States and her allies, and in fact the maintenance of peace itself, are currently threatened most seriously in three Middle Eastern-Mediterranean areas - Suez, Cyprus and North Africa. In not a single one of these conflicts is the Communist cold war directly involved. In not a one is our interest threatened by Communist armies. Instead, these conflicts are an outgrowth of the revolution which we have virtually ignored while they were concentrating on the Communist revolution - and I am referring to the Asian-American revolution of nationalism, the revolt against colonialism, the determination of people to control their national destinies.
The great failure of this Administration to comprehend the nature of this revolution, and its potentialities for good and evil, has reaped a bitter harvest in the Middle East today, just as it did in Indo-China two years ago, and just as it may in some other area of Asia or Africa in the near future. We have permitted our own attitude on colonial issues to be tied too blindly and too closely to the policies of our Western allies. We have permitted millions of key uncommitted people - people who hold in their hands the balance of power in the world during the next ten years - to believe this nation has abandoned its proud traditions of self-determination and independence. And we have permitted the Soviet Union - the most ruthless colonial power on earth - to falsely pretend to be the leader of the struggle against colonialism. Now, in Suez, in Algeria, in every troubled and tense area in the world, extremists and communists are seeking to exploit for their own selfish and dangerous ends this powerful, surging spirit of freedom and independence - a spirit which can rightfully be a force for the free world if the nation will give it encouragement instead of neglect.
This is only one of many foreign policy issues where the nation and the world cry out for a return to firm, decisive leadership in Washington - and they will find that leadership in a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President.
I do not pretend to say that the future will always be rosy, even under a Democratic Administration. There will be crises, there will be problems. But the Democratic Party has the enthusiasm and the determination and the new ideas necessary to meet those problems. We can build the schools and the hospitals and the homes and the highways that our nation needs. We can wage unrelentless war against slums and poverty and illiteracy and illness and economic insecurity. We can build, through strength and justice and moral leadership, a lasting peace. And we can go forward to the New America of which Governor Stevenson speaks, never satisfied with things as they are, daring always to try the new, daring nobly and doing greatly. "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required." It is in this spirit that I present to you tonight the case for the Democratic Party. And it is in this spirit that we ask for your confidence in November.
Speech Images