The Young Democrats of Maryland are meeting in the most critical time in the Nation's history; a period even more critical than the early days of the Civil War. The structure of containment in many areas is cracking and our horizons are lit by lightning flashes of distant conflict. Young Americans now occupy a hundred far-flung garrisons stretching from the Rhine in a great half circle to the 38th parallel. There is on all sides evidence of the fierce struggle of world domination by the Communists whose dogma teaches that for them there is no security in a world which they do not control. At the same time there is our own desperate effort to secure that balance of power in the world for those countries whose national independence still survives. This is a struggle of major political philosophies and systems of moral values, of men at arms - of stockpiles of strategic materials and atomic weapons - of air bases and bombers - of industrial potentials and, most important, of military realities. This is the physical, brutal ominous war upon which we have bestowed the name "cold". It is against this vast dark panorama that this dinner is held. It is not always easy in a national tension and crisis like this to talk of politics, and political quarrels pale to the awesome struggle of rival states, but we have a most solemn constitutional obligation to assemble, to maintain and keep alive the political party to which we owe fealty; to influence its policies, to guide its actions for the national good during these days of our minority, to work for the time when we shall once again hold responsibility and authority.
It is therefore a great privilege for me to join with you tonight in behalf of our common cause.
We are met tonight in the shadow 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. Adlai Stevenson fitted none of the traditional moulds from which successful political leaders are poured, although in his introspection and somewhat melancholy, with all his wit and sparkle, reserve, there is some resemblance to Woodrow Wilson.
Although Governor Stevenson lost New York and Massachusetts, it was in these two states that he secured some of his most devoted adherents. You realized as we did in New England that there are no gains without pains; no easy solutions to difficult problems and that in the final analysis more important to a Nation's survival than deposits of copper and gold in the ground are the deposits of character and courage in the human heart. Thus we naturally responded to his challenge and appeal.
Adlai Stevenson like Henry Clay would rather have been right than President. I was confident that he would be both, for I was sure that the time, the party and the man had met. It was not to be, but who can safely predict what the future, now so obscured, will hold for Adlai Stevenson.
In addition the defeat of November was a disappointment because all of us believed that the Democratic Party with its program and the men that make up its Congressional leadership, was far better fitted to carry the burdens and responsibilities of leadership in these difficult and dangerous days. Certainly on its record, it deserved public support with its record of social legislation, legislation which has received such widespread popular acceptance that even the Republicans finally were for it. It had impressive claims on public approval.
But the defeat that we suffered - our removal from positions of direct responsibility, although under the American system our indirect responsibility is still considerable, 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 can not 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.
What course should we follow now. It is still too early to say and it would perhaps be a mistake to chart it with too much accuracy, and I think it important to remember that the American people are not interested in party disputes as such. Political parties are to them a means to a more abundant life and are not an end in themselves. In addition, the American people have given a mandate to President Eisenhower and the Republican Party. As Americans we want them to succeed.
But we have definite responsibilities as members of a minority party under the American constitutional system. We must give representation not only to the 24 million Americans who voted for Adlai Stevenson for President, but also to develop a coherent program of action for the future which we hope will win the support of a majority of Americans.
In so doing we must take into account that we are a national party, that we therefore include within our membership groups that are mutually antipathetic but are willing to remain members of the same party because of the general course of its actions.
In addition, we must realize that because of the success of our social programs of the past 20 years, the political complexion of the country has changed, and moved to the right. A majority of the people today have enough of a stake in our economy that they have become conservers, and this has affected their political behavior.
To sum up in a most general way what the Democratic Party should not become, I would say first it should not become a hostile party. In a country with only two major political parties this would be a fatal mistake as we would be condemned, unless there was a major depression or war, to be a permanent minority unable to attract sufficient strength to gain widespread approval. Nor does the Democratic Party have a real future as a conservative or a 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.
Within these two channel marks, we must steer our course - fighting the battle for people's rights, seeking to give aid and relief to those on the periphery who still live on the marginal edge of existence. We must continue our historic mission of extending the horizons of social legislation.
We will have an opportunity in the coming months in the Congress to carve out a solid program - to demonstrate clearly that the differences between the Republicans and ourselves, between our philosophy of government and theirs - are fundamental and traditional. We can thus show the American people a clear alternative - one that justifies their support in the coming elections of 1954 and 1956.
It is important that we do not fall into the habit that often plagues political minorities of waging ceaseless guerilla warfare over objectives of little importance - so that our opposition appears superficial and irresponsible. Our opponents have shown us the fallacy of that course of action. And it took a skilled military leader to lead them from the hills of petty resistance to join battle in the plains. Our opposition should be confined therefore to serious questions of policy. There will be many and even in the early days of the Republican administration they are becoming apparent.
It has been just sixty days since the new administration took office. During those sixty 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. Worse yet the two heads of the Republican elephant, each with separate campaign promises and platforms have been engaged in a constant struggle for control.
In Boston four days before his election General Eisenhower said "I pledge that the full resources of our new administration will be thrown into the battle against inflation." The full resources of the administration have consisted in lifting all price controls, resulting in higher prices on essential military goods made of copper, as well as the price of groceries to the housewife.
In Pittsburgh General Eisenhower said "We must have better housing for those Americans who are now forced to live in slums and sub-standard dwellings." To improve the housing program, he appointed its arch enemy, former Representative Albert Cole as Administrator. To liberalize our national immigration laws, all reference to the necessity of revising the McCarran Immigration Act about which we heard so much during the campaign has been omitted from all lists of legislative "must". To raise the morale of government employees their budget director has ordered all employees to report on other employees in a manner in which Senator Margaret Chase Smith has compared to "communist thought police". To aid small businessmen they talk of abolishing the RFC, which makes 90% of its loans to small businessmen who can not obtain capital elsewhere.
For the Republican position on offshore 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 reduction of taxes do we listen to Mr. Eisenhower, the Republican platform or Representative Reed? For the Republican position on standby controls, do we listen to Mr. Eisenhower or Senator Capehart? For the Republican position regarding Russia's violation of the Yalta and other wartime pacts, do we listen to Mr. Eisenhower, Mr. Dulles, or Mr. Taft, all of whom say something different? For the Republican view on the President's powers of reorganization, should we have listened to Budget Director Dodge, Republicans in Congress or the President, all of whom made conflicting statements?
We were promised that the best minds of management and labor would draft amendments to the Taft-Hartley Law; but the President's high-powered committee could not even agree on their rules of procedure, and the President now indicates he has nothing to say on the Taft-Hartley law. We are expected to grant statehood to supposedly Republican Hawaii, but not to supposedly Democratic Alaska. We are given a reorganization plan for the Federal Security Agency, after it has been approved by the A.M.A., which is practically the identical plan rejected by Republicans in earlier years as the first step towards socialized medicine.
This confusion and inconsistency explains the rise in 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 for example give clear evidence that the Democratic Party seeks to retain the submerged lands, or tidelands, as a national preserve belonging to all the people and used for their benefit. Our position must be clear-cut and President Truman, Senator Hill and others have marked the course for us. We must work to strengthen the minimum wage to bring it up to date with the rise in the national wage structure and even more important extend its coverage. We must provide for an increase in social security payments and old age and survivor's insurance, the payments of which have been almost completely outmoded by the inflationary forces of the past few years.
We must work to build the Nation's health. The recent report of the President's Commission has shown us how great are the opportunities, therefore the responsibilities in this vital field. We must propose workable alternatives to the National Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 to restore government to a less prejudicial role in labor-management relations. We must develop our natural resources of all kinds in all parts of the country and maintain the people's equity in them. We must continue our ancient battle to see that the influence and if necessary the authority of the government is used to secure equal rights to employment for all people, a right in full accord with the traditions of American democracy.
We must continue as before to protect the people from monopoly, from the irresponsible exercise of economic power. In foreign affairs although we have met and will meet with cruel and severe disappointment we must continue to guide our policy within the framework of collective security upon which our own domestic well being depends.
Certainly however impatient or dissatisfied we may feel with the actions of our Allies, one does not wish to see the United States abrogate its present position of leadership of the Free World by unilateral action, action which may not prove decisive. This is a long struggle in which we are engaged - one requiring constancy and perseverance as well as action and movement.
To sum it up we must set our course not as in General Bradley's memorable phrase, by the light of each passing ship, but by the fixed stars that we have always followed. If we are true to our historic tradition, we can not fail - we must succeed. If we in short 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