…This meeting represents the very heart of the Democratic Party in the years to come. For the future of our Party is dependent upon its younger members – men and women such as I see here tonight. Perhaps the most striking contrast between our Party leadership and that of the Republicans – a contrast particularly visible to all the nation at this year's two national conventions – is the predominance of young leadership in the Democratic Party and the absence of that leadership on the Republican side. Young men sit in positions of authority on the Democratic side of the aisle in the Senate – Albert Gore of Tennessee, Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, George Smathers of Florida, Henry Jackson of Washington, Russell Long of Louisiana, Mike Mansfield of Montana, and a whole host of others, including, of course, our distinguished Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson and our distinguished Vice Presidential nominee, Estes Kefauver of Tennessee. And occupying the Governor's chair in many of our States are more young Democrats – Muskie of Maine, Meyner of New Jersey, Williams of Michigan, Ribicoff of Connecticut, Freeman of Minnesota, Collins of Florida, Simms of New Mexico, and many others. Our candidates for the Senate this year share this youthful vigor – Richards in California, Dodd in Connecticut, Talmadge in Georgia, Church in Idaho, Stingle in Illinois, Wagner in New York, Clark in Pennsylvania, Marland in West Virginia, and many others.
I give you this long list of names because I think its length is almost as impressive as the high quality of those whose names I have mentioned. And they, of course, are only a few of those in positions of responsibility on the Federal and State levels, to say nothing of those occupying other important posts in their States, counties and local communities. The Democratic Party has been blessed with a wealth of young leadership – a new, bold, vigorous leadership dedicated to the Party and the people – young men, their minds fertile with new ideas and fervent with a new spirit. Thus, when Adlai Stevenson talks about a "new America", about the challenges and opportunities that face this nation in the years ahead, he knows he is speaking for a party which will be well equipped to meet those challenges and seize those 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' Mansions. 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 believe that the American voters will settle his future on November 6.
Consequently, you can understand why I am a bit skeptical about the constant references to the "new" Republican Party. It is true that they have a new platform which quietly ignores all of the promises of 1952. And it is true that they can present on the surface a new unity between the two wings of the Republican Party – the right-wing and the far-right-wing. But the truth of the matter is that this practically new Republican Party is very much like the used cars which many of you have inspected after they, too, were advertised as practically new – they had a little more shine, a little more polish, and maybe some new accessories – but underneath were the same worn-out, inadequate works.
For the actual record of the Republican Administration and the Republicans in Congress, as contrasted with their promises in 1952 and their claims in 1956, represents the same Republican pattern of the past – the pattern that offered no hope, no inspiration, no assistance, and no opportunity to the young voters of America. Thus, although I am thankful that the young men and women of this country – who will hold the political balance of power during the next decade – are turning to the Democratic Party, I am not surprised. For ours is the party of youth and vigor, the party that offers real leadership – the kind of leadership young people want – instead of drifting, part-time leadership. And although our opponents may have in the past cried out "It is time for a change!" – a clarion call we have not heard from them in recent years – actually it is the Democratic Party that is the party of change, the party of tomorrow as well as today.
Let us consider, for example, the needs of a young man and his family just starting out in life. He doesn't want a handout – he doesn't want to be overly-protected – he doesn't want anything more than that to which he is entitled. All he requires is a chance to get started, a chance to build for himself and his family the niche in our world that is rightfully theirs. But without the leadership of a youthful vigorous Democratic Party, what would he find – what does he find today under a Republican Administration?
- …When he seeks employment, he find that nearly two-thirds of the jobs in this country do not even have the bare protection of a dollar minimum wage; and that if he is laid-off, as so many young people without seniority are in the fluctuations of our economy, he finds that there are no nationwide standards of unemployment compensation which will keep him from becoming a relief case until he can find work again.
- …If he wants to buy his own farm, he finds that in the past four years the amount of credit available from the Farmer's Home Administration has been steadily declining while the interest rates have been raised to a point he cannot afford.
- …If he wants to start his own business, and small businesses are the life-line of your State and mine, he finds it is now almost impossible to get a loan from the Small Business Administration with all of its inadequate funds, higher interest rates and excessive red tape requirements. He finds that his chances of getting a defense contract are almost negligible under an administration where 68% of all such contracts go to the 100 largest corporations. And with no legislation to prevent price discrimination and economic cannibalism on the part of the big firms, he soon finds that his independent business, too, must be gobbled up in the increasing trend toward corporate mergers.
- …He finds, both as a small business man, and as a family man, that the only tax relief granted in recent years has been to those who need it the least.
- …He finds that he must send his children to overcrowded schools and send his wife to an overcrowded hospital; and he is forced, in addition, to support his aged parents because, with the cost of living at a peak, they are unable to stretch their inadequate social security benefits.
Finally, young men and women – perhaps more than any others in our society – are concerned about the present drift of our foreign policy. John Foster Dulles may lead us to the brink of war, but it is the young men and women of the country who are catapulted into the middle of it. Many are concerned about the vacillations of the present Administration and the Republicans in Congress on the issues of foreign aid and collective security – and these are young men who know that battles not fought at Inchon or Saigon are likely to be fought in Winston Salem or Woonsocket. Many of those who fought in Korea were resentful of Republican distortion and exploitation of that issue in 1952; and many of those who might have to fight in the Middle East are distressed by Republican confusion and the deterioration of our position in 1956.
I am encouraged, moreover, by the refusal of young men and women today to be deceived by the Republican boast of world peace – for they realize that it is possible for us in a period of peace to lose the cold war, to endanger our security – without a shot ever being fired.
The most serious aspect of our drifting foreign policy during the past four years has little or nothing to do directly with the continued growth of Communist military might. 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 French North Africa. 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-African 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 this nation will give it encouragement instead of neglect.
This is only one of many issues where the nation and the world cry out for a return to firm, decisive leadership in Washington. Fortunately, we have a man equal to the times – with the courage and the vigor and the vision equal to the task. Adlai Stevenson, in my opinion, is uniquely qualified to pierce through the turmoil that surrounds us abroad and lead this nation safely through its present crises at home and abroad.
Adlai Stevenson, and the young men and women who are supporting him and running for office with him, truly represent a new America. And so it is that in 1956 young men and women in every state of the union will turn in tremendous numbers to the Democratic Party, the party that recognizes their needs and represents their future – not the party of stand pat and status quo, but the party of progress for all the people.
Source: Papers of John F. Kennedy. Pre-Presidential Papers. Senate Files, Box 895, "Young Democrats of North Carolina, 5 October 1956." John F. Kennedy Presidential Library.