It is a great honor to be here this evening with the men and women of this famous Democratic County at the beginning of the Democratic campaign for 1954. The Democrats here have been faithful supporters of their party in good times and bad, and under the able leadership of Dick Daley, this year and in 1956, they will play a decisive role in the coming Democratic victories.
This year the Democratic ticket in Illinois is led by Senator Paul Douglas. I not only sit next to him in the Senate and on the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, but he was, as you know, born in the ancient city of Salem in Massachusetts. All Easterners do not, as some mid-Westerners sometimes suggest, look only towards Europe. Thoreau once wrote "Eastward I go only by force – but westward I go free. I must walk toward Oregon and not toward Europe." As Senator Douglas is a free man – it was perhaps inevitable that he would come to Illinois.
I always attempt to invoke, when appropriation bills are before the Senate, a feeling of filial affection for old Massachusetts in Senator Douglas and Senator Symington, who are both native sons – but it has never done much good. When Senator Douglas recently voted against an appropriation to dredge out Salem Harbor – I knew that we had lost him for good.
I presume that some of you may have read in LIFE Magazine this week an article about the United States Senate, which said: "The United States Senate has often been called the world's most exclusive club. Its members are quick to defend each other's rights and privileges and they like to go out of their way to extol each other's abilities profusely, even in the face of wide party differences." I would like to give you an example of this senatorial good fellowship as it involves Senator Douglas of Illinois and the Senator from Massachusetts. I read from the Congressional Record; the Senator from Massachusetts is speaking: "The Senator from Illinois, Mr. Douglas, with ignorance reviles me. I … brand him to his face as false. No person with the upright form of man can be allowed to switch from his tongue the perpetual stench of an offensive personality. The noisome squat and nameless animal to which I now refer is not the proper model for an American Senator. Will the Senator from Illinois please take notice?" Senator Douglas gracefully responds: "I will – and therefore will not imitate you." The Senator from Massachusetts – "Mr. President, again the Senator switches his tongue and again he fills the Senate with its offensive odor."
I hasten to add, though I am sure unnecessarily, that this exchange of senatorial compliments occurred a hundred years ago between Stephen Douglas of Illinois and Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts – and that the feelings that this Senator from Massachusetts has for the present Senator from Illinois – though equally sincere – are a good deal more fraternal.
The strength of his intellect in combating the forces of confusion and ignorance; the range of his vision in fighting the forces of reaction and timidity; his sense of justice in opposing the forces of dishonesty regardless of political dangers and partisan considerations – these are the qualities which make Paul Douglas one of America's outstanding public servants today. He understands the underdog and the outsider and the overlooked. Without his thorough comprehension of the economic and other issues which confront us, without his consistent battle for economy and ethics and justice in government, without his presence on the Senate floor to take up the cudgels – alone, if necessary – for what he believes to be the right, the Senate of the United States would be a dimmer, a darker and a less hopeful place.
To write legislation that will aid the people, and at the same time keep the Government a partner and not the master – to find legislative solutions for the wide range of problems that face us, requires more than good intentions and the easy passing of appropriation bills. It demands detailed and technical knowledge possessed by all too few men.
Senator Taft had this ability, even though we did not always agree with his conclusions. Senator Paul Douglas has it now, and the country should be grateful that Illinois has been true to its long tradition of recognizing and rewarding greatness, as it has done in the case of Governor Stevenson and Senator Douglas.
Senator Douglas' courage has been particularly noticeable in recent times in his leadership in alerting the nation to the dangers of economic recession. Months ago he was saying, alone, what many are saying now; that this nation need never have another serious depression, that our mills and farms should produce more, not less; that to secure these goals, prompt and vigorous action by the Federal Government is necessary.
I think it fair to say that if it had not been for the legislation enacted by the Democrats during their twenty years in office, that the present economic recession would have already commenced a spiral into a depression. Social Security legislation and Unemployment Compensation have maintained consumer purchasing power among our workers who have lost their jobs, and the elderly people who have been retired. The price support program has maintained the income of our hard-hit farmers. The Deposit Insurance Program has protected the savings of our people. The Securities and Exchange Commission has regulated short selling and speculation in the stock market, which precipitated the crash in 1929. The Fair Labor Standards Act has prevented the successive cutting of wages to meet those of the sweatshop employer.
This and related social legislation form a platform built by the Democratic administrations which has supported the economy even during this period of decline. But we cannot be satisfied with what we have done in the past. New times bring new problems. The failure therefore of the Republican Party to enact a single piece of new constructive legislation in any of these fields, in the fifteen months that it has had responsibility, represents a most unfortunate abrogation of leadership in a critical time in the life of the American Republic.
Thus it seems to me that the Democratic Party, both in the Capitol and throughout the country, is faced with the most serious responsibility and opportunity – to endeavor, though a minority party, to fill this vacuum.
In a two-party system in a country as large as ours, there must of necessity be included within each party's ranks groups that are mutually hostile. But it is expected that the groups within each of the parties submerge their special interests to support a general course of action. The Democratic Party did this for nearly two decades, a period during which we changed the face of our nation and wrote into the statute books the legislation that has made easier the lives of countless millions of Americans.
But the strange alliance of the various groups within the Republican Party scarcely endured a year before the centrifugal force of its warring factions broke it apart – indeed, it did not survive the death of Senator Robert A. Taft.
Thus today we find President Eisenhower at the head of a crusade which party storm and strife has broken and washed upon the beach. His supporters in the Senate have deserted him on crucial issues – powerful elements in his own party have challenged his leadership – legislation which he has opposed has been enacted – legislation which he has supported has been ignored – and in order to carry out a minimum legislative program, he has been forced to rely upon the party against which he led the great crusade little more than a year ago.
All this has happened at a time when the problems facing us at home and abroad are reaching maximum intensity.
Though the Democratic Party has never made foreign policy a partisan issue, I cannot close without saying a word about our national security. The deterioration of the French position in Indo-China has caused the United States to be faced with decisions both somber and complex, on which hang the future of the free world. For if Secretary Dulles' and Vice President Nixon's words are to be taken at their face value, we are about to enter the jungle to do battle with the tiger.
Under these conditions, no one would wish to do or say anything for partisan reasons that might make the President's task more difficult, his burdens more onerous. But I do believe it both proper and necessary that those who bear responsibility should indicate in advance the course of action that should be adopted, and not confine themselves to laments after the nettle has been grasped, and the matter has passed from our control. It is of no use for the Democratic Party, in order to win some future election, to say of Indo-China what the Republican platform said of the Democratic administration in 1952 – "In Korea they committed this nation to fight back under the most unfavorable conditions. In Korea they produced stalemates, and they offered no hope of victory."
These charges were used to good advantage in the fall of 1952 – but since then the world has taken a couple of turns and now it is a Republican administration which finds the door slowly opening and the tight rope awaiting.
It is my belief that the American people should be told the truth about the situation in the Far East. This has not been done. Within the past two months, Secretary of State Dulles, Secretary of Defense Wilson, Assistant Secretary of State Robertson, and Chairman Radford of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have all predicted a probable military victory in Indo-China. In February of this year Defense Secretary Wilson said that a French victory "was both possible and probable. I see no reason to think Indo-China would be another Korea."
Within the past ten days, General O'Daniel, who heads the Military Advisory Group in Indo-China, held a press conference in which he repeated again the assurance of a military victory in Indo-China. Certainly the American people have every right to franker and more accurate statements than these which simultaneously assert military victory, military deterioration and the need for military support from ourselves and other nations.
The primary cause of the inability of the French Union forces to obtain a decisive military victory after eight years of fighting, is due to the lack of popular support for the war among the peoples of the Associated States of Indo-China and, consequently, the lack of a crusading and reliable native army with an effective officer corps. France still maintains too strong a hold on the political, military, diplomatic and economic relationships which bind the French Union to the Associated States of Indo-China, and therefore failing to possess the substance of freedom, they have not joined wholeheartedly the war against the Communists. Political independence which results from military defeats will not bring about miracles – but the immediate granting of independence is of transcendent importance and is long overdue.
The emphasis placed in recent days on the building of a system of guarantees among some of the neighboring countries, should not blind us to the fact that the war in Indo-China is an internal one – that the assistance given to the Communist forces within the country by the Chinese is substantially less than what we are giving the French Union forces – that the French Union forces outnumber the Communist armies – and that military guarantees of assistance from other countries, in case of outright aggression by the Chinese, will be of little value in a war that is primarily civil.
The support of the countries that Secretary Dulles visited last week – England and France – are of course essential to effective united action, but Asia cannot be saved in Europe. The support of the Asians themselves is a primary requisite to success – and not only of the Australians, New Zealanders and the people of the Philippines – who are after all island people – but the masses of the continent of Asia itself, who have viewed the war because of its colonial complexion, with a cold neutrality. Although the United States would be expected to bear its proportionate share of the burden, we cannot save those who will not be saved. We cannot preserve the independence of Indo-China and Southeast Asia, regardless of the extent of our effort, unless the people of India, Burma, Indonesia, as well as the people of the Associated States, play their proper part in any united effort. This support is not only desirable; it is essential for success. These are the hard facts that must be considered before we undertake unilateral action in that area that could result in disaster or a bloody stalemate.
As to the Democratic Party, I am confident of its future success – our victory is as certain and inevitable as the changing tides. But for the country's sake and for our own, I do not want the Democratic Party to gain office on the basis of cleverly worded promises or by raising false hopes. As Adlai Stevenson so wisely stated, and as the Republicans by now should realize: "It is better that we should lose the election than to deceive the people." For victory won in this fashion contains the seeds of subsequent disaster. We must indeed "talk sense to the American people," make only those promises we can carry out, and frankly state the difficulties and dangers which confront us. If we now make promises we cannot carry out the people will see we are no different than the Republicans. If we now blame the Republicans for ills that time and circumstances have brought, the people will expect the impossible from a Democratic victory. If in seeking office, we now make charges or state facts which exceed the limits of fairness and validity, then the people will soon find us out, too. We would be deceiving the people to claim that the problems of expanding our economy and maintaining our national security are not difficult tasks. They will require the unified effort of our own party, North and South, East and West. But as Democrats, we know where we are going. We cannot promise the American people easy solutions to difficult problems, but we can offer them action and specific proposals.
Let us demonstrate to a disillusioned nation that promises can mean performance – that responsible opposition can mean constructive legislation – and that the Democratic Party does not forget the people. If we remain close to the people, the people will remain close to us, and we can look forward to the future with confidence and hope.
Source: Papers of John F. Kennedy. Pre-Presidential Papers. Senate Files, Box 921, "1 April 1954 - 27 April 1954." John F. Kennedy Presidential Library.