I am disappointed by those who say that all the battles have been won – that there are no longer any burning issues – that there is no longer any real need for liberal organizations, publications and political action – that there is no longer any real difference between our two major parties – that there is no appeal in the Democrats assuming the role of the liberal party, that future elections will be decided more on personalities and public relations than on issues.
I cannot agree with such sentiments. I cannot agree that the issues are all gone or the problems all solved. This is not time for liberalism to be reflecting in its past glory. This is a time for action – a time to reform our ranks, restate our objectives, and march ahead.
For the length of our agenda today is, if anything, longer than it was in the Thirties. We have not yet eliminated the malignant effects of poverty, discrimination, illness, and injustice from our land. We have not yet met the needs of more than five million unemployed workers – of more than four million people driven from their farms – of the nearly seven million families still trying to get by on less than two thousand dollars a year. We have not yet ended the waste of our resources – reversed the decay of our cities – or, most tragic of all, found the means to stop a man's destruction of man.
The economic battles of the 1930s are by no means over. Our labor organizations are still fighting repressive measures aimed at undermining their rights and bargaining power by those who seek to generalize from a few instances of wrongdoing. Our unemployed workers are still receiving benefits averaging less than one-third of their regular wages – for too short a time to enable them to find another job before turning to public charity. Millions of low-paid workers still lack the basic protection of our minimum wage laws.
No, the economic battles of the past are not over. But more than that – there are still new pathways to be blazed, new frontiers to be extended: To enable our older citizens to live out their lives in good health, dignity, and security – to enable our younger citizens to go to decent schools with well-paid teachers and adequate facilities. And we have as yet done little or nothing to solve the staggering problems of our nation's health, of not only wiping out our most ravaging diseases but of making medical care available to all who need it. We have in particular done very little for the mentally ill.
Consider, finally, the area of human rights. We have felt in recent years that the pendulum has swung back to the side of liberty, that the bill of rights has been restored once again to its full dignity. But let us not deceive ourselves that these dangers have all passed away.
We face in the Senate today a violent attack upon the Supreme Court, the citadel of our liberties and the protector of our rights. We face new inroads on the public's right to know, new sacrifices to the twin fetishes of secrecy and security, new expansions instead of limitations on wire-tapping. A man can still be deported, denied a passport, or fired from the government without elementary due process. Our immigration laws are still a blot on the name of democracy. The civil rights act passed last year remains dormant – the curbs on filibustering, so widely promised a year ago, are still non-existent – and churches, schools, and synagogues are still being bombed.
These are but some of the reasons why I insist the Democratic Party must be the liberal party today.
There may be some, perhaps, who will question whether the Democratic Party can lead this new liberal movement. But I insist nevertheless that in the great moments of our history the trademark of the Democratic Party has been progressive leadership – able, responsible, and courageous.
We urgently need real leadership again in Washington today. For this nation now enters a period of crisis of greater proportion than any we have ever endured. We are confronted with a deepening crisis in world affairs, in our relations with our allies, in our prestige with the uncommitted nations, in our military, scientific, political, and economic race with the Soviets.
Here at home, where the Republicans promised us prosperity to match their pace, the economic crisis I have already mentioned also cries out for leadership.
Take one specific example of Republican drift and vacillation – the issue of water power development. The Administration wants new starts on post offices – but not a resource development. The President signs – reluctantly – a bill for more highway construction – he vetoes a bill for more river project construction. The growth of our hydro-electric power capacity under Republican rule has been slowed down, halted, and hamstrung in recent years. And the growth of the Pacific Northwest has been slowed down right along with it.
Meade Alcorn, the Republican National Chairman, included my vote for Hell's Canyon in his recent attack upon me at a Republican rally in Massachusetts. But I would say to Mr. Alcorn that this is one united country – that we in New England can share in an expanding national economy only when it is not held back by a power shortage in this region. We can sell tools and shirts and generators to the people for the Northwest only when you have the money to pay for them. A slow-down or recession here soon hurts us in New England too.
The Republican lag in water power projects, moreover, is not a local issue – it is a national issue. While our new starts decline, while we neglect your projects here in Oregon, the Russians move ahead. In recent years, their rate of growth in power generating capacity has far outstripped our own. Four Soviet projects now completed or underway are each greater in capacity than the Grand Couleee Dam. By 1975, their total capacity will far exceed our own.
What does this mean? It means the Russians can better dispense their industries, increase their output, strengthen their economy, and satisfy their consumer demands. It means that we are losing ground every time we abandon our responsibility to exploit fully the great resource potential of Hell's Canyon and the Columbia River Basin.
The Democrats in Congress recognize this responsibility. Without our action, no work would have started on the John Day Dam, on the Cougar and Hills Creek Projects. No inquiry would have been made into the Canadian diversion of these waters. And very little work would have progressed on the Dalles, McNary, and some ten other projects already initiated by the Democrats in 1952. Yes, we recognize our responsibility – our responsibility to our national security, to our national economy, and to the people of this and every region. And Budget Bureau or no Budget Bureau, veto or no veto, we intend to fulfill that responsibility.
Source: Papers of John F. Kennedy. Pre-Presidential Papers. Senate Files, Box 901, "Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner, Eugene, Oregon, 18 May 1958." John F. Kennedy Presidential Library.