Mr. Toastmaster: It is a pleasure to relax tonight in this Democratic stronghold out of the zone of fire of the Potomac battle-ground where the Republicans in Congress and the Republicans in the administration have just wheeled out their heavy artillery to use against each other. After enjoying such a pleasant dinner, I am no longer concerned as to who is supposed to negotiate treaties, who is supposed to announce our terms for peace in Korea, or who is supposed to throw out the first ball.
It is also a pleasure to be in this Democratic city because of its fame for positive leadership. The State that has produced Franklin D. Roosevelt, Al Smith, Herbert H. Lehman, Robert F. Wagner, Sr. – and now making a brilliant record of his own Robert F. Wagner, Jr. – Averill Harriman, and my distinguished friends from the other House from New York City, Arthur Klein, Adam Powell, Franklin Roosevelt, and Jim Donovan – the state that has produced these men can stand as a beacon of hope to Democrats meeting in darkened basements and attics all over the country.
We are met tonight in the aftermath of a great defeat. What made this defeat especially difficult for all of us to sustain, was that through it we were denied the services as Chief Executive of the former Governor of Illinois, our candidate for President, Adlai Stevenson.
But the defeat that we suffered – our removal from positions of direct responsibility, must not be regarded as an unmitigated disaster. The Democrats had been in power for 20 years. Although the personnel and the stream of force had changed somewhat, nevertheless that is a long time to bear the burdens of administrative authority. The wellsprings which should give freshness and vitality to action commence to become dry, and the movement loses coherence and direction. We cannot deny, however partisan we may be, that this had begun to happen to the Democratic Party. Defeat is not, as Governor Stevenson has so well pointed out, a shot in the arm, but it does give us an opportunity to regain perspective, to renew our energies and to find out where we are going.
We have long believed that the Democratic Party is not the party of any one group, but of all groups: Not of some of the people, but all of the people. In our party may be found members of all races – all religions, all walks of life, all income groups in all parts of the country. It must be obvious that while, on the one hand, the Democratic Party must not be an extremist party, on the other it has no real future as a conservative or states-right party. The Republicans have a monopoly on that course of action that they will not lose, and if we swing to the right, we would become atrophied and die as did the Whigs in the 1850's.
We have been welded together by a philosophy of progress, which is emphasized by the young people that I see here tonight. Whether they be young in spirit, such as Herbert Lehman, or young in age, the members of the Democratic Party must never lose that youthful zest for which Jim Farley is justly celebrated, a zest for new ideas and for a better world, which has made us great. Particularly here in New York City the meeting place of the world does the Democratic party need to be the youthful, vigorous party with progressive ideas that can attract all of the diverse elements of the population.
All of our associates may not belong to the same organization. You will recall that Will Rogers once said – "am not a member of any organized political party; I am a Democrat." But the organization of the Democratic Party in the minority, with all of its conflicting groups, is a model of consistency and uniformity, when compared with our Republican friends in Washington. Fortunately for President Eisenhower, the Democratic Party, if not in power, is still a power. With our help the Chief Executive has been able to call his relations with Congress "excellent." With our help he has defeated the Republicans who wanted to weaken his reorganization powers. He has defeated the Republicans who wanted to reduce taxes before balancing the budget. We think we can help him defeat the Republicans sponsoring the Bricker amendment, although Mr. Dulles has made a shocking concession to those forces of isolationism, by rejecting the genocide convention and our work on international human rights. We think we can help him defeat those Republicans who want to repudiate his campaign promises, to improve the Taft-Hartley Law, to strengthen the Social Security Act, and to repeal the McCarran Act. Indeed, I expect to hear any day that the president can muster a majority in the Senate – all he needs is two more Democratic seats.
It has been nearly 90 days since the new administration took office. During these 90 days, the administration has evidenced the desire to carry out campaign pledges regardless of their effect on national policies, and to carry out policies regardless of campaign pledges.
For the Republican position on off-shore oil, do we believe Mr. Eisenhower, Mr. Brownell, Mr. McKay, or the State Department representative, all of whom said something different. For the Republican position on the reduction of taxes, do we listen to Mr. Eisenhower, the Republican platform, or Representative Reed? For the Republican position on stand-by controls should we listen to Mr. Eisenhower or Senator Capehart? For the Republican position regarding Russia's violation of the Yalta and other war time pacts, should we listen to Mr. Eisenhower, to Mr. Dulles, or to Mr. Taft, each of whom says something different. This confusion and inconsistency explains the rising tide of hope and confidence of the Democrats, both in and out of Washington. But the role of an effective opposition is not limited to exposing inadequacies alone, we must propose effective alternatives of our own. We must on our part continue the battle for people's rights, to give aid and relief to those on the periphery, who still live on the marginal edge of existence, and continue our historic mission of extending the horizons of social legislation.
dir="ltr"The Democratic Party will have many opportunities for important public service in the coming months, but already it is becoming apparent, as Senators Johnson and Symington have pointed out, that it may be in the field of national security that this service will have its most enduring significance.
There is, of course, good reason to believe that the ultimate reliance of the Soviet Union will be on the weapons of subversion, economic disintegration, and guerrilla warfare to accomplish our destruction, rather than upon the direct assault of all-out war.
But we cannot count on it. So long as the Soviet Union and her satellites continue to dedicate the large percentage of their national production to the preparation for war – so long must the United States recognize the peril to which we are now subjected in increasing quantities.
Time is only a friend so long as it is favorably used, and there are growing indications that in many categories of defense, the years since Korea have enabled the Communists to overcome some of their deficiencies in atomic power, and at the same time continue to widen the gap that separates us on the ground, in the air, and under the sea. The evidence is obvious. The Armies that the Soviet Union and her satellites have available for an all out attack on the continent of Europe are still several times the size of the forces that now guard Western Europe from invasion – and we are not closing the gap.
The Soviet Union has a great many more ocean going submarines than do we. They have in fact five times the submarine fleet with which the Germans nearly succeeded in isolating the British in the early days of the last war, and their submarines are infinitely more effective.
Although the exact figures are classified, it is now known that the Soviets have many thousands more first class jets than the United States and its combined allies, and also that their best plane has proved in Korea certainly the equal – if not superior – to any of our fighters at normal combat altitude.
It may be argued that this is understandable, as the United States has concentrated its attention on a strategic force of long range bombers, but at least as startling is their rapid development in this field. It is now known that, if and when they feel they have enough atomic bombs to risk an all out attack on this country, they already have the planes with which to deliver those bombs. It has now been estimated that the Soviets and its allies have substantially more jet bombers than the United States and the other nations of the free world: and although most of the Soviet bombers have not the range of the longest range bombers of this country, there is no reason to believe that, especially with the tremendous fire power of atomic weapons, they would not be willing to risk one way flights to destroy American cities. Many people forget that a Russian plane with a Russian crew flew from Moscow to Southern California non-stop some 16 years ago.
The Secretary of Defense in response to this severe threat has signally failed to emphasize in his public statements the clear and present danger to which we are now subjected.
The United States has witnessed in recent years, though a stretch-out, the dilution of the strength the Chiefs of Staff considered to be the minimum for our national security. Any further extension of the target date for our defense goals would be against the national interest and must be opposed.
Rather it is obvious that it is our obligation, an obligation of the most pressing sort, to inform the American people of the severity of the threat to our security, and of the sacrifices that must be made to meet it.
This is not an issue, I think, on which the Democrats can win elections, for only disaster could prove us correct, but we intend to fight for what is right and oppose what is wrong, for the good of the people. If the Republicans fail to keep their pledges, neither that fact nor the fact that we are in the minority should prevent us from keeping ours. During the next four years, we shall work in the Congress, in the state legislatures, in the city councils and in the meeting halls of our nation. We shall continue to work as we have in the past for the welfare of our people, and for a better country and a better world. We are not engaged in a partisan struggle with the Republicans in which we would take delight in seeing the country suffer under their management. We are instead their fellow workers in the struggle for peace and prosperity at home and abroad. The election placed the responsibility of government in the hands of the Republicans, but it did not remove responsibility from the hearts of the Democrats.
With imagination and courage, we shall demonstrate to the nation that promises can mean performance – that responsible opposition can mean constructive legislation – and that the Democratic Party has not forgotten the people. If we remain close to the people, the people will surely 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 893, "New York County Democratic dinner, New York City, 15 April 1953." John F. Kennedy Presidential Library.