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. 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. What course should we now follow?
We have been welded together by a philosophy of progress which is emphasized by the young people that we see here tonight. Whether they be young in spirit, or young in age, the members of the Democratic Party must never lose that youthful zest for new ideas and for a better world, which has made us great. Particularly here in Delaware does the Democratic Party need to be the youthful, vigorous party with progressive ideas that can attract all groups in the population.
All of our associates may not belong to quite the same organization. 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. 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 over 100 days since the new administration took office. During these 100 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. To improve our Housing Program, they have tabled the entire Public Housing Program for next year in the House. To aid small businessmen they talk of abolishing the R.F.C., which makes 90% of its loans to small businessmen who cannot obtain capital elsewhere. To protect our natural resources they are going to turn over the billions and billions of dollars of Tidelands Oil resources belonging to all the people to a few. This give away on a gigantic scale, I believe, provides a legitimate basis for the fears which have been expressed that this is but the first step in the gradual liquidation of the public domain of America.
In any case, the excessive campaign promises of balanced budgets, strong new foreign policies, etc., go shimmering off into space, and it would not surprise us that the only campaign promise the Republicans will keep is the one to turn over the resources of the submerged lands to the privileged states.
This confusion and inconsistency explains the rising tide of hope and confidence of the Democrat, 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.
The Democratic Party will have many opportunities for important public service in the coming months, but already it is becoming apparent 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 guerilla warfare to accomplish our destruction, rather than upon the direct assault of an 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 several times the size of the force that now guards Western Europe from invasion.
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 that 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 been estimated that the Soviets and its allies have more jet bombers now 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 to 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.
I therefore view with alarm the recent decision by the NATO powers to relax their defensive preparations. The result will be that their strength will not be as great by the end of 1954, as it had been planned that it would be by the end of 1953. This is all the more serious when we recall that 1954 had always been held to be the "critical year" - the year in which Soviet strength would be relatively at a maximum.
In short, what has happened is that the Soviet strength has not been cut. We merely increased the size of the calculated risk with what may prove to be dire results.
Even more serious, however, are the proposed slashes in our own military strength contained in the new military budget. The present indications are, if Congress accepts the recommendations of the administration, that a new and severe stretch out of our military strength will be carried out. For the fifth time since the end of World War II the forced goals of the Armed Services have been changed. The result of these shifts will be that the goals which the chiefs of staff consider to be the minimum for 1953 in view of Soviet potentials will now be stretched out to 1956 or 1957. In the air, for example, the new budget will force a summary roll back of aircraft procurement resulting in reductions in projected air defense, tactical capabilities, as well as our strategic air force.
Can a country as rich and prosperous as we be satisfied with this? Are we really worthy of our historic traditions and heritage? Should we, in this time of our greatest national power, consent to a policy fraught with risk and danger?
In short, I do not see how the Western alliance with a productive potential substantially larger than that of the Communist bloc, can be satisfied with anything less than a maximum effort in this field, one that has some relation to the unrelenting efforts of the Soviet to build irresistible military strength.
This is not an issue, I think, on which the Democrats can win elections, for only disaster could prove us correct. But we must fight, I believe, against this policy of drift and slide and in so doing we shall be worthy of the trust imposed upon us by the people and by the times. We are not engaged in a partisan struggle with the Republicans in which we would take delight in seeing our Country suffer difficulty and trouble 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 youthful 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 remain close to us and we can look forward to the future with confidence and hope.
Draft one
Draft two (reading copy)