—Thank Indiana Delegation.
—96 Senators.
I last spoke to the Democrats of Indiana at a tremendous dinner here in the fall of 1956. That was a difficult year for our party. A great leader, Adlai Stevenson, went down to defeat across the nation. A great farm spokesman, Claude Wickard, was defeated here in Indiana. Our party was driven back, split, discouraged – in my state, in yours, in all 48.
But we are looking tonight at a different picture for 1958 and 1960. We are going to win in Massachusetts – in Indiana – in the nation. This year the Republicans face what Mr. Dulles used to call "an agonizing reappraisal" – in 1960 they face "massive retaliation."
Our party's unity, under the leadership of Paul Butler, far surpasses the feuding Republicans. Of course, it is true that Mr. Nixon and Sherman Adams decided to bury the hatchet – but they buried it in poor old Harold Stassen. So Mr. Stassen is running for Governor of Pennsylvania – he's already been Governor of Minnesota – that leaves only 46 states still in jeopardy.
Yes, victory is in the air – the handwriting is on the wall – this is going to be the greatest Democratic year since 1936.
But I do not say that victory will be easy. It will come to us only if we deserve it. We have to offer more than the old slogans and policies of the past. We have to offer more than charges we cannot prove or promises we cannot fulfill.
We must prove our capacity for responsible leadership. We must demonstrate competence for tackling the difficult issues of our times.
And we will. For courageous, responsible leadership has been in the great moments of our history the trademark of the Democratic Party.
I was sharply reminded of this Democratic tradition eight weeks ago last night. I was in New York to see the opening of a play about Franklin Roosevelt called "Sunrise at Campobello."
It is not a play about politics. It is not about the Presidency or the Democratic Party. It is a play about the triumph of one man and his family over disaster – the disaster of physical illness.
But I thought, as I left the theater very deeply moved, that this play portrays more than this stirring personal triumph. It also brought to mind all the great qualities of leadership in times of crisis for which FDR was famous – not only the personal crisis of his paralysis, but the crisis of a world at war, and all the rest.
We urgently need real leadership again in Washington today. For this nation now enters a period of crisis of greater proportion than any we have ever endured. We are confronted with a deepening crisis in world affairs, in our relations with our allies, in our prestige with the uncommitted nations, in our military, scientific, political and economic race with the Soviets. The Soviets have outshown us in scientific achievement. They have outmaneuvered us in trade and aid. They have outstripped us in the race for ultimate weapons and outer space. The Middle East, North Africa, Indonesia, Cyprus, Latin America – every part of the world is in flames or in ferment. The Republicans in 1956 may have cried "Peace, peace" – but there is no peace – no stable peace in the Middle East, in Southeast Asia, in North Africa and elsewhere. And what the Republicans did not tell us was that our position in the world – our secu.rity – our very hopes for survival could be drastically diminished without a single shot being fired.
Here at home, where they promised prosperity to match their peace, the economic situation is also approaching the crisis stage. More than five million workers are unemployed. Millions of others are working only a few days a week. Millions more are being forced to leave the farm. In June, hundreds of thousands of college and high school graduates will be walking the streets looking for work.
We may still prevent a complete economic disaster – but only if we can obtain effective, imaginary, tireless leadership. That kind of leadership is sorely lacking in this Administration.
We need something more in the way of leadership than those who talk blithely of a "breather" in the economy… or those who say everything will get better if we wait until the end of the year… or those who say reassuringly with Vice President Nixon: "There is nothing wrong with the economy that a good dose of confidence won't cure," and "It's time to quit running America down." I say it's time to start building America up.
Exactly twenty-five years ago this month this nation waited for the kind of leadership I have described. Exactly twenty-five years ago this month President-elect Franklin Delano Roosevelt boarded the train for Washington. He was figuratively watched, with hope and fear, by millions of unemployed workers – dispossessed farmers – panicky bankers – and pessimistic businessmen. The nation was in a state of collapse. His predecessor insisted that everything that could be done had been done – that "the major difficulty is in the state of public mind" – that the primary need was for "confidence" – and that the new President-elect could best secure this through balancing the budget and abandoning his schemes for public works and mortgage guarantees.
But Franklin Roosevelt brought down to Washington with him something more than confidence. He brought leadership – articulate, thoughtful, visionary, resourceful leadership.
And as the Republicans packed to move out, Robert E. Sherwood contrasted the old and the new administrations in a brief, sardonic poem:
"Plodding feet
Tramp – tramp
The Grand Old Party's
Breaking Camp.
Blare of bugles
Din – din
The New Deal is moving in."
"The Presidency," FDR had told a reporter the previous year, "is not merely an administrative office. That's the least of it. It is more than an engineering job, efficient or inefficient. It is pre-eminently a place of moral leadership. Without leadership, alert and sensitive to our change, we are bogged up or lose our way, as we have lost it in the past decade."
What we need in America today is not so much confidence in the economy, but confidence in our leadership. We want "leadership alert and sensitive," in Roosevelt's words, to the harsh changes occurring in the economy. That is necessarily the role of the Chief Executive in modern America. He alone can do the job. That is the role fulfilled by Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman. That role is not being fulfilled today.
We are told instead to wait for the upturn in March. We have waited – March has arrived – and our confidence is diminished further. We see no new ideas, no bold action, no "blare of bugles." We see only "plodding feet … tramp, tramp" – and "the Grand Old Party … breaking camp." We see a farm bill vetoed – interest rates raised – unemployment compensation needs ignored – a school building program abandoned – and other half-hearted proposals half-heartedly offered and supported.
When an Administration lets fall the reins of leadership, they must be firmly held by the Congress – today a Democratic Congress. We must exercise that leadership.
We must pass measures effectively assisting our unemployed workers and our labor surplus areas.
We must restore the vitality of our anti-recession weapons – minimum wages, social security, jobless insurance.
We must restore the purchasing power of our hard-pressed farmers and businessmen.
We must build the public works our nation needs – schools, homes, hospitals, reclamation projects, power dams, urban renewal.
We must raise the nation's standard of living instead of the cost of living – for the aged and the handicapped, for the unorganized and the underpaid and the underprivileged.
And above all, in the words of Justice Holmes, whether we sail with the wind or against the wind, let us set sail – and not drift or lie at anchor.
Permit me to mention in more detail one issue of particular importance to your state – and that is the question of our Federal farm policy.
Congress this month revolted against the negative policy of Secretary Benson. We passed a measure prohibiting any further lowering of farm price supports on dairy products, wheat, corn, and other basic commodities until Congress can – within a year – enact a more effective long-range farm bill. Such a measure is simply common sense – basic protection – in a time of recession, in a time when our economy needs every prop strengthened. And if the President vetoes the bill, it is up to us in Congress to override that veto. I supported this and other Democratic measures because I think farm prosperity is not just a local need – it is a national need.
I think the people in Massachusetts and New England are beginning to realize that we can sell tools and fish and textiles to Indiana only when you have the farm income to pay for them. We can share in an expanding national economy only when it is not held back by declining income in your region. And we can get an administration in Washington sympathetic to our hard-hit areas of labor surplus only when you get one concerned about your problems of farm surplus.
Just as no town in this State can go on indefinitely without the farmer being prosperous, neither can any state in the United States go on indefinitely without our farm states being prosperous.
What, after all, does the farmer want? Nothing more than an opportunity to share equally in an expanding economy of abundance – an opportunity to market his produce at a fair price, protected from extreme economic fluctuations – a chance to live out his life on his land in dignity and in health. He looks to the Government not in hopes of becoming a public ward but in the public interest – because he has no bargaining association to represent him, no monopoly control of his price, no other force to stand between him and the merciless forces of the weather, the market and the processors. He is, after all, the only man in our economy who must buy everything he buys at retail – sell everything he sells at wholesale – and pay the freight both ways.
No thoughtful citizen – no matter what his occupation, no matter what part of the country he lives in – can oppose governmental action to prevent a farm depression that hurts us all. The question is: what kind of action?
Mr. Benson's answer – however it may be worded, or concealed, or explained – is to drive prices down. They told us this would drastically reduce surpluses – but instead surpluses drastically increased. They told us this would cut government farm expenditures – but instead Mr. Benson has spent many times more money than any Secretary of Agriculture in the history of this country. They told us their program would bring us a lower cost of living – but instead the cost-of-living continues to go up and up, despite the fall in farm prices, and despite the fact that the farmer today gets an even smaller proportion of the housewife's food dollar than he did five years ago.
Finally, they told us that net farm income for those remaining on the farm would rise, once Mr. Benson's policies and lower prices had driven the so-called marginal farmers away. But instead net farm income last year was down a disastrous $500 million; and the per capita income for those still holding on to their land was also down.
When 2 million people leave the farm to seek a living in our hard-hit towns and cities – when several hundred farms just disappear every day – when the rate of farm foreclosures has doubled, and farm debt increased by 3 billion dollars – there is no longer any grounds to pretend that the Benson farm program is the answer.
—Money, money, money
—Benson's only program: Get government out of farming business
Farmer's program: Get Benson out of governing business
—Optimistic statements – like policemen bending over body in alley.
The greatest challenge facing the Democratic Party today, it seems to me, is the development of a new workable farm policy. Even though we may use the excuse that we are in the minority, it is not enough that we expend our energies in denouncing Mr. Benson and his policies – or in proposing substitutes which could not be implemented.
After the failure of the soil bank, someone once mournfully suggested that the best farm program is whatever policy is not being tried. I do not believe that that is good enough for us. There is no easy solution to the farm difficulties, of course. But there is a solution preferable to the one we have adopted during the last six years. It is up to us to develop such a program, and present it as a rational alternative to present failures.
I am hopeful that the Democratic Party – the Party with a more humane, a more far-sighted, a more imaginative approach – will work out such solutions in the coming years – solutions which will strengthen our economy from the bottom as well as the top – solutions which will not discriminate against farmers in favor of other segments of the economy – solutions which will preserve the backbone of our economy and our way of life, the family farm.
To develop such solutions – to adopt a consistent long-range position regardless of pressure groups and popular prejudices – will require determination and courage on our part. But I need not talk of courage in the State of Indiana. For this is the state which to me and countless others will always stand for courage – the courage of a great United States Senator – a Republican, if you please, who was repudiated by that Party and its leaders – a real profile in courage – Albert J. Beveridge.
Albert Beveridge was recognized across the nation as a brilliant scholar, a silver-tongued orator and a fearless, tireless battler for progressive, humanitarian legislation. He led the fight to restrict child labor. He was in the front lines of those developing a new enlightened policy on conservation and the protection of national resources. In 1910, his future was bright and unlimited.
But Albert Beveridge's views incurred the wrath of his party's dominant wing. They insisted that he keep silent on his charges against the Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act. His own friends and advisers pleaded with him to soft-pedal his differences until after election – for his own party was threatening him with political extinction.
But Albert Beveridge would not keep silent. "A party can live only by growing," he said; "intolerance of ideas brings its death." And, though discouraged by the defeat his own party inflicted on him, he had but one comment the morning after the election: "It is all right, twelve years of hard work, and a clean record – I am content."
I believe it is the Democratic Party which has that courage and conviction today. We have that welcome for new ideas – that zest for hard work.
I do not pretend to say that the future will always be easy, even under a Democratic Administration. There will be crises, there will be problems. But only the Democratic Party has the enthusiasm and the determination and the new ideas necessary to meet those problems.
We can build the schools and the hospitals and the homes and the dams that our nation needs.
We can wage unrelenting war against drought and poverty and illiteracy and illness and economic insecurity.
We can build, through strength and justice and realistic leadership, a lasting peace.
The hard, tough question is – whether a Democratic society – with its freedom of choice – its breadth of opportunity – its range of alternatives – can meet the single-minded advance of the Communists.
Our decisions are more subtle than dramatic. Our far-flung interests are more complex than consistent – our crises more chronic than easily solved.
Can a nation organized and governed such as ours endure? That is the real question. Have we the nerve and the will? Have we got what it takes to carry through in an age where – as never before – our very survival is at stake – where we and the Russians have the power to destroy one-quarter of the earth's population – a feat not accomplished since Cain slew Abel? Can we carry through in an age where we will witness not only new breakthroughs in weapons of destruction – but also a race for mastery of the sky and the rain, the ocean and the tides, the inside of the earth and the inside of men's minds?
We are moving ahead along a knife-edged path which requires leadership better equipped than any since Lincoln's Day to make clear to our people the vast spectrum of our challenges.
In the words of Woodrow Wilson: "We must neither run with the crowd nor deride it – but seek sober counsel for it – and for ourselves."
—Candles
Fellow Democrats of Indiana – as we face a dark and difficult future, we ask that you, too, bring candles to help illuminate the way.
Source: Papers of John F. Kennedy. Pre-Presidential Papers. Senate Files, Box 900, "Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner, Indianapolis, Indiana, 29 March 1958." John F. Kennedy Presidential Library.