It is a great pleasure to be here in Connecticut with so many Democratic friends and the Democrats who labored long and hard to build and strengthen the party here in this State.
Although 1952 was the year in which Democratic hopes and ambitions received a serious set back yet your presence here tonight indicates the vitality in the party here and gives promise of brighter days.
Connecticut has been, I believe, unusually fortunate in the quality of its leadership - men like Senator McMahon, whose memory will live long in the records of the Senate of the United States - and Senator Benton who gave many evidences of his political courage in his service in Washington - men like former Governor Bowles who has recently concluded an exacting task in Asia and added new laurels to his reputation. And then there is an old friend and colleague of mine in the House of Representatives, former Congressman Ribicoff who came to Washington the same year that I did in 1947. It is a source of great regret to me that he is not in the United States Senate, for we have need for his type of intelligent leadership.
The Democratic Party is today represented in the United States Congress by but one man - but in Tom Dodd the traditions of this great state are maintained and indeed enhanced. He is but only at the beginning of a long and brilliant career.
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? It is still too early to say. It must be obvious that while the Democratic Party must not be an extremist party, it has no real future on the other hand as a conservative or states rights 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, 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 Bridgeport 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. He has defeated the Republicans who wanted to reduce taxes before balancing the budget. 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. 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, many here in the United States who cannot obtain capital elsewhere.
For the Republican position of off-shore oil, do we believe Mr. Eisenhower, Mr. Brownell, Mr. McKay, or the State Department representative, all of whom said something different, but all of whom want to give to three states the billions of dollars worth of resources belonging to all the people. 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. We were promised "The best minds of the country" to solve our serious national problems and yet too frequently those "best minds" have consisted of Republican Congressmen defeated by the people in the past election. 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 alternative 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 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 to in increasing quantities.
Time is only a friend as 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 guard[s] Western Europe from invasion.
The Soviet Union has a great many more ocean-going submarines than we do. 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 not 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 now have 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. This is especially true when we recall the recent statement of Senator Symington, a member of the Armed Services Committee, that the Soviets are each day widening the gap that separates us. I, therefore, view with much alarm the emphasis given by Secretary Dulles in his statement on Thursday from Europe that the Nato Alliance has ceased to build up its strength to prepare for an attack in 1954 which has usually been held to be the "critical year", when the Soviet strength would be relatively at a maximum. Rather he placed his emphasis on a "long term program consistent with economic health".
The United States has witnessed in recent years, through 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.
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 that correct. But 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 a country go to ruin 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.
Speech Images
Notes Images