It is a great pleasure for me to be here in San Francisco on behalf of the Stevenson Kefauver ticket and to urge support of your great Democratic candidates for the Senate and House, and I am particularly delighted to see again the many San Franciscans who were so kind to me at the Chicago convention. As a matter of fact, I seem to receive more support in this state and elsewhere from the cities such as San Francisco where I have never spoken - and you may draw your own conclusions as to why this occurred.
Actually, when I think of that second ballot for the Vice Presidency at Chicago, I am most reminded of the early California pioneer who was on a wagon train etc.
The emergence of so many Senators as potential candidates for the national ticket should not have been surprising, however, if we had recalled the somewhat sarcastic prediction made two generations ago by a speaker of the house, Thomas Reed. Speaker Reed prophesied that the day would come when the people, tired of second rate presidents, would amend the constitution to require that the President be elected by the Senate from the membership of the Senate. And this is how he described it: "As the presiding officer completed his tally of votes, the hushed crowd in the galleries sat with tense excitement awaiting the outcome of the first determination of the wisest by the wisest. The pallor of the presiding officer's face indicated that something unexpected had happened and the crowd leaned forward to catch his words as he cried out "Ninety-six Senators had each received one vote". Never before had the people realized that the Senate of the United States was one great level mass of wisdom, equal in all of its parts". Actually speaker Reeds' sarcastic fantasy was an exaggeration in 1956 - all Senators were not candidates for President - some were only candidates for Vice President.
But I have come to California not on behalf of myself but on behalf of the National and State Democratic tickets. Prior to my arrival here only 3 short days ago, and my decision that Roger Kent and Paul Ziffren schedule me as they saw fit, I always thought California was a vacation state. I am one of the first vacationers in history to come from Los Angeles to San Francisco by way of Santa Ana and San Diego. During the past three days, I have made a dozen or more appearances in at least four cities - that I remember. I have spoken to Democratic groups, to the Steel Workers Convention, to television audiences, to a Committee on the Arts, and to a World Affairs Council - and I at first thought that my purpose in coming to this hotel was to address the Republican Associates.
I have enjoyed returning to California, however, for it is here that I briefly attended school and considered becoming a career newspaperman before I returned to Boston and the more placid life of politics. California, I am sure, lost a great newspaperman and Massachusetts gained a Senator - but I am not sure which state came off the better - and I have not dared to ask either one. In any event, you may be sure that my attitude toward your city is more friendly than that of an earlier Massachusetts Senator, Daniel Webster, who, when asked to support an appropriation for a railroad to this growing area replied: "Not one damned cent will I give to bring that ______ one inch closer to Boston". No doubt he was fearful that too many Bostonians would come here to stay - and I find that many of them have. If this weather keeps up, they may even have difficulty getting me to return.
The real test of whether the Republican leopard has changed his spots lies not in the campaign oratory, not in the platform of platitudes and not in the smile on the face of the candidates - but in the Republican record for the past four years.
DOMESTIC ISSUES
Consider, for example, the Republican boast of peak prosperity. Prosperity for whom, we should ask. True, the profits of our largest corporations under the Eisenhower administration have risen some 61% - but factory wages have risen only 10%; farm prices have declined 18%; and small business profits are down 52%. Twenty-four states still include within their borders depressed areas of chronic unemployment; and nearly two-thirds of our workers still lack the protection of the $1 an hour minimum wage. The Republicans insist that their prosperity has been shared equally by everyone - but that is too much like the rabbit stew served during the great shortages of World War II ---etc. etc.
To demonstrate their new concern for the working man, the Republicans have been sending Secretary of Labor Mitchell around to all of the labor conventions, including the steelworkers convention I addressed the other day. Inasmuch as Secretaries Humphrey and Weeks are simultaneously reassuring their business friends that all is in good hands, the situation is like the tremendous popularity of a well-known western governor as it was described to me yesterday. The poor people, it seems, think he is a friend of the poor, and the rich people know that he is not.
Now I like Jim Mitchell. A lot of Democrats like him. A lot of Labor people like him. And undoubtedly, he likes Ike. But the question is: Does Ike like Mitchell? When in 1953 Secretary Mitchell told a Labor convention that one of his first tasks was to shore up the enforcement of our minimum wage laws, President Eisenhower promptly cut his enforcement budget by 28%. When in 1954, Secretary Mitchell announced his vigorous opposition to state right-to-work laws, President Eisenhower told his news conference that Mr. Mitchell did not necessarily reflect administration views on this subject. When in 1955, Secretary Mitchell asked our Senate Labor Committee to broadly extend the coverage of the minimum wage Laws, particularly to retail workers, President Eisenhower told another news conference that he had made no recommendations for extension, to retail workers or anyone else. I can just hear Mr. Nixon sitting in his office as one repudiation after another comes down from the White House and complaining to his aide: "Somebody up there doesn't like no."
3. A similar case of pledges turning into hedges and those who elected being neglected is, of course, the case of our nation's farmers. As farm prices, farm income and the farmers share of our food dollars all continue to decline, while farm mortgage debts increase, we cannot blame our farm friends for believing the story circulating around Washington - that General Eisenhower asked Secretary Benson how the farmer was doing and Benson replied that the farmer's income was still "well below par." "Well under par!", said Ike as he hurried off to the golf course, "excellent, excellent!"
4. Still another tragic story has been the fate of small business under a supposedly business administration. As small business failures and mergers rise rapidly, and small business' share of our economic gains and our defense contracts decline steadily, the small businessmen in my State are pointing with nodding heads to the legal opinion put out by Attorney for the San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge on whether visiting Republicans should be given free passes. That practice, we understand, the attorney said, would be "discriminating in favor of a privileged class ."
5. The lack of vigorous full-time leadership in the White House has held back the nation in a number of other fields. The voters are, I believe, sorely disappointed in the President's lack of courage and determination in meeting the problems of our day. Certainly you must be disappointed here in California, where you once boasted a Congressman who was one of my heroes of political courage, Congressman John Steven McGroarty. Do you remember the letter he wrote: "One of the countless drawbacks…. etc. etc.
In surveying the supposed changes in the so-called new Republican Party with respect to domestic issues, you can see, we find that it is about as much change as going from Los Angeles to San Francisco on a damp and rainy day…that's the Republican story, from smog to fog - for, although they insist there is an important difference, it is hardly visible to the naked eye.
Now let us look for a moment to see what changes we can find in the new Republican Party approach to foreign affairs, to see whether they have substituted responsibility for the shocking irresponsibility on this subject which characterized their campaign in 1952. I can speak with some objectivity on this subject because I was asked to address a strictly nonpartisan world affairs group in Los Angeles this noon…and I delivered a strictly nonpartisan attack on the foreign policies of the Eisenhower administration.
Let me begin by saying in all seriousness that I earnestly hope that the Democratic Party, now that it is the opposition party, will not imitate the tragically irresponsible campaign on foreign policy issues adopted by the Republicans in 1952 - despite the success of those methods. Let us avoid exaggeration of our weaknesses, distortion of the record and oversimplification of the issues. Let us not exploit the miseries and hopes of millions of Americans who long in vain for the "liberation" of their relatives behind the Iron Curtain. And let us make no intemperate remarks on Suez or Indo-China similar to the Republicans' remarks on Korea in 1952, which promised both more aggression and complete withdrawal of our troops at the same time - which endangered our security and alarmed our allies by falsifying the status of the seventh fleet in the Formosan Straits - and which shamelessly played on the emotions of the people in General Eisenhower's promise to "go there"…..for what, no one knew.
This is not to say that we will not have plenty of ammunition and justification to debate foreign policy issues - for Republican drift, inaction, and vacillation have harmed our interests and principles of collective security in practically every corner of the world. At least they have learned - after once presenting him with the pistol he now holds at our head - that what is good for General Nasser is not necessarily good for this country. We will give credit where credit is due, and find fault only where it is justified. We shall not blame the Republicans for the instability of French governments or give them credit for the death of Stalin.
One of the many issues which I have felt should play a larger role in this campaign has little or nothing to do with the worldwide struggle against Communism. For the leadership of the West [break in text ]
I should point out by way of conclusion that one of the chief causes for the barren record of the Eisenhower administration has been the failure of his fellow Republicans in Congress to support his more enlightened proposals. Indeed, they have on occasion so heavily opposed him that Mr. Eisenhower was in the position of the pitcher for the San Francisco Seals who was beaten by a score of twenty to two - and when he was berated by the manager for his performance, he replied: "How do you expect me to win any games if you fellows won't get me any runs."
In the coming election, California will play a crucial role - and from what I've seen in three days I am confident of our Party's prospects in this State. I am confident that you will send a Democratic Senator and a host of Democratic congressmen to work with Adlai Stevenson in Washington. The Democratic Party faces this decision of the people with confidence, because we have always placed our confidence in the people. I am sure that we will not be disappointed on November sixth.
Link to Image