Skip to main content <#maincontent> We will keep fighting for all libraries - stand with us! Internet Archive logo A line drawing of the Internet Archive headquarters building façade. Search icon An illustration of a magnifying glass. Search icon An illustration of a magnifying glass. Upload icon An illustration of a horizontal line over an up pointing arrow. Upload User icon An illustration of a person's head and chest. Sign up | Log in Web icon An illustration of a computer application window Wayback Machine Texts icon An illustration of an open book. Books Video icon An illustration of two cells of a film strip. Video Audio icon An illustration of an audio speaker. Audio Software icon An illustration of a 3.5" floppy disk. Software Images icon An illustration of two photographs. Images Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape Donate Ellipses icon An illustration of text ellipses. More Hamburger icon An icon used to represent a menu that can be toggled by interacting with this icon. Internet Archive Audio Live Music Archive Librivox Free Audio Featured * All Audio * This Just In * Grateful Dead * Netlabels * Old Time Radio * 78 RPMs and Cylinder Recordings Top * Audio Books & Poetry * Computers, Technology and Science * Music, Arts & Culture * News & Public Affairs * Spirituality & Religion * Podcasts * Radio News Archive Images Metropolitan Museum Cleveland Museum of Art Featured * All Images * This Just In * Flickr Commons * Occupy Wall Street Flickr * Cover Art * USGS Maps Top * NASA Images * Solar System Collection * Ames Research Center Software Internet Arcade Console Living Room Featured * All Software * This Just In * Old School Emulation * MS-DOS Games * Historical Software * Classic PC Games * Software Library Top * Kodi Archive and Support File * Vintage Software * APK * MS-DOS * CD-ROM Software * CD-ROM Software Library * Software Sites * Tucows Software Library * Shareware CD-ROMs * Software Capsules Compilation * CD-ROM Images * ZX Spectrum * DOOM Level CD Books Books to Borrow Open Library Featured * All Books * All Texts * This Just In * Smithsonian Libraries * FEDLINK (US) * Genealogy * Lincoln Collection Top * American Libraries * Canadian Libraries * Universal Library * Project Gutenberg * Children's Library * Biodiversity Heritage Library * Books by Language * Additional Collections Video TV News Understanding 9/11 Featured * All Video * This Just In * Prelinger Archives * Democracy Now! * Occupy Wall Street * TV NSA Clip Library Top * Animation & Cartoons * Arts & Music * Computers & Technology * Cultural & Academic Films * Ephemeral Films * Movies * News & Public Affairs * Spirituality & Religion * Sports Videos * Television * Videogame Videos * Vlogs * Youth Media Search the history of over 835 billion web pages on the Internet. Search the Wayback Machine Search icon An illustration of a magnifying glass. Mobile Apps * Wayback Machine (iOS) * Wayback Machine (Android) Browser Extensions * Chrome * Firefox * Safari * Edge Archive-It Subscription * Explore the Collections * Learn More * Build Collections Save Page Now Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in the future. Please enter a valid web address * About * Blog * Projects * Help * Donate * Contact * Jobs * Volunteer * People * Sign up for free * Log in Search metadata Search text contents Search TV news captions Search radio transcripts Search archived web sites Advanced Search * About * Blog * Projects * Help * Donate Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape * Contact * Jobs * Volunteer * People Full text of "Dialogues On Democracy " See other formats aA DIALOGUES ON | DEMOCRACY: a a | = ns A Western Electric Public Affairs Production DIALOGUES ON DEMOCRACY “Never was it more false to say, ‘what we don’t know won't hurt us.’ What we don’t know may destroy us and our heritage of free- di ea as Sidney Hook Just as America today is the sum of her history, our descendants will inherit a nation and a world shaped in the main by what we do or fail to do. Free choice is our heritage; informed choice our responsibility. Democracy does not exist without free choice; it cannot long survive without informed choice. Informed choice follows from a dialogue about men and ideas carried on through guaranteed freedom of speech, press and assembly. This album is a fragment of the great American dialogue. It is dedicated to the oldest, most vigorous political democracy in the world, our own, and to you, the informed citizen. Sidney Hook, Richard Neustadt and Richard Heffner are all men of outstanding reputation. Each had a free hand in making his contribution to this series. They were told that the purpose of the series was in line with the traditions established by Western Electric’s Democracy in Action course and Public Affairs Memo- randum. They were asked to aim toward material that could be beneficially repeated many times and could form the basis for study groups of adults as well as high school and college students. Dialogues on Democracy contains three sections: Conventions and Elections, 1892-1960, Presidential Power and The Meaning of Freedom. CAMPAIGNS AND ELECTIONS 1892-1960 Narrated by Richard D. Heffner “He who ignores history, is doomed to relive it.” Santayana Many great issues and historic shifts of attitude are highlighted in this record. Note, for example, the shift of the Republican and Democratic party positions that occurred between 1912 and 1932 on the role of Federal government. During the early years of the Republic, Jef- ferson and Hamilton had defined the issue—Hamilton believed in strong central authority, Jefferson supported the supremacy of states’ rights. From Lincoln to Theo- dore Roosevelt, the Republicans supported strong central government while the mainstream of Democratic thought was based on Jefferson’s concept of states’ rights. This contrast is especially clear in the Bryan “Cross of Gold” speech and in Teddy Roosevelt’s “Bull Moose” campaign of 1912. The parties gradually reversed their positions and it was the beginning of this reversal which lay behind the Taft-Roosevelt split in 1912. When Roosevelt bolted the Republican party in 1912, he left it to those who opposed strong central authority. The emergence of the Demo- cratic position favoring stronger central government occurred in the post-Wilson era and was enormously influenced by two New: Yorkers, Alfred E. Smith and Franklin D. Roosevelt. You may wish to analyze contemporary developments in the light of this recorded history. Does the Taft-Roose- velt split of 1912 have a modern parallel? Bryan’s speech contains elements of hostility and competition between the great cities and the “broad and fertile prairies.” Does this attitude exist today? This record contains the actual voices of many of the leaders of our democracy over a period of sixty-eight years. It also contains some of the famous political sounds and songs of the period. Recordings by American leaders before 1932 are fairly rare. The search for authentic recordings led to many sources including the Library of Congress and the Na- tional Archives in Washington. Some of the materials had to be obtained from private collectors. The first recording made of any major American polit- ical leader appears to be that of Grover Cleveland in the campaign of 1892. This recording is not entirely intelli- gible. However, it is a short recording and is included because of its great historical interest. There was no recording of the original Cross of Gold speech delivered by William Jennings Bryan at the Demo- cratic Convention in 1896. However, because of its impact on the convention—it secured Bryan the Democratic nom- ination for President—Bryan subsequently recorded the speech. This excerpt is from the later recording. The speech made by Warren Harding in 1921 is not a campaign or election speech. It was nevertheless included because no other Harding talk was found and because it was one of his better efforts. RINE STIDEN TTA PORE Professor Richard E. Neustadt discusses the Presidency with Richard D. Heffner “there is bound to be a certain amount | of trouble running any country if you are president the trouble happens to you but if you are a tyrant you can arrange thing's so that most of the trouble happens to other people”’ Archie & Mehitabel Don Marquis Is a modern president likely to be a good administrator? Are the policies of the President, once decided on, likely to be carried out speedily and effectively? Is the scope of Presidential power, as it exists today, spelled out in the Constitution? Professor Neustadt’s answer to these ques- tions is in the negative. In this atomic age a president must have immediate command over more information and sources of informa- tion than ever before in our history. He must be prepared to make decisions of the greatest magnitude and conse- quence speedily. He can’t delegate as much as he should and he better guess right as to what he does delegate. The President is likely to meet an enormous amount of | resistance in getting his wishes carried out and he must be prepared to use persuasion, flattery, cajolery or any other means available to him to get done what he wants done. His most valuable preparation for the Presidency is likely to be experience gained in politics. Any modern president inherits an office enormously enriched and expanded by his predecessors in office. Pro- fessor Neustadt gives an illuminating summary of the greatest contributions of past presidents to the office of President. Professor Neustadt’s discussion on this record was entirely spontaneous. He knew only that he would be interviewed on the subject of presidential power. Mr. Heffner and his research assistant, Mrs. Joan McAllister, prepared for the interview by reading much of what Professor Neustadt had written on the Presidency. THE MEANING OF REEDOM Professor Sidney Hook “Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.” Jefferson The great idea of man’s right to choose: to choose his religion, his form of government, his way of life is the central issue of our times and the subject of The Meaning of Freedom. The idea of freedom is essentially a view of man. It is based on his uniqueness, philosophically described by the Greek thinkers, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle and spiritually defined by the Judaeo-Christian tradition. It is a belief in man’s potential to use his reason and will to control his prejudices and passions. The American Revolution did not mark the beginning of mankind’s long search for liberty. It was a culmination of that quest. History’s great religious leaders had won and re-won the battle for man’s spiritual freedom in rela- tionship to his God. The struggle for free artistic expres- sion which surged during the Renaissance had been sub- stantially won. Bruno, Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon and Newton had already triumphed in the cause of free scien- tific inquiry. And Oliver Cromwell, a century before, had successfully contested the divine right of kings. The meaning of the American Revolution was that it achieved for all men those political rights and guarantees which the Greek experiment in democracy had given to a few men twenty centuries before. The idea of freedom has always been at war with indi- vidual tyrants and tyrannical systems. This century is no exception. Fascism and Communism are indeed our era’s expression of a lack of faith in man. If their philosophical notions seem new, their methods of seeking and maintain- ing power are as old as the Pharaohs of Egypt and as harsh as the hordes of Attila. What is new in our time is the technology for influ- encing the mind—or for destroying man’s existence. To cope with this threat to liberty we must, of course, prepare to defend ourselves physically. But we must do more. We must understand the idea of freedom and its responsibili- ties. Tyranny often comes in the guise of freedom’s cham- pion. Walt Whitman said, “There is no week nor day nor hour, when tyranny may not enter upon this country, if the people lose their roughness and spirit of defiance— tyranny may always enter—there is no charm, no bar against it—the only bar against it is a large resolute breed of men.” Many people were consulted in the search for the person equipped to prepare this study on freedom. Again and again Dr. Hook’s name recurred as one of America’s foremost political philosophers. Dr. Hook was excited by the challenge of this project. He thought it important to prepare a discussion that would yield fresh insights on repeated playing. It is not surprising that a subject that has occupied so many great minds in the history of man would be complex and demanding. What makes it more difficult is that it often seems simple. If Dr. Hook’s talk seems simple, you should probably listen to it again—and again. If it seems difficult, remember—the understanding of freedom is an imperative in the defense of freedom. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Western Electric Public Af- fairs acknowledges with ap- preciation the assistance of the following persons, com- panies and institutions in the preparation of these records: The Library of Congress; The National Archives; Mrs. Yan- na Brandt, for her work on “Campaigns and Elections, 1892-1960”; Mrs. Joan McAI- lister, for her work on “Presi- dential Power’; Folkways Records of 165 West 46th Street, New York, and its Di- rector, Mr. Moses Asch, for permission to use songs from the Folkways Albums “Amer- ican History in Ballad and Song,’ Volumes I and II; “Election Songs of the United States’; National Broadcast- ing Company for access to their tape library; Columbia Broadcasting System Inc. for permission to use a tape, “Con- vention Fever.” SED Lord Acton, History of Freedom Allen, F. L., Only Yesterday Becker, Carl, The Declaration of Independence Binkley, W. E., American Political Parties Brogan, D. W., Politics in America Burns, James M., Roosevelt: The Lion and the Fox Corwin, Edward S., The President: Office and Powers Dewey, John, Freedom and Culture Goldman, Eric, The Crucial Decade 1945-1955 Hand, Learned, Spirit of Liberty Hayek, A., Constitution of Liberty Hofstadter, Richard, The Age of Reform, Bryan to F.D.R. Hook, Sidney, Political Power and Personal Freedom Hyman, Sidney, The American President Josephson, Matthew, The Politicos Locke, John, Second Treatise on Government Mill, J. S., Representative Government Morrison and Commager, Growth of the American Republic Neustadt, Richard, Presidential Power Santayana, George, Domination and Powers Schlesinger, A. The Coming of the New Deal Smith, T. V., The Democratic Way of Life Whitman, Walt. Democratic Vistas White, Theodore H., The Making of the President 1960 The Life and Selected Writings of Jefferson Edited by Koch and Peden Abraham Lincoln, Selected Speeches, Messages and Letters Edited by T. H. Williams | THE TEXT OF new jobs a week for the next 10 years we're going to have to grow more. Gov- ernor Rockefeller says five per cent, Democratic platform and others say five per cent—many say fowr-and-a- half per cent. In the last eight years the average growth has been about two- and-one-half per cent. That’s why we don’t have full employment today.” NARRATOR: Let us end our trip through sixty-eight years of election campaigns with these words from John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address of 1961: KENNEDY: “For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forbears prescribed nearly a century and three-quarters ago. The world is very different now for man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet, the same revo- lutionary beliefs for which our for- bears fought are still at issue around the globe. The belief that the rights of man come, not from the generosity of the State, but from the hand of God. We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first Revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new genera- tion of Americans born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those hu- man rights to which this nation has always been committed and to which we are committed today, at home and around the world. Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge, and more... . In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility, I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it, and the glow from that fire can truly light the world. And so my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” * MUSIC: “Hail to the Chief.” A Western Electric Public Affairs Production Presidential Power This is a discussion of Presidential power, authority and influence. I’m Rich- ard Heffner. With me is Professor Richard Neustadt of Columbia Univer- sity, an authority on the Presidency and an advisor to Presidents. MR. HEFFNER: Professor Neustadt, I think it might be interesting to begin this discussion of what essentially is Presidential power by asking you whether President Johnson when he took his oath of office immedi- ately acquired the power that President Kennedy had wielded or whether he had to establish his own effective power. PROFESSOR NEUSTADT: He acquired, President Johnson did, immediately upon taking the oath all of the constitutional authority of the Presi- dency. He became Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces with all that could mean in the way of giving orders that launched the forces into motion. He be- came conductor of foreign relations in a constitutional sense, the right to sign and veto bills in a legislative sense, the obliga- tion to make recommendations to Con- gress. He acquired authority, of a certain sort, as specified in the Constitution of the Statutes over the executive depart- ments. All these things as matters of authority he acquired by taking his oath of office. Now he did not acquire at once all the actual power in the sense of con- crete influence over other people that Mr. Kennedy had wielded. He had to establish that. Mr. Kennedy had, after all, been in office for a number of years when he died. He was expected to remain in office for another year and run for election and he was expected to win, and all sorts of peo- ple in Washington and throughout the world and governments outside of the American Government had built up rela- tions with Mr. Kennedy and had expecta- tions of Mr. Kennedy, of what he would do and what they wanted from him and what he might do to them. All these ex- pectations disappeared when Mr. Ken- nedy disappeared. Mr. Johnson inherited the authority right away but there’s more to power than merely authority. There is also the notion in the minds of people with whom the President deals as to the uses he will make of his authority, and these notions have to be developed by experience by weighing and judging the new man and how he operates so that Mr. Johnson had at the very outset to create a DIALOGUES ON DEMOCRACY Text of Records picture of himself, an expectation of who he was and how he would use his author- ity in the minds of Congressmen, and executive officials and allied governments, to say nothing of Mr. Khrushchev. He had to establish a reputation with all the people with whom he was going to deal and this is an essential part of power. MR. HEFFNER: Have our Presidents on assuming of- fice generally understood the distinction you have made between authority and influence? PROFESSOR NEUSTADT: I think that Presidents come very quickly, particularly if they’re politicians and have had previous political experi- ence, to understand that authority which comes from statutes or the Constitution is not the same thing as actual influence, or it rarely is the same thing; that power in the sense of formal right to do some- thing is not the same thing as getting it done, provided that the doing requires other people. Mr. Truman once said of Mr. Eisenhower, when Mr. Truman was sitting in office contemplating the likeli- hood that Mr. Eisenhower would come into office, Mr. Truman tapped the top of his desk and said of Eisenhower, “He’ll sit here all day and he’ll say ‘do this, do that’ and nothing will happen. Poor Ike,” Mr. Truman said, “it won’t be a bit like the army. He’ll find it very frustrating.” And this is the difference between author- ity and influence. Oh, you can have the right to give orders but with rather rare exceptions, you can’t automatically count on those orders being carried out. To get them carried out, you have to make the people who have the carrying out to do, do what you want them to do and that’s a different matter from telling them what to do. MR. HEFFNER: Was President Truman’s characteriza- tion of the situation in which President Eisenhower would find himself accurate? PROFESSOR NEUSTADT: Oh, I think so—from all one can find from current reports of the time and then memoirs. Mr. Eisenhower, like all incoming Presidents, but more than most, was astonished I think and very much saddened by the fact that there was so much automatic resistance, and, finally, I believe, got rather tranquil about it. They took him a long time; it took Mr. Truman a long time, too. Nobody likes the experience of sitting in that oval office and feeling—I am the President—order- ing something to be done and finding three months later that it hasn’t been done. Yet, that’s the fate of Presidents. MR. HEFFNER: Why and how? PROFESSOR NEUSTADT: It depends very much what spheres or areas of activity one is talking about. There’s a narrow range of orders which are virtually self-executing in the sense that to give the order is almost the same thing as to have it carried out. But this range consists mostly of orders in the military sphere. So long as we have the kind of military tradition we do of obedi- ence to civil authority, then an order from the President that’s specific enough and clear enough, will be carried out. Now, this is a very important sphere when you have nuclear weapons in your arsenal, so that the President, at one extreme, has enormous actual power. Now his order could devastate the Northern Hemisphere. And in this case, his authority and his influence are almost the same thing. But you can’t carry out most of the work of governing a country most of the time by using troops; there really are very few things you can get done with the use of troops. You can fight wars but you can’t decide the terms of peace. You can pre- vent riots or stop them but you can’t get children educated in schools by the use of troops. You can get them into school but you can’t get them taught. There are rather few things you can do with this great power to use force. And in all other spheres, whether it’s a matter of legisla- tion or action by executive officials or action by private groups, corporations and trade unions—here you’re asking peo- ple to do something which, if they don’t want to do it, they have some capacity not to do it. They have some independent status or authority in their own right. Congress, of course, is a separate branch. Executive officials swear their own oaths to defend the Constitution and administer laws passed not by the President but by Congress. Private corporations and trade unions have the protections of the Bill of Rights and the President’s order to them is not nearly the same thing as an order to troops. Therefore, beyond giving orders you must endeavor to exercise persuasion. You must endeavor to convince these peo- ple that what you want them to do is what they ought to do for their own sakes. And you have to do that before you can count on their doing it. MR. HEFFNER: Are you suggesting then that the man who is best prepared to be President of the United States is not one who has given orders necessarily but one who has ©1964 Western Electric Company, Inc. been in the business of persuasion—the politician, for instance. PROFESSOR NEUSTADT: I think that’s very much the case. We’re dealing with something that is essentially a matter of bargaining. I, the President, want you to do something whether you want to do it or not. I have to convince you that you ought to do it. Now, I may be able to convince you because you are loyal to me. I may be able to convince you because of the sheer force and charm of my personality, or the awe in which you hold the Presidential office in which I sit; I might be able to convince you by sheer reasoning together. But suppose you think that your duty requires you not to do what I think you ought to do. Reasoning won’t make the difference between us. Then how am I to get you to do it? The only way that I can get you to do it is by going beyond cajolery and flattery to a little coercion and how am I to coerce you if you are a Congressman or the head of a cabinet department or the head of a trade union or the head of a business corporation or the head of a foreign gov- ernment? Well, the only way I can coerce you is by making it clear to you that there’s something I can do to you that you want or fear as inducements for your doing what I want. If a President is try- ing to exert influence on Congressmen, he will try to convince them, he will try to flatter them, but what he may have to do is make clear to them that if they don’t give him the bill he wants, he will veto the bill they want, or he won’t put-in his budget the project they want for their constituents, or he won’t campaign for them next time round in their districts, or something else of the sort, which is, in effect, a matter of bargaining. And rela- tions between a President and members of Congress or departments, to say noth- ing of people out in the private sector, these relations are more like the bargain- ing relations between a company and a trade union than they are a reasoned argument among philosopher kings. The essence of persuasion is the matter of convincing the other party by a combina- tion of flattery and coercion. This is a very political task. In this sense, nothing serves better than a training in politics. MR. HEFFNER: Professor Neustadt, going back to the transition period of 1960-1961, after the election of John F. Kennedy, I know that you played a very important role in that transition period as an advisor to the President-elect. Did he as a man who had come up through the ranks of political life in this country, did he understand full well the nature of the task of persua- sion that was to face him or did he come assuming that there were more powers inherent and more influence, perhaps, in- herentin the Presidency than there were? PROFESSOR NEUSTADT: To a degree he, like most Presidents, although he had come up through politics, was unprepared for the limitations on a President’s actual influence. If you sit in the Senate looking at the Presidency with 99 other Senators, particularly if you’re not a senior committee chairman but a relatively middle or junior level member, the President looks mighty in- deed. He has more authority in his hands than any Senator or any other single member of the Government. From outside it looks as though converting that author- ity into actual influence must be a pretty possible and easy thing. Mr. Kennedy found, I believe, that the authority assured him less influence when he sat in the White House than, perhaps, he’d thought it from the outside. But I must say that the first thing on his mind after his election as best I can recall it, was the narrowness of the election. He may have thought that the Presidency had a great deal of authority which he could turn into a great deal of influence. But when he was first elected he did not feel that he had a solid enough election to assure him use of the authority. The first thing he felt he had to do was convert that narrow victory by roughly 100,000 votes in the whole country, convert that into a sense on the part of the country as a whole and Con- gress that he really was President in his own right, that he was acting like the na- tion’s President. He had to change his im- age from the man who hardly won to the man who was everybody’s President. He felt he had to do this before he took office. He felt that if he didn’t widen and strengthen his image he would not be secure in office in using the authority that was there. So he turned somewhat grimly, very carefully and effectively, to take step after step after step, to make the general public feel and members of the Government feel that here was a man who was acting as a President ought to act. One of the first things he did was call upon his defeated opponent, a gen- erous gesture. Another thing he did was go and spend a good deal of time with Presicent Eisenhower, the man he was succeeding. Then, he went into a well- advertised and acutally well-run talent search for senior appointees, members of his cebinet. He appointed several men, among them his Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, and his Secretary of Defense, Rob- ert McNamara, men he did not know and in McNamara’s case, a man not of his own party. And as he appointed them, in talk- ing with the press, he made it perfectly plain that he was seeking the best men he could find. All of this helped to raise his own stature in the eyes of members of the public and the press and members of Congress. By these and other means he manazed to take office as incontestably the President, which was scarcely his status immediately after the election. MR. HEFFNER: Weill, I wonder, Professor Neustadt, whetker any President, particularly a President who has been a student of American history, can look to the men we have considered great and powerful Presidents in the past as his guides as he formulates the techniques of being or becoming an effective President? PROFESSOR NEUSTADT: Only to a limited extent, I think, can a contemporary President look back and the best way I can explain why I think that the past has only limited relevance to the present is by reference to Franklin Roose- velt’s early years. President Roosevelt took office in the midst of the Great De- pression, at a time when the banks were failing and he called Congress into ses- sion and there followed a hundred days in which virtually everything he proposed to Congress was enacted, sometimes very speedily indeed. Now that early period has been remembered ever since and in- coming Presidents, numbers of them, those at least who wanted to be active Presidents, effective Presidents, have tended to look back to Franklin Roose- velt’s early years for a guide. I’m sure that Mr. Kennedy’s discussions during” the campaign of what the strong Presi- dent should be and do were influenced in part by references back to Roosevelt. But consider the differences between the situa- tion of a Roosevelt of 1933 or ’34 and the situation of an Eisenhower in the 50’s or a Kennedy or a Johnson in the 60’s, or for that matter, a Truman in the later 1940’s. In Roosevelt’s time very large numbers of people everywhere were commonly affected in their own private lives by the Depression. Their private lives were touched, and they were touched in some- what the same way. Of course, everyone wasn’t unemployed but the unemployed were everywhere, and there was a real sense of crisis widely perceived as such and widely perceived as having a bearing on each individual. Against that back- ground Roosevelt comes in and his voice is heard as a fresh voice, an appealing voice, and a strong voice. And this brings an enormous response from the public at large. Moreover, the situation when he first came in was literally critical in terms of the state of the economy, in terms of public confidence in our financial system, and faced with a desperate prob- lem, a real question whether our financial system would survive. Congress was anxious for leadership, anxious to be told what to do. In a deep emergency, the re- action of Congress is always to look to the President; it has been so since Lin- coln’s time. This was certainly a situation which got people looking to the President. So you had both Congress and the public at large deeply aware of crisis with a common sense of crisis seen as the same crisis and looking to the White House to do something. That was a marvelous back- ground from which to exercise what we’ve called influence here, to get people to do what you want. In those days, for the President to say what he wanted was to a considerable degree to have people do it. People were anxious to act. They were anxious to be told what to do. And Roose- velt told them. We had a situation some- thing like that again in the early years of World War II after Pearl Harbor and Roosevelt again was the beneficiary. But in most years since the Second World War our circumstances have been very differ- ent. Now we have a whole lot of domestic situations which in earlier years would have been considered crises. Integration problems, for example, persistent under- employment, the need for upgrading of skills, of very difficult situations in educa- tion, real problems in urban redevelop- ment, and yet none of these affects a large part of the population in the same way, at the same time, over the whole country. So none is felt as the height of the Great Depression was felt, so deeply and in such widespread fashion as to alert masses of citizens from one part of the country to another to be especially receptive or re- sponsive to a President. Nor do any of these current domestic situations bring anything like unanimity in Congress about needs and solutions. There is no overwhelming demand for action emanat- ing from all parts of the country and felt by Congressmen at the same time. More- over, we have simultaneously a great many difficulties abroad, any one of which would have been regarded before World War II as a full-blown national crisis. And now these things come all the time, sometimes they’re more serious than others but not a year has passed in recent years when there have not been four or five really difficult situations in the world in which the prestige of the Americans was involved, the programs of the Amer- icans or the military power of the Americans involved and these things now come in such numbers that inevitably citizen attention is diffused. What may be perceived inside our Government as a full-blown crisis is rarely perceived as anything of the sort outside the Govern- ment in the public at large unless there is suddenly a threat of military action, of hostilities. And that perception lasts only so long as the threat is there. As a result, no President is free to do what Roosevelt did in his early years and concentrate on domestic affairs while setting foreign affairs aside. Nor can any President hope to gain from either foreign affairs or domestic situations widespread attention for any one purpose of his, any one pro- gram, any one measure he supports; there are too many measures, there are too many programs, they’re all cut in oppo- site directions. Finally, no President in Mr. Johnson’s situation or Mr. Kennedy’s or Eisenhower’s or Truman’s can focus his attention on one issue or one program and dramatize it by the attention he gives it, and the measures he proposes, the actions he takes to arouse public attention. The contemporary situation is far harder for a President, far harder in terms of getting practical power, real power out of his constitutional authority than it used to be in the sort of productive crisis situation that Roosevelt knew in the early 19380’s. MR. HEFFNER: And yet, strangely enough, it would seem that the very complexity and the suc- cession of crises of which you speak, these themselves demand a greater capacity on the part of the President to exercise ef- fective influence or power. PROFESSOR NEUSTADT: That is true. One thing that has hap- pened to the office of President since Roosevelt’s time partly influenced by Roosevelt’s example is that from every part of the Government and every part of the society and many parts of the world there have come heightened demands and expectations of Presidential initiative and Presidential judgment. All sorts of people inside this country and outside now look to the President to do things or stop things and depend upon him and expect from him judgment and action. So, more is demanded of the person in this office than ever before. But his capacity to produce or at least the assurance that he can pro- duce is much more limited than it was in’ periods we used to call crisis periods and every President nowadays, beginning with Truman, has lived with this terrible strain between his responsibilities as measured by the expectations centering on him and his actual power to get things done. MR. HEFFNER: Certainly that power depends in large part upon the information that he has and it seems to me that it must be increasingly difficult for the President to keep tabs on all the events and developments and the ideas upon which he must keep tabs if he is to maintain effective power. PROFESSOR NEUSTADT: It’s terribly difficult now. It’s difficult partly because communications and the speeding up of communications has short- ened the time for information gathering and reflection. It’s partly because so much information is instantaneously available on many issues at once that one tends to get lost in the sheer pile and welter of in- formation. It’s partly because most issues of foreign domestic policy have very com- plicated aspects which require a great deal of expert consideration. This brings all sorts of specialists into play and they’re constantly fighting with each other. All their specialties are relevant but it’s diffi- cult to mobilize specialists for quick fixes in short time and partly, particularly in foreign and military policy, the difficulties arise because of secrecy itself. Going back to Roosevelt again, most of what was going on in his Administration, not at his own level but below it, things he might have to act on later, fights he might have to get into later, troubles he might have to take a hand in later, were telegraphed to him in advance. He got warning in ad- vance through the press. Now there are all sorts of things which are confined to per- sons with a need to know. Now the Presi- dent, of course, is such a person but he is not automatically assured the kind of ad- vance warning that a press roaming freely through his bureaucracy once gave to Roosevelt. This means that in situations where a President’s constitutional re- sponsibility is most directly involved, war and peace situations, diplomatic situa- tions, where a President’s personal judg- ment has to be exercised and where the consequences of mis-judgment can be very great, this means that a President will feel a need to grasp for information and con- trol over the flow of information and the longer he stays in office usually, the deeper he’ll feel this need, the more inclined he’ll be to clutch at control over the flow of issues rising to him and the information relevant to judgment over them, MR. HEFFNER: Professor Neustadt, you have been speaking of the increasing need felt by Presidents to grasp control over informa- tion and sources of information in making decisions where their key constitutional responsibilities are involved. But the same need for immediate control felt where the question is one of carrying out critical decisions once they have been made? PROFESSOR NEUSTADT: Once a President’s made a judgment particularly in diplomatic and military areas, his need is very great to try to ex- ercise tight control over execution. One found with Mr. Kennedy that from his misadventure with the Bay of Pigs in 1961, the Cuban exile invasions, Mr. Ken- nedy saw that a decision on his part re- sulted in 1,200 Cuban exiles going to jail, in Castro’s jails. Now 1,200 men in jail as the result of a decision is not a very great thing as Presidential decisions go. But I think it’s fair to say that this brought home to Mr. Kennedy vividly the conse- quences of not having tight control over the execution of one’s own decisions and also the consequences of not having tight control in advance of decision over the in- formation relevant to judgment. One can- not understand Mr. Kennedy’s handling of the Cuban missile crisis a year-and-a-half later, without understanding how many lessons he drew from the Bay of Pigs, both on the score of getting control of infor- mation in advance and on the score of tightly controlling the execution of one’s judgments once made. In October 1962, once the Government had indisputable evidence that the Soviets were installing offensive missiles on Cuban territory, then the President himself took charge of the question of what kind of response the Gov- ernment should make. He took charge by assembling around him the chief respon- sible officers of the Government and add- ing to them certain other officers in whom he personally had confidence and holding them together as a group while they thrashed out the information, the options, the possible consequences of various courses of action and he did not take his decision until this group of advisors had been forced to look very deeply into the issues posed by their advice, the possible consequences of advice, then he made his decision on the initial form of response that his Government should take, the quarantine. Having made that decision he proceeded during the week that the quar- antine was in effect, or the four days that it was in effect, to maintain the tightest sort of control over its actual conduct. The ships at sea were in direct communication with Washington, and not only with Wash- ington but with the White House, every move of every ship commander as mer- chantmen approached was audited, at the White House. This is the tightest sort of control one can imagine. This is a form of control that is completely at variance with our whole military tradition, Ever since the Civil War it has been our tradition to give the tactical commander in the field a maximum of autonomy. What Mr. Ken- nedy did in October ’62 was remove that autonomy and keep the control at the cen- ter. I think this is very symptomatic of what will happen from here on out. MR. HEFFNER: And you think this is more a function of the times than of the man and of his per- sonality, the man who sits in the White House. PROFESSOR NEUSTADT: I think so. One cannot, of course, be sure. I think that the impulse to clutch, the need to clutch, the perception of the risks of not clutching will affect any intel- ligent man who sits there. I think you would find if you went into the operation of the Lebanon landings in 1958 that Mr. Eisenhower, even though this was a less immediate situation in the sense of involv- ing the Soviets, Mr. Eisenhower kept pretty close control over that one, not as close as Mr. Kennedy in ’62 but closer than would have been usual some years before. I think the situation, not the man, is the controlling element here; but, of course, one can’t be sure until one sees the evidence as Presidents come along from year to year. MR. HEFFNER: You talk about Presidential need to clutch, and I wonder whether this wasn’t just as true, let’s say of Lincoln, again a crisis President, a wartime President, the need to know what was going on because major policy decisions could be made only in terms not of final staff document but of a sense for all the bits and pieces? PROFESSOR NEUSTADT: Lincoln is a very modern President in these terms. In the pre-nuclear world, Lincoln can be called the first 20th Cen- tury President. In that sense the Civil War did not belong in the 19th Century, as most contemporary observers found it hard to comprehend. It just was out of its time. The Government was much bigger than it had ever been, warfare on this scale was absolutely unknown, the prob- lems of communication and control were more nearly like those that Roosevelt ex- perienced in the Second World War than like anything known to any other war in the 19th Century. So Lincoln in a way is a 20th Century President. And certainly in his time he faced the same problems of needing to get hold of information for his own judgments and then needing to try to keep control over the execution of his judgments that a Kennedy faced. There is, however, one great difference. Mr. Lincoln was dealing most of all with criti- cal decisions in the military sphere and in the sphere of high policy relating to the conduct of the war and of diplomacy. At the pace of military operations in those days and given the scale of Union re- sources Mr. Lincoln had opportunities to make mistakes and then do over again. This is the possibility which tends to dis- appear when one deals with military force on such a scale in contemporary cir- cumstances. This is a very new thing. It only began to affect Mr. Eisenhower’s Presidency toward the end and affected Mr. Kennedy’s and will, I have no doubt, affect Mr. Johnson’s. Here we have a situation in which there is risk of hostili- ties with the other possessor of major nuclear forces. There is risk not only of an irreversable development but one which has irreparable consequences. This has be- gun to be true ever since the Soviet de- cision makers on their side have had delivery systems capable of inflicting ma- jor damage on us. But in this sense the clutch for information and control can be a more desperate clutch in these times than even for Lincoln because the conse- quences of failing to exert control, failing to get appropriate information, can be immeasurably more severe. MR. HEFFNER: Yet I know, Professor Neustadt, that many times in private industry and even, indeed, in Government at other levels one’s picture of the unhappy, unfortunate administrator is that of the man who tries to clutch to him all bits and pieces of knowledge, the man who tries to main- tain in his own office authority over what- ever goes on within his organization. What you’re saying now is that, in our own time, the President must do this. PROFESSOR NEUSTADT: Yes, that’s what I’m saying. And it will have many unfortunate consequences. MR. HEFFNER: Of what kind? PROFESSOR NEUSTADT: Of the kind classically attributed to the administrator in private industry who doesn’t delegate enough, who tries to do too much himself. But the administrator in private industry, to the degree I under- stand his situation, has some greater ease- ment than a President does. The Presi- dent cannot expect that the members of the executive establishment or the mem- bers of Congress, to say nothing of private organization outside of Government on whom he may depend to do something or not do something, he cannot expect that any of these is going to exercise delegated power the way he would like to see it done because none of these people are at his position, none of them were elected by his electorate, none of them stay in office precisely as he does, none of them bear his personal responsibility. And while every President must delegate vastly, any modern President is likely to try to clutch to himself the decisions and the control of operations in areas where his key con- stitutional responsibilities are involved, diplomacy and defense. MR. HEFFNER: And if I understand correctly from what you’ve said before, you feel that the bits and pieces of information relating to these decisions must be at the President’s disposal too, which widens or broadens the need for involvement on his part in almost everything. PROFESSOR NEUSTADT: I’m afraid that this is so, at least I see it so. It is not the image of the clean-desk administrator. Yet there are many things in political government, which one cannot entrust to subordinates with any assur- ance that they will be done the way one would do them. It’s interesting that early in Mr. Johnson’s term when he saw as his first priority an assertion of effective rela- tions with Congress which would get through Congress the two major leftover measures of the Kennedy Administration, the ones which were symbolic of success or failure for the President in 1964, that Mr. Johnson started office attempting to do from the White House what he had done as Majority Leader, attempting to control the day to day tactics of legislative be- havior from the White House day to day and got himself deeply involved, an in- volvement, I dare say, deeper than it would have been reasonable to expect Mr. Johnson to maintain for very long as the need arose to involve himself deeply in foreign operations. But one can under- stand why Mr. Johnson would cut through the use of subordinates and reliance on his Senatorial and Congressional leadership and try to do himself what he felt was of absolute priority importance to his estab- lishment of his own effective reputation as President. He had to take these things on himself directly just as Mr. Kennedy had to take on himself directly a great deal of the work of a Secretary of State, a Secretary of Defense. The critical prob- lem here is not that a President keep a clean desk or not that he delegate to others and simply sit in ultimate judg- ment in an ivory tower. The White House is not an ivory tower. The critical prob- lem here is that he guess right about the things to delegate, that he not take onto himself things, which it turns out, he didn’t have to, but that he do take onto himself the things which turn out to be critical, and, of course, the guessing game on what you can afford to be inattentive about, the guessing game on what you can leave aside, is a very dangerous and chancey game; it’s the hardest part of a President’s problem. MR. HEFFNER: I gather you feel very strongly that the President at mid-century and beyond, is a very, very different man from his con- stitutional and traditional ancestors in office. PROFESSOR NEUSTADT: Let me be very careful in answering this question. The contemporary Presi- dent is in a very different operating situ- ation than were most of his predecessors, pre-Roosevelt, with the partial exception of Wilson and of Lincoln. The situation is enormously different, the operating situation, but the contemporary President who has to face this curious, complex set of operating problems I’ve talked about, this President stands on a foundation of authority and that base was built by the accretion of precedent under our earlier Presidents. And every President now owes something to George Washington’s assertion of the dignity of the office. What Washington did as the first President with no precedents, what Washington did most of all, was to occupy the office as our first genuine, national hero. And ever after even though the office fell into dis- suitude from time to time, it was the place which General Washington had occupied. That helps to set its status as a primary political institution. Every President owes a great deal to Andrew Jackson’s assertion of the independent electoral position of the office. What Andrew Jack- son did was to get himself nominated by a party convention, free of Congress, and then couple his nomination with election of electors by popular vote in the states, electors pledged in advance to vote for him. In his time the Electoral College was transformed from a council of notables, a council of elders, to a body representa- tive of popular votes. And at the same time the nominating process which brought a man within sight of those votes was transformed from a Congressional caucus to a convention of local political organizations spread throughout the country so that Andrew Jackson added to the dignity of the office for which Wash- ington set a precedent. His term and what happened in his term of office, provided the Presidency with independent national election and status as a national elective office with a stronger claim to represent the country as a whole than Congress. It’s an enormous addition to Presidential au- thority and therefore power. What Lin- coln did was to invent the war power to claim that the combination of his oath of office to preserve and defend the Constitu- tion with the constitutional authority to act as Commander-in-Chief, that these things in combination, gave him a semi- dictatorial authority drawn from the Constitution in time of war. And this has been enormously useful to the develop- ment of the office under Wilson and under Franklin Roosevelt. What Teddy Roose- velt did was establish the office as the most interesting source of news and entertain- ment in the country. The first Roosevelt’s Administration coincided, more or less, with the maturation of a national net- work of news. And through this early medium of mass communication there came the voice, postures, ideas, antics, of a very interesting man in the White House. The White House was established ever after as one of the most interesting sources of news, not only in the Govern- ment but in the country as a whole. News and entertainment in those days, there was nothing much to compete with except circuses. Wilson and the second Roosevelt as war leaders certainly added a great deal in which modern Presidents, later Presidents built, and Roosevelt, as the leader of his country in the Great Depres- sion, initiated a transformation of the Government of its involvement in national life, its responsibilities in economic and social welfare areas, that has made the President a personification of economy in society and concern, therefore, to a degree unknown previously, so that any contem- porary President starts out with the accretion of common law added to bare constitutional provisions. Any President starts out with authority and a status in the courtry that rests quite as much in what his predecessors have done as on what the Constitution with its careful ambiguities provided. MR. HEFFNER: How would you carry on the listing of the contributions made by more recent Presidents? PROFESSOR NEUSTADT: Roosevelt’s first successor, Harry Tru- man, did at least two things that added something to the Presidency of his suc- cessors. He presided very actively over the full entry of the U.S. in peace time into world responsibilities and world affairs and was the first man who had to exercise in modern times the authority of this Government which, constitutionally, is supposed to have been shared between President and Congress, the authority to make war. Mr. Truman took us into our third most costly war in terms of lives . without a declaration of war, without sanction of Congress. In doing so he merely demonstrated what we now have had to zccept, that technology has modi- fied the Constitution in this respect, that decisions on the use of force abroad have got to be taken by the President and can- not be shared by Congress because of the nature of weapons, because of secrecy, complexity, and time. Mr. Truman set that precedent. MR. HEFFNER: I know that you referred to the Korean War in 1950 but do you feel that this is a precedent that quite literally has been set and accepted by the American people? PROFESSOR NEUSTADT: Well, it quite literally has been set. It was followed in Lebanon; it was fol- lowed, at least with the authorization of alien forces, a rather special case in 1961 in the Bay of Pigs, and I have no doubt there will be other instances. It has been accepted, I think there has been no doubt of this, in Congress. Whether it’s as yet fully realized throughout the country, I don’t know. But at the time of the missile confrontation with the Soviets over Cuba in October 1962, I noticed no editorial comment or comment on the streets or anything of that sort suggesting that, suggesting any lack of recognition for the fact that decisions of these sorts are now in the hands of the President. Tru- man’s precedent with Korea helped accus- tom us to what is, I’m afraid, an unfor- tunate and inescapable necessity. Fur- thermore, Mr. Truman by presiding over, launching us into our post-war foreign policy and sticking to his guns, sticking very firmly to decisions he had once taken in terms of European recovery, the an- nunciation of the Truman Doctrine and its implementation, a whole series of decisions that were precedent-making in foreign affairs. Mr. Truman built a base of foreign policy which has remained in most respects central to the character of our policy in all the periods since. These were Truman’s additions. MR. HEFFNER: It’s strange that a man whose experi- ences before he entered the Presidency were limited generally to really, in a sense, to local and state politics should have been a man who set the kinds of precedents that you describe now. PROFESSOR NEUSTADT: It is strange superficially. Not only had Mr. Truman’s experience been confined to local politics and of the Senate, but he alone among our recent Presidents had never had any ambition for the Presi- dency, had never fixed his eye on it, never expected or wanted to be there. The ex- planation, I think, is a matter of char- acter, character and ideas the man carried in his own head about the office. He was a great reader of American history, par- ticularly of the lives of great men in American history. He was a young wor- shiper of Woodrow Wilson. He deeply re- spected Franklin Roosevelt, even though he and Roosevelt were, at times, political enemies. Roosevelt tried to purge him from the Senate in the primaries in 1940. Still, he had an enormous respect, Mr. Truman did, for the office of President, a great sense that it was the key central point of judgment and initiative in our system, and a great respect for Presidents who had used it in that fashion, and when he took the Office, his ideas about what was required of an incumbent there gave him something he tried very hard to live up to. MR. HEFFNER: It is strange though that he should have made such an impact upon foreign policy, too. PROFESSOR NEUSTADT: Well, he didn’t do this for no reason at all. He once said to me that Joe Stalin made our foreign policy, his foreign pol- icy, that is, Truman’s, after the war, that without Stalin we never would have got the Marshall Plan through Congress, or undertaken what has since come to be known as a containment policy. I think this is right. What Truman did was re- spond to very sharp challenges which arose for the U.S. and the world. He re- sponded sharply and decisively to blunt pressure placed upon us in our world situ- ation, and the blunter the pressure, not only the more decisive Mr. Tryman’s re- sponse, but the more assured his support from Congress. Now it’s one of the diffi- culties of Mr. Eisenhower in his later years and Mr. Kennedy and, no doubt, Mr. Johnson in his time that the chal- lenges are less sharp, less clear, they’re more ambiguous, more subtle than they were in the later 1940’s. MR. HEFFNER: How did this affect the course of the Eisenhower Administration? PROFESSOR NEUSTADT: The answer is that Mr. Eisenhower in his second term, the end of his first term and his second term, found himself unable to steer a sharp, simple course of action with respect to any area of the world. If you recall, he had come into office pledged to liquidate the Korean War; well, the Korean War was ended. His party was pledged to roll back the Iron Curtain, pledged to an active policy of freeing Eastern Europe from Communist con- trol; yet when there was a revolt in East Germany in ’53, when later there was the Hungarian revolt of ’56, Mr. EHisen- hower’s Administration found itself in no position to take a sharp, concrete, simple action of the sort that Mr. Truman had undertaken with respect to Greece in 1947. There were too many risks of rela- tionships in other parts of the world, too much uncertainty about Soviet response, and about our invulnerability to the re- sponse. Similarly, the alliance system in Europe which was built in Truman’s time with Mr. Eisenhower’s participation as Commander of the Allied Forces, the alli- ance system came under great strains in Mr. Eisenhower’s time as Europe recov- ered, as it developed interests separate from American interest, and these strains of course have grown progressively greater in the 1960’s. Throughout the world, Mr. Eisenhower faced a variety of pressures which did not permit sharp, simple answers. But it must be said for Mr. Eisenhower that in another sense he, too, added something which his successors could build. Not since Washington, per- haps, has there been in the Presidency so genuine a national hero. His incumbency of the Presidency has added something further to its status and his successors profit from sitting where this genuine hero sat. Furthermore, in a negative way, Mr. Eisenhower proved something about the modern Presidency; he came into office very much convinced according to his public statements that the President had a limited role in our Government, that he shared authority with Congress, that he must not attempt to influence Congress in the exercise of its authority, that the President should exercise his authority and should translate it into power only for limited objects with a rather tradi- tional view of the Presidency’s position in our political system. By the time he left office, he in his turn, had found him- self acting, intervening for legislative programs, intervening against legislative programs, acting positively in foreign affairs, intervening in election campaigns for Congressmen, doing all the things that shocked traditionalists, when Frank- lin Roosevelt did them. One of the things that Mr. Eisenhower’s added to this office is to suggest definitively that the modern office can never shrink to the dimensions it held, let us say, in the time of President Taft or even in the time of Coolidge and Hoover, that the office after Roosevelt will always remain a much bigger office than I think Mr. Eisenhower initially expected it to be when he took it. Certainly by the end of his time he was acting in the same tradition as the tradition of Roosevelt and Truman before him and Kennedy and Johnson after him. MR. HEFFNER: Thank you very much, Professor Neu- stadt. PROFESSOR NEUSTADT: Thank you. The Meaning of Freedom Professor Sidney Hook of New York University is one of America’s foremost Political Philosophers. Here he discusses the meaning of freedom. Professor Hook: In the life of all nations there comes a time for stock-taking and appraisal of the national heritage. Sometimes it comes after a great disaster like a lost war. Sometimes it comes on the eve of a grave decision when a people confronts fateful alternatives of policy. In our own country, it comes at a time when we have been brushed by the dark wings of history. The tragic death of President Kennedy pro- vides an occasion for reassessment and national self-understanding. It is a chal- lenge to each reflective person to rethink his commitment as a citizen of his nation and as a member of a society which estab- lishes obligations as well as bestowing privileges. What does the American idea represent today? Is America merely stale promises decked out in holiday rhetoric? Are American ideals still viable? Do they represent a living reality? Or is the gap between American ideals and American reality so wide that the ideals themselves are compromised? Is the American herit- age distinctively American or does it con- tain universal elements which can be made the basis of an acceptable world- order? These are some of the questions all intelligent Americans must sooner or later grappel with. In human experience, the ultimate test of men’s loyalties are not words but actions. There are many things we act on —love and friendship and neighborliness —that we find difficult to articulate, to put into the words which catch and ade- quately convey the quality of our emo- tions. But it is not really necessary to find the proper words for our deepest emotions. For the things we do express and redeem our pledges to each other much more than mere words. After all, not everything can be said or need be said. Why, then, does this not suffice with respect to our political faith and alle- giance? Why do we have to become aware of our commitments, to declare them, to reflect on them, to discuss and to debate them? Is it not enough to know, for ex- ample, that if all the curtains of the world were rung up—the iron, the bam- boo and the barbed-wire curtains which divide the world—the movements of peo- ples would be towards the free world and to America its citadel? So much was frankly admitted by those who built the Berlin wall. For it was not erected to keep citizens of the West out but to pen those who lived behind that wall in! Is it neces- ‘sary, therefore, in the light of these and similar facts, to have to spell out the reasons, to make explicit the grounds of our allegiance to our society? The answer is “yes,” for in political affairs we cannot take for granted the general acceptance we find with respect to basic human values like love and friend- ship or kindness. There are individuals, parties, entire states which believe, de- spite the movement of individuals to- wards the West, that the way of life of a totalitarian society is better than, or superior to our own, and that not all or even most human beings know what is for their own good and therefore need rulers who know better than they do what is good for them. Our democratic world— and its legacy of ideas—are under con- stant attack and criticism. It is being challenged to justify itself. And to such a challenge we cannot merely reply— “Everyone knows it is good.” Our world faces not only the challenge of those who are opposed to it and who would destroy it. It confronts the chal- lenge which its own endemic problems create. We must apply the ideals by which we profess to live to a host of new prob- lems—economic, social, political, ethnic and racial. Unless we become aware of what those ideals are, why and in which way we are committed to them, we are blind, groping in the darkness of the future instead of illuminating it. Now the first word which comes to our lips when we seek to describe our political ideal is “democracy.” Often it rises no higher than our lips. If it reaches our mind, the term democracy raises as many problems as it answers. For after all those who are determined to destroy the American way of life call themselves democrats, too, and the system with which they would replace it, a “democracy.” How do we distinguish between our de- mocracy and theirs?—between the democ- racy to which we give our reflective loyalty and the “new” democracy, “or- ganic” democracy, “guided democracy,” “higher democracy,” “socialist”? democ- racy with which the totalitarianisms of the 20th century have contrasted it? The key to the crucial difference is found in another expression—‘‘freedom.”, This term is only slightly less ambiguous than “democracy” but when the\iwo are coupled together, we have a concept which we can fruitfully explore. No matter what kind of system is called democratic, we are committed to one in which human beings retain their basic freedom. What kind of “freedom” is this? In what sense is it basic? My answer is that the basic sense of freedom in our society is freedom of choice—freedom to choose who shall govern us and the freedom to dismiss or replace our governors if they do not suit us. This is what we mean by self-government. Self-government does not mean that all of us collectively govern ourselves in all things. This is impossible. It means that all of us who are qualified as citizens through our freely elected representatives, are both rulers and ruled. And this is what the Declaration of Inde- pendence implies when it limits the just powers of any government to the freely given consent or choice of the governed. If we take a fresh look at the meaning of these words, we shall discover that they possess remarkable, even revolutionary implications. They challenge the validity of every elite theory of human rule— whether it is an elite of kings or aristo- crats, philosophers or priests, politicians or professional reformers—a _ theory which is continuously being revived whenever it is advocated that we sur- render popular sovereignty to experts. More important, the ideal of a self-gov- erning political community comes nearest to expressing the principle of permanent revolution in human affairs, for it as- sumes that all normal or mature human beings, who are affected by the decisions of government, and the institutions of a society, should have a voice and a vote and therefore some power in determining them—in conserving them or transform- ing them. If this is what freedom means, we can more readily see what it does not mean. Freedom is not to be equated with any particular economic system but with the right to choose the economic system under which one wishes to live. The greatest error is to assume that what basically divides the Communist and Western worlds is their different economic systems, what is officially called socialism on the other side of the Iron Curtain, and what is traditionally called capitalism or free enterprise on this side. What really divides them is freedom—the freedom to choose the kind of economy the people want—a freedom denied to the subjects of all Communist countries by Commu- nist theory and still more by Communist practice. Even under their minority one party dictatorships with their absolutely controlled press and radio and educational system, the Communist rulers dare not risk giving their workers the right to choose. It is this right to choose freely which our Constitution and Declaration of In- dependence enshrine, and what we mean by freedom is not free enterprise or any other economic sysetm but the proud and precious freedom to choose to move to- wards capitalism, socialism or a mixed economy or away from them. When we speak of democracy therefore we must recognize that central to it is this notion of freely given consent or of freedom of choice which is both a political and a moral concept or ideal. And it is important to recognize this because if we do not, we shall stumble into many pits of misunderstanding. Let me explicate first its political side. When we speak of a self-governing com- munity we presuppose freely given con- sent. But how do we establish the exist- ence of freely given consent? Mere voting by itself is not enough. All the dictators conduct elections or plebiscites in which they report that 99 per cent or there- abouts of the population endorses their policy. But no one is taken in by these farcical procedures, because it is obvious that despite the elections no genuine choice has been offered. Without the exist- ence of a legally recognized opposition party consent or choice is not free. Nor is even the existence of an opposition party sufficient. Such a party may be tolerated. But unless it enjoys legally guaranteed freedom of propaganda which entails freedom of speech, press and assembly those who choose remain ignorant of possible alternatives. And an ignorant choice—one deprived of the possibility of learning about relevant alternatives is not a free choice. Nor is this all. To be free to exercise one’s choice means to be free not only from physical coercion but from economic coercion, the threat of economic sanctions—for example loss of employment—if one’s political choice offends against the reigning orthodoxy. All these freedoms in turn depend for their validity on something which for want of a better phrase we may call “the rule of law.” On paper, a government may recognize a great many freedoms but if it has the power to arrest its citizens arbi- trarily, imprison, deport or execute them by administrative decree or juridical frame-ups or demonstration trials, these freedoms are nugatory. Under such con- ditions only those who have a vocation for heroism or martyrdom will exercise them, and then not for long. In order for citi- zens to practice and enjoy their freedoms, they must not be punished for doing what has not been previously forbidden by an authorized agency, they must not be de- prived of the protection of courts which function independently of the govern- ment. The courts in a genuinely free soci- ety not only pass judgment on individuals who violate the law in their relations to other individuals but on some matters must be able to say no! to those in power, and prevent the government itself from tyrannizing over all of its citizens or over a weak minority. This freedom of ours—government by freely given consent—carries with it a cluster of other freedoms integral to its very nature—freedom of speech, press and assembly; freedom of association; freedom under the rule of law. Once we grasp this we can make short shrift of the sophisms which suggest that this is only half the story, and by far not the most essential half. This half is referred to as formal political democracy. The other half is called economic democracy, and it is implied that the two are quite distinct. Sometimes apologists of totalitarian re- gimes are willing to grant that political freedom or democracy exists in the West but they insist that something they call economic democracy exists in Communist countries and piously add that some day economic democracy will be married to political democracy in order to achieve a perfect social union. And this ceremony is scheduled to take place whenever the leaders of the Communist party benevo- lently decide to liquidate their dictator- ship and in this manner disprove Karl Marx’s famous generalization that no ruling class ever voluntarily relinquishes its power. But what does it mean to speak of eco- nomic democracy? Sometimes this is a misleading phrase for economic equality —which is something quite different from economic democracy, for economic equal- ity is present both when all men are equally starving as well as when all men are equally fed. It may be present when all men are equally enslaved as when they are equally free. If economic democ- racy has any intelligible meaning, it im- plies that those who do the world’s work have some power to determine the re- wards of work, their wages, the hours of work, and the conditions of work. If the workers cannot participate in free-bar- gaining with their employers, private or public, then they run the risk of being ruthlessly exploited, of receiving a smaller slice of the pie that they have baked than they deserve. Economic de- mocracy in other words means the exist- ence of free trade unions or it means nothing. If this is so, then it is utterly false to contrast political democracy with economic democracy. For economic democ- racy and the practice of free trade- unionism requires as necessary condi- tions freedom of speech, press, assembly, under the rule of law which defines the essence of political democracy. Political democracy without economic democracy is incomplete but economic democracy without political democracy is impossible, a contradiction in terms. So far I have been talking mainly about the American idea or ideal or free- dom. But freedom is as freedom does. Principles do not operate by themselves. Men must carry them out. And the organ- ized ways in which they carry them out constitute the institutions of a nation. Institutions are organized habits of pro- cedure by which we regulate the social activities of men. And just as we ulti- mately judge the sincerity of a man’s words by his deeds, so we judge the ideal professions of a country by its institu- tional practices. And when we turn our gaze from the burnished abstractions about democracy and freedom to the actual institutional behavior in these our United States— what do we find? We find, alas, a very imperfect state of affairs, multiple viola- tions of our professed ideals, disregard of the basic human rights, not to speak of the political rights, of our Negro fellow- citizens, in some communities large pock- ets of poverty and unemployment, inadequate housing, schooling and medical care. And as accompaniment to all this we hear excited talk and extravagant nonsense on all sorts of subjects by extremists, and extravagant exaggera- tion of the dangers of extremism. The trwth, however, will not and cannot be deniedi. There zis a gap between American pro- fessions and performance which every honest mind must recognize. How great is it? Amid what does it signify? Does itt signify that it is hypocrisy to speak of .American freedom in the face of Americam failure to live up to its own ideals? T!his was the charge that Goebbels, the projpagandist-in-chief of Hitler’s Germany’, levelled against the United States dwring the last war. Mocking our official cllaim that we were fighting for the defemse of free institutions, Goebbels called atttention to the disabilities and outrages under which Negroes and other minorities lived in some regions of the country. He circulated graphic pictures of mob vialence against Negroes, and claimed they surpassed anything which at the tiime the Nazis had done against the Jews:. He described the role played by men of wealth—plutocrats he called them —in American society, and made invidious comparisons between the vast systems of social imsurance which existed in Nazi Germany and the United States. Goebbels was not wrong about many of the fiacts he cited although he exag- gerated greatly. But he was profoundly wrong in his interpretation of the facts and in the charges of hypocrisy which he made. Why was he wrong? For many reasons, but I have time to mention only two. First, many of the sorry practices he called attention to were actually viola- tions of American law whereas the in- famous Nazi practices were official prac- tices of the totalitarian regime he repre- sented. The chief spokesmen of American public opinion, as well as the over-all consensus of the country, the executive power, the courts, the leaders of church, school and bar all outspokenly condemned these outrages. Secondly, with respect to practices and conditions which were not technical violations of the law but still offended against basic human decencies, Goebbels was blind to the direction in which things were moving. At the time he described them, conditions indeed left a great deal to be desired. But he did. not ask whether these deplorable conditions were better or worse than they had been, whether they were signs of greater and faster improvement. And these were the all important questions because many of the evils in American life were a legacy of the past which we inherited, a legacy that could not be liquidated at once, a legacy for which we who are alive today are responsible for, only with respect to what we do or fail to do with it in the present and future. The sins of the fathers may be visited on the heads of their children into the third and fourth generation but the children are not mor- ally responsible for their fathers’ sins. The responsibility of the children is de- fined by what they do, by the kind of world they bequeath to their offspring. Today, the external or foreign criti- cisms of the culture of free societies is made not by the propagandists of Fas- cism but by the much more skillful prop- agandists of Communism. They, too, repeat much of the indictment that Goeb- bels made of American hypocrisy. But their criticism is more fundamental. Even if there were no shameful denials of political freedom to Negroes in some regions of the country, even if we had a perfect score with respect to civil and political rights, the Communists would still declare our freedom and democracy “a sham.” For they contend that so long as the economy is not owned or controlled by the government, so long as there are owners of capital who live on their cap- ital, and those who live by working, de- mocracy will always be only “a democracy of the minority.” According to Lenin, the founder of the Soviet Union, in Western democracies the workers who constitute the majority of the population are perma- nently “debarred from participating in social and political life.” This criticism is radically miscon- ceived. From the point of view of freedom or democracy, the important thing about an economy is not who owns what but whether the political and human rights of individuals are furthered by the economic system or restricted by it, and whether the standard of material life is increasing for the whole society at the same time as the inequalities in living conditions are decreasing. Absolute equality is impos- sible, of course, even if it were desirable. The Communist criticism of free soci- eties on this score falls far short of the mark with respect to the growth of politi- cal and human rights, and the redistribu- tion of wealth in the economy. Without denying in the least that in American society different classes have different political power, that money still talks in places where it should not be heard, that a great deal still remains to be done to draw all elements of the population into the political process, it is still true that more Americans possess more political rights than ever before in American his- tory; that American workers and farmers through their organizations play a very active political role, and that the chief obstacles to greater participation in the political process by the people of this country is their own disinterest and un- concern—a state of affairs which is not irremediable. Secondly, the exercise of political de- mocracy in the Western world and in this country has led to profound modifications in the economy. In every field, from medi- cal and social services to education, a great deal must be done, but what has already been done through the operation of our tax laws, free trade unionism, and social legislation has produced greater equality or more greatly reduced inequal- ities than at any period in our own past. In comparison with Communist countries, our own mixed economy has outproduced them in most agricultural and industrial commodities. At the same time one can observe greater inequality in earned in- come between the highest and lowest echelons of Communist industry, than is the case in most Western countries. Let us grant for the moment that the violations of political and human rights in our country are as grave as our enemies declare them to be; let us grant that eco- nomic inequalities and injustices still abound. We could nonetheless acquit our- selves of any honest indictment. For so long as the processes of freely given con- sent remain intact, so long as our political heritage of freedom is a living reality, we can by political action, legislation and education progressively diminish these violations, these inequalities and injus- tices. Here again the direction of move- ment is all important. Is it forward towards our professed ideals or back- wards away from them? That is the crucial question. The criticisms which the enemies of freedom make of our society can easily be met. But this is not sufficient for our pur- poses. We have a responsibility to realize our own professed ideals, eliminate our own weaknesses, no matter what others say about us. To be sure we can point out that no matter what our failures, the alternatives to a free society are worse, much worse. As Winston Churchill once put it, “Democracy,” he said, “is the worst possible form of government except all the cthers which have been tried.” None- theless, we cannot rest satisfied so long as there are grave problems which sit on our doorstep. We must grapple with them independently of what the situation is elsewhere. The life of any society consists of a succession of problems whose solution raises other problems without end. Man is born to troubles as the sparks fly upward. Only in Heaven, if anywhere, is there surcease from problems. A free society, however, differs from other societies in that the succession of problems moves towards certain ideals—which although not completely realizable may be ap- proached closer and closer. What are these ideals of a free and self-governing society? Perhaps the simplest way of stating them is to say, drawing upon the great documents by Jefferson and Lincoln, that a free society aims to provide equal opportunity for all individuals to realize themselves as human beings or as per- sons. To be a fully developed person is to be someone who has achieved as far as possible the reach of his potential growth. A free society is one, therefore, in which there is an equality of concern for all citizens to achieve their maximum growth as persons, one whose institutions are so organized as to reflect that con- cern. This equality of concern for all human beings independent of race, color, sex, re- ligious ancestry, or national origins, to develop themselves to their fullest is the ethical ideal central to a free, democratic society. Now equality of concern does not mean mechanical equality of treatment in every respect. It does not mean a policy which aims at a dead and mediocre uni- formity but, on the contrary, to recogni- tion and appreciation of differences. William James, the great American psy- chologist and philosopher once said, “There is very little difference between any two human beings but whatever dif- ference between them there is makes all the difference in the world.” In this difference is found the magic of person- ality. Equality of concern, therefore, recognizes the equality of differences, that every individual human being has as much right as every other human being to be treated as an end-in-himself. Here is the crucial principle which en- ables us to distinguish between inequality of treatment which violates the ethics of democracy, and the inequalities of treat- ment which fulfill the ethics of democ- racy. If human beings are treated un- equally because of some arbitrary, irrational prejudice, usually sustained by myths and errors of fact, the spirit of democracy is violated. If, for example, human beings are denied the exercise of their voting privileges, even when they have fulfilled all legal qualifications, if they are denied opportunities for employ- ment, even when they are qualified, if they are denied free access to and use of public facilities even when they are as orderly and law-abiding as those who use them, if they are treated as outcasts and social pariahs in whose presence others flee, if disdain and scorn and hate results in de facto or legal segregation, then the prin- ciples and ideals of democracy are being dragged in the mire. For in these situa- tions the inequality of treatment does not flow from any rational consideration, it is not related to the needs of individuals to become fully developed persons. On the contrary, such inequality crushes and destroys the individuals because it blights legitimate opportunities for development. Inequality of treatment can be justi- fied only when it is related to objective differences in need or to differences in merit. The gravely ill human-being needs different medical treatment from that re- quired by someone suffering from a slight indisposition. The better endowed or more gifted student, whether in music or math- ematics, requires a different educational experience to bring out the best in him from what is required to bring out the best in those of his fellow-students who may be less gifted. But the inequalities of treatment if legitimate are equally de- signed to bring out the best in all indi- viduals. Lack of clarity in distinguishing be- tween these two different senses or pol- icies of inequality lies at the bottom of certain rationalizations which seek to preserve those arbitrary patterns of dis- crimination in our society which are con- spicuously not related to need or to merit. It also accounts for the perversion of the democratic ideal of equality into policies enforcing uniformity, as if it meant that equals and unequals must always be treated alike. Both misinter- pretations are roads to disaster. As we look over the American scene in which you and I live and move and have our being, our task, if we believe in free- dom, is cut out for us. That is to narrow the gap between the ideal and reality in every sphere of culture and never to lose sight of the truly revolutionary principle of the American political experience. This principle declares that those who wear the shoes are sufficiently mature to know, where they pinch, and are therefore justi- fied in changing political shoes in the light of experience. This revolutionary prin- ciple is denied by all totalitarians from antiquity to the present. All of them con- tend that most human beings are either too stupid or too vicious or both to be entrusted with their own destinies. To which Thomas Jefferson made the un- answerable retort: “Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the gov- ernment of himself. Can he then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.” In this task of closing the gap between ideal and reality, there are two things particularly which we must bear in mind. One is that democracy is not only a way of political and social life but of personal life too. What does it mean to say that democracy is a way of personal life? It means that as citizens in relation to each other we must learn to live with our dif- ferences and respect each other despite these differences as they emerge in the unending dialogue of political life. We must learn that a political opponent is not an enemy, and we must never lose sight of the human being in our political opponent. We must eschew not merely the violence of the deed—if we do not, we are embarked upon civil war—but the violence of the word which bruises and slurs and degrades and shuts the doors of human understanding. Words are often triggers to action and we must be con- cerned not only with what we say but how we say it. We must leave claims to abso- lute truth and infallibility to others and not merely proclaim our willingness to learn from those with whom we may dis- agree, we must guarantee them a hearing until their words constitute a “clear and present danger” to the peace of a self- governing community. The second thing relevant in this con- nection is that the necessary decisions which we must make to solve the pressing problems of democratic life depend upon knowledge—knowledge of fact and knowl- edge of values, upon ability to evaluate evidence, to sort out what is relevant from the irrelevant, to distinguish between empty slogans and meaningful ideals, and to test these ideals by immersing them in the cynical acids of analysis. To do this we must recognize that the life of citizenship in a free society is one of continuous education, and self-education. The world is changing rapidly under the impact of science, technology, and the in- creasing power of other nations. Jeffer- son’s warning that no nation can long remain free if it remains uneducated and unenlightened has more point today than when it was uttered. Never was it more false to say “what we don’t know won’t hurt us.” What we don’t know may de- stroy us and our heritage of freedom for- ever. There are many things we do not know which require a technical education to master but these, fortunately, are not central to the important value-decisions which we must make in our present time of troubles. There are other things cen- tral to these decisions which all of us can learn more about—the structure of our own Government, its economy, the life of our cities, our regional sub-cultures. We must also learn more about the cultures of other countries, the geography of their minds, the clash of doctrines and ideol- ogies which inspire them and the contours of the great maps of life drawn up in hope and tears for human salvation. ——o0o—— Campaigns and Elections BRYAN: “You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.” EDR. “T see one third of a nation ill housed, ill clad, ill nourished.” EISENHOWER: “You have summoned me on behalf of millions of your fellow Americans to lead a great crusade for freedom in America and freedom in the world.” J.F.K.: “And so my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” NARRATOR: History seems compellingly alive as we hear the authentic voices of the great men of America’s past and present. Let us listen now to the voices and songs, the cheers, the debated issues, the moments of greatness and the moments of defeat that have shaped the political history of the United States in the 20th Century. Probably the first campaign speech recorded was one made by Grover Cleve- land, the Dmocratic candidate for Presi- dent in 1892: CLEVELAND: “My friends, we shall declare ... for reforms ... on every question without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation on earth. Upon that issue we expect to carry every single state in this Union.” NARRATOR: In 1893, two months after Cleveland became President for the second time, a severe financial depression swept over the country. Cleveland believed in the gold standard. But gold was scarce and its scarcity created a steady brake on the nation’s economy. By 1894, prices and wages had hit rock bottom. There seemed to be no market for anything. There was a massive railroad strike. And high tariffs had brought the nation to the brink of economic disaster. In the campaign of 1896, “gold” was a key issue. The Demo- crats nominated William Jennings Bryan and he campaigned on a platform of free silver in which he demanded that the U.S. currency be backed with silver as well as gold. At the Democratic Convention of 1896 Bryan delivered his famous im- passioned “Cross of Gold” speech: BRYAN: “T come to speak to you in the defense of a cause as holy as the cause of liberty—the cause of humanity. Mr. Carlysle said in 1878 that this was a struggle between the idle holders of idle capital and the struggling masses who produce the wealth and pay the taxes of the country. They tell us that the great cities are in favor of the gold standard. We reply that the great cities rest upon our broad and fertile prairies. Burn down your cities and leave ow farms and your cities will spring up again as if by magic. But destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city of the country. “Tf they dare to come out in the open fields and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we will fight them to the uppermost, having behind us the pro- ducing masses of this nation and the world supported by the commercial in- terests, the laboring interests and the toilers everywhere, we will answer the demand for a gold standard by saying to them: ‘You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.’” NARRATOR: Taking a strong stand against the easy money, free silver platform of the agrar- ian Democrats, the Republicans ardently supported the gold standard and nomi- nated William McKinley for President. McKinley promised to exercise the sever- est economy and to avoid Government debt. SONG: “For the glory that will be When we beat old Grover C. McKinley takes the road to Washington What a welcome change there’ll be We'll regain prosperity McKinley and protection marches on Shout, shout, shout...” NARRATOR: McKinley won. And a year after he took office the country began to turn its atten- - tion from domestic affairs to the world outside. In 1898, the U.S. became em- broiled in a war with Spain which ended with the Spanish evacuation of Cuba and the U.S. acquisition of Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines. SONG: “Our eyes have seen fair Cuba with 400,000 slain, We have seen our slaughtered seamen, we have seen the stricken Maine, And the hand that wrought the ruin was the dastard hand of Spain Our host is marching on.” NARRATOR: In the election campaigns following the Spanish American War, imperialism was an important issue. Stated the Democratic platform in 1900, “The burning issues of imperialism growing out of the Spanish War involve the very existence of the Republic and the destruction of our free institutions. We regard it as the para- mount issue of the campaign. We assert that no nation can long endure half repub- lie and half empire and we warn the American people that imperialism abroad will lead quickly and inevitably to despot- ism at home.” Other important issues were the tariff, the Democrats favoring tariff reform, and the trusts. A Democratic platform plank flatly declared that “private monopolies are indefensible and intolerable.” In a campaign speech of 1908, William Howard Taft, the Republican candidate for President, defends the Republican point of view on these three issues: im- perialism, the tariff and the trusts. He also refers to the traditional split in the Democratic party between Southerners and Northerners: TART: “Many independent Democrats in the South agree with the Republican party in all its main economic doctrines. The South is today, in its cotton factory, in its iron factory and in the sugar culture of Louisiana more dependent for its business prosperity on the maintenance of a reasonable protective tariff than any other community in the country. The Spanish War led to the entering of the flower of the young men of the South into the Army of the U.S. in order to uphold the country’s cause. This did much to remove sectional feeling lingering after the Civil War and serve to unite in a common brotherhood the Blue and the Gray. Many of the South- ern Democrats have taken an active interest in promoting our present Phil- ippine policy and more are in sympathy with it. They are opposed to the policy of scuttling out of the Philippines. They generally believe that we have a prob- lem of national responsibility there of aiding those people to stand upon their feet and that we ought not to leave the island until we have fully completed our work. They rejoice in the missionary character of what we are doing and in the spread of Christian civilization that we are helping on by our policy in the Philippines. So, too, they have not the slightest sympathy with that spirit of the Democratic platform favoring a destruction of certain industrial inter- ests for the purpose of stamping out the evil in their conduct rather than their regulation with a view to bringing them within the law.” NARRATOR: Taft won the election easily, defeating Democrat Bryan, who was running for the third time. In the beginning of his Administration, Taft tried to continue the policies of his predecessor and friend, Teddy Roosevelt. But within two years, he seemed to many to have abandoned Roosevelt’s enlight- ened views. In desperation, T.R. decided to run against his one-time friend for the Republican Presidential nomination in 1912. Taft commented sadly that it was a very painful thing to see “a devoted friendship going to pieces like a rope of sand.” The ensuing party fight was bitter. The battle between Taft and Roosevelt wrecked the Republican Convention and when Roosevelt lost, he pledged himself to run anyway on an Independent Pro- gressive ticket. ROOSEVELT : “The principles for which we stand are the principles of fair play, and a square deal for every man and every woman in the U.S. A square deal politically, a square deal in matters social and in- dustrious.” NARRATOR: A madman shot at Roosevelt while he was: delivering a campaign speech in Milwaukee. T.R. kept right on talking. “TI will make this speech or die,’ he an- nounced diramatically. Fortunately the bullet had hit his spectacle case, and he was not setriously injured. The fight between Taft and Roosevelt divided thee Republicans and insured vic- tory for thhe Democratic nominee, Gover- nor Woodrrow Wilson of New Jersey. In this ceampaign speech, Wilson attacks Teddy Roosevelt and his views on labor: WILSON :: “To looke at the politics of the day from the viewpoint of the laboring man as not to ssuggest that there is one view proper tio him, another to the employer, another to the capitalist, another to the professiional man, but merely that the life of tthe country as a whole may be looked at from various points of view and yet ibe viewed as a whole. The whole business: of politics is to bring parties togethew, upon a platform of accommo- dation and combination. In a political campaign the voters are called upon to choose between parties and leaders. Parties and platforms and candidates should ibe frankly put under examina- tion to see what they will yield them by way of projects. And there are a great many questions which the working man may legitimately ask in quest until he gets a alefinite answer. The predictions of the ileader of the new party are as alarmimg as the predictions of the various: estampida. He declares that he is not troubled by the fact that a very large amount of money is taken out of the pockets of the general taxpayer and puit into the pockets of particular classes of protective manufacturers. But that his concern is that so little of this money gets into the pockets of the laborinig man and so large a proportion of it giets into the pockets of the em- ployer. I have searched this program very tihoroughly for an indication of what hie expects to do in order to see to it that a larger proportion of this prize money gets into the pay envelope. And IT have found only one suggestion. There is a plank in the program which speaks of establishing a minimum or a living wage ffor women workers. And I sup- pose that we may assume that the prin- ciple is not in the long run meant to be confined in its application to women only. Perhaps we are justified in assum- ing that the third party looks forward to the general establishment by law of a minimum wage. It is very likely I take it: for granted that if a minimum wage were established by law a great majority of employers would take occa- sion to bring their wage scale as nearly as might be down to the level of that minimum. And it would be very awk- ward for the working man to resist that procesis successfully. Because it would be damgerous to fight against the au- theory in the Federal Government.” NARRATOR: Roosewelt replies: ROOSEWELT: “We stand for the rights of the people. We sttand for the rights of the wage worker. We stand for his rights to a living wage. We stand for the right and duty of the Government to limit the hours: of women in industry. To abolish child labor. To shape the conditions of life and living so that the average wage worker shall be able so to lead his own life, and so to support his wife and his children, that these children shall grow up into men and women fit for the ex- acting duties of American citizenship.” NARRATOR: When Wilson began his term in 1918, domestic issues and domestic reform took precedence. But by 1916 and the next elec- tion campaign, when he defeated Republi- can Charles Evans Hughes, Wilson’s concern was with foreign policy. At the height of his popularity during World War I, he later found the country divided and indifferent to his pleas for a League of Nations. Wilson’s second term was to put the mark of tragedy upon him. He cam- paigned personally throughout the coun- try for support for the League. But in this, his opponents saw a chance to defeat him and the Democratic party. By 1920, Wilson, seriously ill, looked to the election for vindication of his prin- ciples. But the Presidential candidate of his party, Governor James Cox of Ohio and the Vice Presidential candidate, a certain Franklin Delano Roosevelt of New York, were easily defeated. The nation was not in a mood for internationalism and idealism. The people preferred the philosophy of Gentleman Warren Hard- ing, the Republican candidate, who prom- ised a return to normalcy. “America’s present need is not heroics but healing,” he said, “not nostrums but normalcy, not revolution but restoration.” The main positive accomplishment of Harding’s Administration was the “Inter- national Conference on Limitation of Armaments” which resulted in the cur- tailment of ship building among the major powers, and for more than a decade kept the danger of an armaments race in check. Warren Harding addresses that confer- ence, convened in 1921, the year he became President: HARDING: “Gentlemen of the conference, the United States welcomes you with un- selfish hands. We harbor no fears, we have no sordid ends to serve, we suspect no enemy, we contemplate or apprehend no conquest. Content with what we have, we seek nothing which is an- other’s. We only wish to do with you that finer, nobler thing which no nation can do alone. We wish to sit with you at the table of international under- standing and good will, in good con- science we are eager to meet you frankly and invite and offer coopera- tion. The world demands this sober contemplation of the existing order and the realization that there can be no cure without sacrifice, not by one of us but by all of us. I do not mean sur- rendered rights, or narrowed freedom or denied aspirations or ignored na- tional necessities. Our Republic would no more ask for these than it would give. No pride need be humbled, no nationality submerged, but I would have emergence of mind committing all of us to less preparation for war and more enjoyment of fortunate peace.” NARRATOR: From then on, Harding’s Administra- tion went slowly downhill, climaxing in the Teapot Dome Scandal with its revela- tions of corruption in high places and in Harding’s mysterious death in 1928. Harding’s Vice President, Calvin Cool- idge took his oath of office as President in his family’s modest Vermont farm- house and within a short time set about preaching and practicing economy. “Tam for economy. After that I am for more economy. At the time and under present conditions, that is my conception of serv- ing the people.” The motto of his 1924 campaign against Democrat John W. Davis and Progressive Robert M. LaFol- lette was “Keep Cool and Keep Coolidge.” The President pledged a continuation of his economic policies. COOLIDGE: “Our domestic problems are for the most part economic. We have an enor- mous debt to pay and we are paying it. We have the high cost of Government to diminish and we are diminishing it. We have a heavy burden of taxation to reduce and we are reducing it. But while remarkable progress has been made in these directions, the work is yet far from accomplished. In my opinion, the Gov- ernment can do more to remedy the economic ills of the people by a rigid economy in public expenditure than through any other action. The annual costs of our national and local govern- ments combined now stand at a sum close to $100 for each inhabitant of the land. It is an ominous fact that only the national Government is reducing its debt. The establishment of a system of drastic economy in public expenditures which has enabled us to pay off about 1/5 of the national debt since 1919 and almost cut into the national tax burden since 1921 has been one of the main causes in re-establishing the prosperity which has come to include within its benefits almost every one of our inhabi- tants. Economy reaches everywhere.” NARRATOR: When Coolidge made his famous pro- nouncement “I do not choose to run for President in 1928,” he left the Republi- cans in confusion. Some say Coolidge foresaw the Great Depression, others that he was hoping for a draft. Whatever his reasons his statement left the Republican Convention to nominate Herbert Hoover, Secretary of Commerce under both Har- ding and Coolidge. The Houston Demo- cratic Convention which chose the Governor of New York, Alfred E. Smith, will have its place in history chiefly for this famous moment in which Franklin D. Roosevelt places the name of Smith in nomination: EED-R-s “We offer one who has the will to win —who not only deserves success but commands it. Victory is his habit—the happy warrior, Alfred E. Smith.” SONG: “East, West, North, South Oh say can you see Al Smith is in his glory Neath the Presidential tree Choice of all the people Everybody’s old pal Three big cheers for our leader Everybody loves our Al” NARRATOR: Herbert Hoover’s candidacy inspired this famous jingle: SONG: “Charles Lindberg flew his plane all the way to France Most of the way he flew by the seat of his pants Good old American know-how, that’s the right way to be and If he’s good enough for Lindberg he’s good enough for me If he’s good enough for Lindy he’s good enough for me (3) Herbert Hoover is the only man to be our nation’s chief.” NARRATOR: Al Smith campaigned on an anti- prohibition ticket, but with a Vice Presi- dential candidate, Senator Joseph T. Robinson of Arkansas who was strongly Prohibitionist. As one wag put it, “The Democratic donkey with a wet head and wagging a dry tail left Houston.” Smith lashes out at prohibition: SMITH: “Now let’s look at the record. Prohibi- tion has found a new line of endeavor for the underworld. They brought life to the bootleggers and the bootleggers begot the hijackers and the hijackers begot the racketeers. My friends in the radio audience, the only cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy.” NARRATOR: Hoover won an impressive victory in which an important factor was Al Smith’s Catholicism. It has also been said that Smith’s radio voice didn’t help his candi- dacy. When Hoover took office in 1929, the nation was at the height of a prosperity wave. But seven months later, the stock market crumbled, losing billions upon billions in value. The Great Depression had begun. SONG: “Seven cent cotton and a forty cent meat, How in the world cana poor man eat? Flour up high and cotton down low, How in the world can we raise the dough? Clothes worn out, shoes run down, Old slouch hat with a hole in the crown. Back nearly broken and fingers all sore, Cotton gone down to rise no more.” NARRATOR: In 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt, then Governor of New York, was the man for the Democrats. Will Rogers at the Demo- cratic Convention: WILL ROGERS: “T was asked to do this by one of the Roosevelt boys. You know that nobody ever could refuse a Roosevelt ... His principal political handicap is that he was educated at Harvard but I under- stand that he has forgotten most of that so that brings him back to earth. On ac- count of his wealth he’s the only man in the campaign that you can accept a cigar from and smoke it yourself. He is the only man in Congress who owns his own vest suits. He is the only politician, outside of Henry Cabot Lodge, that can get into the front door of a 5th Avenue home without delivering something. I thank you.” NARRATOR: Roosevelt waged a vigorous campaign; “T pledge you, I pledge myself,” said the candidate, “to a new deal for the Ameri- can people.” Listen now to the voice of F.D.R. in some of the famous election, campaign and inaugural speeches of his career. Roosevelt’s inaugural, March 4, 1933: F.D.R.: “But, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Nameless, unreason- ing, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed effort to convert retreat into advance.” NARRATOR: In 1936, Roosevelt carried every state but two, Maine and Vermont, winning all but eight electoral votes. His Republican opponent, Governor Alfred Landon of Kansas: LANDON: “Yow ve all heard the story of the Kan- sas tornado leaving nothing behind. The wife came to, to find her husband laughing and asked him ‘what are you laughing at, you old fool.’ He replied, ‘the completeness of it.’” SONG: “Back again, back again We've got Franklin D. Roosevelt back again Since Roosevelt’s been elected, moon- shine liquor’s been corrected We've got legal wine, whiskey, beer and gin.” “Back again, back again We've got Franklin D. Roosevelt back again.” NARRATOR: Roosevelt sounded a more somber note in his inaugural speech in 1937: F.D.R.: “So let us ask again. Have we reached the goal of our vision of that 4th day of March, 1933? Have we found our happy valley? I see a great nation upon a great continent blessed with a great wealth of national resources. Its 130 million people are at peace among them- selves. They are making their country a good neighbor among the nations. I see a United States which can demon- strate that under democratic methods of government national wealth can be translated into a spreading volume of human comfort hitherto unknown and the lowest standard of living can be raised far above the level of mere subsistence. But here is the challenge to our democracy. In this nation I see tens of millions of its citizens, a sub- stantial part of its whole population, who, at this very moment, are denied the greater part of what the very low- est standards of today call the neces- sities of life... . I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished.” NARRATOR: In 1940, Roosevelt was a third-term candidate, a reluctant one, but still eager for a good old-fashioned political fight: F.D.R. = “T still remember, he-is one of that great historic trio which has voted con- sistently against every measure for the relief of agriculture, Martin, Barton and Fish.” NARRATOR: Roosevelt’s opponent, Wendell Wilkie, was cheered to victory at the Republican Convention by this famous ovation: TAPE: “We want Wilkie.” Convention noise— NARRATOR: Wilkie accepts the nomination: WILKIE: “I accept the nomination of the Repub- lican party for President of the United States. I accept it in the spirit in which it was given at our convention at Phila- delphia. The spirit of dedication. I here- with dedicate myself with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul, to make this nation strong. But I say this too, in the pursuit of that goal I shall not lead you down the easy road. If Lam chosen the leader of this democ- racy, as I am now of the Republican party, I shall lead you down the road of sacrifice and of service to your country.” NARRATOR: The campaign: F.D.R. : “IT am an old campaigner and I love a good fight.” WILKIE: “At this particular crisis in their his- tory the New Deal party captured the Democratic Convention at Chicago. It went through a transparent rigamarole about drafting a candidate for Presi- dent.” F.D.R.: “The overwhelming majority of Ameri- cans will not be scared by this blitz- krieg of verbal incendiary bombs.” TAPE: “We want Wilkie—We want Wilkie— We want Wilkie.” WILKIE: “This is scourge of government above the people, without the people and in spite of the people.” F.D.R. : “What kind... What kind of political shenanigans are those.” WILKIE: “People of Elwood. It looks to me like it’s going to be a hot time in the old town tonight.” NARRATOR: In 1944, Thomas E. Dewey, the Repub- lican candidate makes a vigorous try for the Presidency: DEWEY: “This is a campaign against an Admin- istration which was conceived in defeat- ism, which failed for eight straight years to restore our domestic economy, which has been the most wasteful, ex- travagant and incompetent Administra- tion in the history of the nation and worst of all one which has lost faith in itself and in the American people.” NARRATOR: F.D.R.’s sense of humor had not dimmed: F.D.R. ¢ “These Republican leaders have not been content with attacks on me, or on my wife, or on my sons. Now, not con- tent with that—they now include my little dog Fala (laughter). Well, of course, I don’t resent attacks, and my family don’t resent attacks, but Fala does resent them.” NARRATOR: Thomas Dewey cannot turn the tide that runs so strongly for the war-time Commander-in-Chief. But five months later, Franklin Roosevelt is dead and Harry S. Truman becomes President of the United States. In 1948, running for the Presidency again, this time against Truman, Thomas E. Dewey was more confident of victory: DEWEY: “Now what is the position of America in the world today? Instead of plowing steadily forward toward the goal of peace and security, our ship of State is bobbing around like a cork on a stormy sea. First it goes in one direction, and then in another. Today it’s up, tomor- row it’s down. Last year we were scrapping our military establishment; this year we’re building it up. Last year our Government was busy strip- ping Germany of its factories; this year it claims it’s trying to stop the stripping and repair some of the damage. It goes on and on. Last year we ratified a treaty taking Trieste away from Italy; now we're trying to make amends by offer- ing to return it. Last week we were shipping war plane motors and machin- ery to the Soviet Union; this week we’re not, I hope.” NARRATOR: But Truman was not worried. In his famous “give ’em hell” speech at the Democratic Convention, he fired enthu- siasm into the delegates with his rip-roar- ing style and self-confidence. TRUMAN: “Senator Barkeley and I will win this election and make these Republicans like it—don’t you forget that. We'll do that because they’re wrong and we're right, and I’ll prove it to you in just a few minutes. “The Republican platform comes out for slum clearance in low rental hous- ing. I’ve been trying to get them to pass that housing bill ever since they met the first time, and it’s still resting in the Rules Committee that bill is. The Re- publican platform favors equality of educational opportunity and the pro- motion of education. I’ve been trying to get Congress to do something about that ever since they came there, and that bill is at rest in the House of Rep- resentatives. The Republican platform urges extending and increasing Social Security benefits. Think of that! In- creasing Social Security benefits; and yet, when they had the opportunity, they took 750,000 people off the Social Security rolls. I wonder if they think they can fool the people of the United States with such poppycock as that.” NARRATOR: During the campaign: DEWEY: “We agreed that this was too grave a time for politics as usual.” TRUMAN: “He opened his mouth and he closed his eyes, and he swallowed the terrible record of that good-for-nothing 80th Congress.” DEWEY: “These members of Congress are de- scribed as predatory animals. Each has a moss back.” TRUMAN: “Sounds to me like the same old phono- graph record—but this year the record has a crack.” DEWEY: “Now why do you suppose grown-up men who would ever have used such desperate tactics in a free election any- way?” TRUMAN: “T don’t care about that. I don’t care what they say. There’s nothing new they can say about me. It’s all been said.” — NARRATOR: The pollsters picked Dewey. It’s so close, one newspaper even declares Dewey the winner. But Truman proves the ex- perts wrong. In 1952, the Republicans, eager to get back into power after 20 lean years, are sharply split between the forces support- ing Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio and those supporting General Dwight D. Eisenhower. Taft in making a plea for delegates expresses his philosophy of conservatism: TAFT: “Our country is a great country because it has 165 years of freedom. That free- dom is responsible for all our progress in ideas, in intellectual self-reliance and research and science and also for our great production which has given our people the highest standard of living in the history of the world. Its destruction is threatened today by the spending and taxation, and excessive power of big government in Washington. I have fought that growth for 14 years. We can only preserve our liberty by putting into office men, and women, imbued with the hatred of that totalitarian philosophy of spending and power.” NARRATOR: But Ike’s tremendous personal popu- larity wims over the convention and the nomination: IKE: “Ladiess and gentlemen, you have swm- moned ‘me on behalf of millions of your fellow Americans to lead a great cru- sade for freedom in America and free- dom in: the world. I know something of the sollemn responsibility of leading a crusade. I have led one. I take up this task, therefore, in a spirit of deep obli- gation, mindful of its burdens, and of its decisive importance, I accept your summons, I will lead this crusade.” NARRATOIR: The Democratic Convention chooses Adlai Stievenson, Governor of Illinois, an extremelly reluctant candidate: STEVENSON: “Ladies and gentlemen of the conven- tion, my fellow citizens, I accept your nomination and your program. I should have preferred to hear those words uttered by a stronger, a wiser, a better man tihan myself but after listening to the Pyesident’s speech, I even feel bet- ter about myself. “And now my friends that you have made your decision, I will fight to win that office with all my heart and my soul. And with your help, I have no doubt that we will win. “The ordeal of the 20th Century, the bloodiest, most turbulent era of the whole Christian age is far from over; sacrifice, patience, understanding and implacable purpose may be our lot for years to come. Let’s face it, let’s talk sense to the American people; let’s tell them the truth that there are no gains without pains; that we are now on the eve of great decisions; not easy deci- sions, like resistance when yowre attacked, but a long patient costly struggle which alone can assure tri- umph. over the great enemies of man— war, poverty and tyranny and the as- saults upon human dignity which are the most grievous. consequences of each.” NARRATIOR: The campaign: STEVENSON: “T have tried to talk about public ques- tions. This road has led me through some twenty states. But strangely enough, my friends, this road has been a lonely road, because I never met any- body coming the other way.” EISEN HOWER: “An American doesn’t twiddle his thunubs while his garden is wrecked by a crowd of vandals and his house in- vaded by a gang of robbers. He goes into action. When the same sort of thing happens to his country an Ameri- can goes into action by getting into politiics—fast and hard. I’m in politics just that way.” STEVIENSON : “T hear it said now and then that I ain talkiing over the heads of the people. Welll, if it’s a mistake to appeal to intel- ligence and reason instead of emotion and prejudice then I plead guilty to the charge.” EISENHOWER: “T have said and will say again and again that there is only one issue in this campaign. That issue is the mess in Washington.” STEVENSON: “Neither political party has a monop- oly of virtue or of rascality.” EISENHOWER: “Why, my distinguished opponent is using every trick in the book to get him- self off the hook of the present Admin- istration record.” STEVENSON: “Senator Taft says he prepared his statement before he saw the General. This must be the first time that the vanquished dictated the peace terms to the victor.” EISENHOWER: “Poor old Ike. He has been taken into camp. He is changed. They say they were mistaken about me. They sure were.” NARRATOR: Stevenson received more votes than any other candidate in the history of our nation except one—the man who beat him. STEVENSON : “Someone asked me as I came in down on the street how I felt and I was re- minded of a story that a fellow towns- man of ours used to tell—Abraham Lincoln—when they asked him how he felt once after an unsuccessful election. He said he felt like a little boy who had stubbed his toe in the dark. That he was too old to cry but it hurt too much to laugh.” NARRATOR: Campaign, ’56: The Democratic Convention was a free- for-all, with rising controversy over the civil rights plank and uncertainty over the convention’s choice for the nomination. Harry S. Truman supports Harriman: TRUMAN: “And now my friends, I’ve made up my mind. In the light of my knowledge of the office of President, I believe that the man best qualified to be the next President of the United States is Governor Harriman of New York.” (Cheers) NARRATOR: John F. Kennedy nominates Stevenson. KENNEDY: “Fellow delegates, I give you our next President of the United States, Adlai E. Stevenson!” (Cheers and music) NARRATOR: Adlai Stevenson accepts: STEVENSON : “T come here on a solemn mission. I accept your nomination and your pro- ee gram. Four years ago I stood in this same place and uttered those same words to you. But four years ago I did not seek the honor that you bestowed upon me. This time, as you may have noticed, it was not entirely unsolicited!” NARRATOR: The Republican Convention of 1956 was a fairly cut-and-dried affair. TAPE: Music and people singing “Four More Years.” NARRATOR: The campaign. Ike talks of prosperity: EISENHOWER: “T have seen the faces of our land— soils, rivers and forests; their richness and their power conserved with care, developed with skill, by a people thank- ful for this bounty of a generous Provi- dence. And there are other great things that I have had no need to see for I know them. I mean all the rolling mills and open hearths, the smoking factory. stacks and flaming furnaces. Tonight, even as we meet here, the glow of these furnaces and the light of these fac- tories send their bright signals to the dark skies above. And they tell the world that 66 million Americans know today, more secure and rewarding work than any people have ever known any- where in the world any time in his- tory!” (Cheers) STEVENSON : “We are told that everything is fine, that we are enjoying unprecedented peace and prosperity and progress. When the richest country in the world doesn’t have schools and_ teachers enough for its children, when it doesn’t have hospitals for its sick, when there is widespread need among our older citizens, when ugly slums deface our cities and offend human dignity, when millions of Americans are still denied opportunities because of race or color.” (Cheers) NARRATOR: President Eisenhower again swept to victory over Stevenson, this time increas- ing his margin by several million votes. The Democratic Convention in 1960 was almost an anticlimax to the primary cam- paign waged by Senator John F. Kennedy. His victories in Wisconsin and West Vir- ginia over veteran Senator Hubert Humphrey convinced most of the profes- sionals that he could win in November. Frantic efforts at the convention on the part of Stevenson supporters were unable to stop the bandwagon and Kennedy was nominated on the first ballot. In a fateful decision, Senator Kennedy chose as his running mate Senator Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas. At the Republican Convention there was no significant opposition to the nomi- nation of Vice President Richard M. Nixon who chose Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts as his running mate. The campaign of 1960 will go down in history as the first campaign in which Presidential candidates debated face to face before an estimated television and radio audience of more than 70 million Americans. Here is one highlight from the great debates between Senator Kennedy and Vice President Nixon: NIXON: “T am never satisfied with the economic growth of this country. I’m not satisfied with it if there were no communism im the world but particularly when we’re in the kind of a race that we’re in, we have got to see that America grows just as fast as we can provided we grow soundly. Because even though we have maintained, as I pointed out in our first debate, the absolute gap over the Soviet Union, even though the growth in this Administration has been twice as much as it was in the Truman Administration, that isn’t good enough. Because Amer- ica must be able to grow enough not only to take care of our needs at home for better education and housing and health, all these things we want. We’ve got to grow enough to maintain the forces that we have abroad and to wage the non-military battle for the world. In Asia, in Africa, in Latin America. It’s going to cost more money and growth will help us to win that battle. Now what do we do about it. And here I believe, basically, that what we have to do is to stimulate that sector of Amer- ica. The private enterprise sector of the economy in which there is the greatest possibility for expansion. So that is why I advocate a program of tax re- form which will stimulate more invest- ment in our economy. In addition to that we have to move on other areas that are holding back growth. I refer, for ex- ample, to distressed areas. We have to move into those areas with programs so that we make adequate use of the re- sources of those areas. We also have to see that all of the people of the U.S., the tremendous talents that our people have, are used adequately. That’s why, in this whole area of civil rights the equality of opportunity for employ-nent and education is not just for the benefit of minority groups, it’s for the benefit of the nation, so that we can get the scientists and the engineers and all the rest that we need. And in addition to that we need programs particularly in higher education which will stimu- late scientific break-throughs which will bring more growth.” MODERATOR: “Senator Kennedy.” KENNEDY: “The Vice President has suggested a number of things. He suggested that we aid distressed areas. The Administra- tion has vetoed that bill passed by Con- gress twice. He suggested we pass an aid to education bill. The Administra- tion and the Republican majority in the Congress has opposed any realistic aid to education and the Vice President cast the deciding vote against Federal aid for teachers’ salaries in the Senate which prevented that being added. This Administration and this country last year had the lowest rate of economic growth, which means jobs, of any major industrialized society in the world in 1959. And when we have to find 25,000 XTV 95207 Actual speeches, campaign sounds — and songs from 20th century political history AS y a mW > y "Esra pypuic NFA WS TERN ELECTRIC cone hy Actual speeches, campaign sounds and songs from 20th century political history S) we nh aS e6q J “ECTAIG PUBLIC pF we “STERN ELecTRIC CONT™ «€ XTV 95209 A candid discussion of the development of the power, authority and influence of the Presidency by Professor RICHARD NEUSTADT ior and RICHARD HEFFNER ss S = ws thy & eS ww %9¢q )€CTAIG pyBLic KEEN | We Mesr rnd: ERN ELECTRIC G0 A candid discussion of the development of the power, authority and influence of the Presidency by Professor RICHARD NEUSTADT %y and RICHARD HEFFNER © cy z ‘> aes A \)) © & RS 19 fcr, aa No: 64 Wes RIC PuBLic \\ Re TERN ELectRIC CON NA A discussion of our democracy and opposing systems by Professor SIDNEY HOOK = ») = W &y « gw” %q €CTRIC pyBLig NENY? we Mesre rent: AN ELEcTRIC CO 4g yy “WN XTV 95212 A discussion of our democracy / and opposing systems by Professor - SIDNEY HOOK J Ny Se 64 fern PUBLIC arn STERN ELECTRIC court Tz