[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 23 (Monday, March 7, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: March 7, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
HONORING DR. WALTER H. JUDD
Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the
passing of one of the greatest statesmen of the American century, my
former Congressman and dear friend Dr. Walter H. Judd. Last month,
Walter Judd died of cancer at the Collington Life Care Community in
Mitchellville, MD.
It was my great honor and privilege to know this truly historic
Minnesotan. He represented the Fifth Congressional District of
Minnesota in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1943 to 1963, and
he performed very ably the daily tasks of a Member of Congress.
But the importance of Walter Judd extends far beyond the boundaries
of the Fifth Congressional District, indeed far beyond the borders of
the United States. Because Walter Judd was a key voice for human
liberty at a time when America was most in need of that kind of moral
leadership.
In the late 1930's, when a surprisingly large number of Americans
chose to remain blind to the threat of Japanese militarism, Walter Judd
made literally over a thousand speeches to wake up the American people.
His alarm about that danger proved to be well-founded.
Equally well-founded was his concern about the expansion of global
communism in the post-World War II era. Because of the truly immoral
excesses of some notorious anti-Communists of that era, it has become
very common to dismiss 1950's anticommunism as a hysterical descent
into national paranoia. But the anticommunism of Walter Judd was not
the anticommunism of Joseph McCarthy.
His anticommunism was not a partisan posture, or what our spin
doctors of today would call a wedge issue. He did not attack communism
as just another way to beat up Democrats. He attacked communism with
every fiber of his being, because he saw that millions of people around
the globe were being deprived of their chance for liberty by this
seemingly unstoppable ideological force.
He was against communism because he cared about people. Verne
Johnson, his one-time administrative assistant, said that Walter was a
``preacher--and his gospel was the menace of communism.'' He was a man
of ``integrity * * * he never asked `what's in it for me?'''
Indeed, his whole career is cut from the same cloth. He started out
as a medical missionary in China in 1925--serving for roughly 10 years
in that turbulent posting.
He was a doctor because he cared about people. And that level of
human concern never deserted him--whether he was in China, or at the
Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN, or at his Minneapolis practice at the
corner of Lake and Hennepin, or in the halls of the U.S. Congress.
Walter was born and raised in Nebraska, 1 of 7 children of a
lumberman. It was a tough place, and taught Walter about the need for
self-reliance and the importance of family. Three of his brothers
failed to reach the age of 20.
In 1981, President Reagan conferred on Dr. Judd the highest civilian
honor of the United States--the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Reagan
pointed out that Judd was--and I quote Reagan's remarks at that
ceremony:
An articulate spokeman for all those who cherish liberty
and a model for all Americans who aspire to serve mankind as
physicians, spiritual leaders, and statesmen.
That is the Walter Judd that so many of us back home in Minnesota
knew, loved, and admired.
Norm Carpenter, who married Walter's daughter Mary Lou, observed that
while Walter was not a soundbite politician, his speeches succeeded
nonetheless in inspiring generations of Americans. ``People used to say
of Adlai Stevenson, `what a wonderful speech!' Of Hubert Humphrey,
`Where do I sign up?' Walter Judd combined both. He moved people--
inspired them to action.''
And the same Walter Judd was named by his congressional colleagues in
1962 as one of the five most admired and influential Members of
Congress. His voice on foreign policy issues was one of the most
respected of his time--and his reputation was well-deserved.
A statesman of the order of Minnesota Congressman Bill Frenzel
referred to Walter as a truly ``senior mentor * * * you could always
call him (for advice).''
Walter Judd proves that if you care enough about people--and tell the
truth about how human happiness can be protected and increased--you can
make a huge difference for the better on this planet. I ask my
colleagues to join me in mourning the passing of this great American,
and in extending our sincerest condolences to his widow, Miriam, to
whom he was married for 62 years--a remarkable woman who--in Verne
Johnson's words--was the glue of the family when Walter was out leading
his national crusade.
We also send warmest condolences to Walter's daughters Mary Lou
Carpenter of Minneapolis, Carolyn Judd of Los Angeles, and Eleanor
Quinn in Hartford; seven grandchildren, and one great-grandchild.
I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Judd's historic keynote address,
delivered to the 1960 Republican National Convention on July 25, 1960,
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
We Must Develop a Strategy for Victory * * * To Save Freedom! Freedom
Everywhere\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Keynote Address to the 1960 Republican National
Convention, July 25, 1960, Chicago, Illinois.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we meet tonight in this Republican National Convention
of 1960 I do not believe you want me to indulge in the
traditional keynote speech, blaming the other party for
everything that is bad, taking credit to ourselves for
everything that is good, and promising that if you voters
will just elect us to office this fall, we will solve every
problem, increase every benefit, expand every existing
program, start a whole flock of new ones, give everyone
everything he wants--and reduce the national debt at the same
time!
The times in which we meet are too serious for that.
The problems we face are too disturbing.
Our country's safety--your safety and mine--are too gravely
endangered.
What the American people want to know as they watch us here
tonight is: which party has the greatest capacity to keep
this country safe and sound!
Which party is the most alert to and best understands the
powerful forces against us, abroad and at home?
Which party has the ablest, the most experienced, the best
qualified and the finest men to lead our country through the
perilous months and years ahead?
We do not pretend that our party is always right and the
Democratic Party is always wrong.
We know, as do you who are listening, that both Democrats
and Republicans want a strong, free and prosperous America in
a peaceful and secure world. The difference between the
two parties is not over those good objectives, but over
the best way to achieve those good objectives--and keep
them.
Some Democrats have regularly tried to make it appear that
Republicans are opposed to various good ends--such as
security for old age, adequate medical care, better
education, better housing, protection of the rights of labor,
aid to agriculture--just because we do not agree with the
solutions they advocate, believing they are not the right way
to get what we all want. But it is not because we are against
the good ends; it is precisely because we are for them that
we oppose measures we believe are unsound.
It is the obligation of the Republican Party and its
members to show that loose fiscal policies, while temporarily
gratifying, in the end inhibit growth rather than expand it.
Sometimes we are told that to win elections, we Republicans
should make more grandiose promises, like those the
opposition party made at its Convention. Maybe that is a way
to win elections; but we repudiate it, first because it would
not be shooting square with you, the voters; and second, it
would not succeed. For there is no chance of our out-
promising the Democrats.
Overshadowing everything else as we meet is the hard fact
that a powerful enemy threatens us on every front. If is the
most dangerous assault upon us in our history, in past
because it is so different from any previous threat.
And without victory in this struggle, there will be no
survival of freedom for any of us--Democrats or Republicans.
The Republican Party was born in a time of crisis. It was
brought into being by the strong free spirits of a century
ago, to deal with the gravest issue of the nineteenth
century--Human Slavery.
In 1860 in this city the Republican Party nominated as its
candidate for the Presidency of the United States a man who
had risen from the humblest beginnings to become a leader in
the effort to end human slavery without destroying the Union.
He led the party to victory, the nation to salvation, and
the people to a rededication to the sound principles on which
the country had been founded and had grown great.
We want tonight, both to honor Abraham Lincoln and to learn
from him.
Please God, we may do as well with our divided world as he
did with his divided nation.
For the gravest issue of our century is also Human
Slavery--this time not men enslaved by other men; but far
more complex and dangerous, masses of men enslaved by
governments.
More human beings are in bondage tonight than ever before
in human history.
Nine hundred million abroad are denied by their government
the right to worship, to speak, to assemble, to join, to own;
the right of a man to choose or to change his work and to
live his own life with his family and friends--in freedom.
In this total situation, the Republican Party stands today
as it has from the beginning--for freedom and against
slavery.
You will judge both parties not by promises but by
performance. And it is on the basis of our record of solid
performance that we proudly present to you in this
convention, an honest accounting of our stewardship during
these eight years--and a look at the future.
How well have we done what we said we would do when you
elected us?
How do we propose to deal with the challenges we face now,
at home and abroad?
Why do we believe our principles and proposals offer
greatest hope for accomplishing the greatest good and the
greatest growth for America in the next four years?
Let us deal first with our international relations.
We said in 1952 we believed we could get and maintain peace
with honor. We have done it.
We brought to an end the fighting in the Korean War which
the Truman Administration would not win and could not stop.
It did not make sense to continue to enlist American youth
and exhort them to fight well in the noblest tradition of
America's greatest heroes--but not to fight too well because
then they might win, and that might provoke the enemy. They
should give all they had, their lives--and over 33,000 did--
but they must not win! It was the first war ever fought--so
far as I am aware--in terms of trying to please the enemy! To
continue that war was madness.
Then President Eisenhower took charge. It took time and
patience and skill, but within nine months, the fighting was
brought to a close--without dishonor, without sacrificing the
interests of any ally, or weakening our security position in
the Pacific. We Republicans are proud of that accomplishment.
In addition, this Administration has prevented a half dozen
other threats from developing into war--Trieste, the
Mossadegh uprising in Iran, Guatemala, Formosa, Suez,
Lebanon, Quemoy, West Berlin.
How was it done? Not by sacrificing our principles in
secret deals under the table; but by steady, patient firmness
and strength in support of principles.
What principles? First, our own historic principles; human
freedom; keeping our word; steadfast support of friends and
allies. And, second, wholehearted support of the United
Nations.
In short, our efforts everywhere have been to help build
free nations up; the efforts of the Communists everywhere are
to pull free governments down.
It does not avail, however, to be firm in support of
principles unless we have the strength to back it up. This
Administration has built up gigantic strength in our own
armed forces and given vital assistance in building up the
strength of other nations standing with us against the common
threat.
Ours is a balanced power, not all our eggs in one basket,
whether it be a bomber basket, missile, submarine, or any
other basket.
President Eisenhower will perhaps have something to say on
this subject tomorrow night. I hope those who have thought
they knew more about our armed strength than he and our Joint
Chiefs of Staff, will listen in too.
But I am compelled to take notice here of certain charges
made by the opposition party.
It is claimed that this Administration allowed a missile
gap to develop. No, it found a missile gap and has managed to
get it almost closed.
When President Eisenhower took office in 1953, the
preceding administration had actually retarded work in this
field, even though it knew that the Soviet Union was making
tremendous efforts.
The Truman Administration in eight years had spent
seventeen times more for price supports for peanuts than for
long range missiles.
The Eisenhower Administration is today putting forty times
as much into such missiles each month as the previous
Administration did in eight years.
It took the Soviet Union twelve years to develop its long
range missiles. It took the Administration six years to get
ours operational. Anything wrong with that?
Senator Kennedy was reported by the Press to have said on
February 21st of this year, ``We have the greatest deterrent
force in history and thank God for that.'' He was right!
But it is not enough to have such vast overall power. Our
primary desire in building such striking force is not to
fight a war, but to deter one.
It is not just the strength that we have, it is the
strength that our enemies, our allies and our own people know
that we have, which is our hope of deterring war.
What kind of reckless and irresponsible action is it for
anyone to misrepresent the United States as a second-class
power, as was done in the Democratic Convention, and thereby
encourage the very attacks which all Americans profoundly
hope and pray can be prevented?
Did you see the movie shown at the Democratic National
Convention two weeks ago, dredging up scenes of hunger,
squalor, and misery in the United States as if they were
typical of America? What kind of salesmanship for their
country is that?
Can our nation's prestige be raised by tearing it down?
It is devoutly to be hoped--because it offers our best
chance of avoiding war--that Mr. Khrushchev, in making up his
mind about our actual military, economic, and moral strength,
will depend a lot more on the reports of his own agents than
on the shameful misstatements made in the heat of the Los
Angeles convention.
It is claimed that this Administration has not taken the
initiative in the cold war, that we have allowed things to
drift. Yet the orators condemn the Republican Administration
for brilliant examples of successful initiative. For example,
the U-2 flights. If we had not developed U-2 and had not been
using it to keep up to date on military preparations within
the Soviet Union, we could properly have been charged with
inviting another Pearl Harbor. The fact that our U-2
operations were so outstandingly successful for four years
should be a source of intense pride to all Americans. The U-
2's were not provoking war, they were helping to prevent war.
Again, it has been suggested that the president should have
done something different or better about Mr. Khrushchev's
breakup of the Paris conference. Will they please tell you
what they think the American people wanted their president to
do? Apologize, and hand over West Berlin? Blow up and start a
war? Of course not!
The facts are that it has been the president himself and
secretaries of state Dulles and Herter who on innumerable
occasions have warned the American people against optimism
regarding any conference with Communists at the summit in the
absence of any evidence of change in their objectives and
methods.
Just as Prime Minister Macmillan said a year ago that he
thought he ought to go to Moscow to find out if possible just
what the Soviets had in mind, so the president invited Mr.
Khrushchev to this country, and agreed to go to the Soviet
Union; and the Big Three agreed to meet with Khrushchev in
Paris--all in the hope of finding ways to get a settlement
that might end the cold war without betrayal of our
principles, our commitments, or our allies.
At the Paris conference, everybody hoped that the miracle
might take place and Mr. Khrushchev would abandon his avowed
purpose to bring bury us--one way or another. Tragically,
there was no miracle. Mr. Khrushchev killed the hope.
But his ruthless torpedoing of the Paris meeting was
evidence of the failure of his foreign policy, not ours. His
strategy for at least two years had been the old one of
trying to conquer the West by dividing it. He tried his best
to set our allies against each other and against us. He came
to our country and talked about peace and friendship, trying
to whittle down our resolution and soothe us into relaxed
slumber. He did not succeed.
When Mr. Khrushchev knew before the Paris conference
convened that he had failed to divide, deceive or soften up
the free powers, he had no choice but to break up the
conference. Otherwise, he would either have had back down on
West Berlin, or actually start a war. Either would have been
fatal to him. His scuttling of the Paris conference and his
grotesque efforts to pin the blame on us were proof positive,
not of our weakness, but of our strength.
With the bold deception of Khrushchev's false peace posture
exposed at Paris by himself, he had to change his tactics and
make a different effort to divide and conquer. He is now
moving heaven and earth to achieve by subversion among the
newer or more vulnerable nations of the free world coalition
what he could not achieve by division of the western powers.
He is trying to upset free governments, one by one, by
ordering into action the apparatus the Communists have been
systematically building and training in other countries for
decades, for the very purpose now revealed so plainly in
Japan and Cuba.
Why did the Communists have to cancel President
Eisenhower's visit to Russia and resort to such violent
measures in Japan to prevent his visit there? Not because of
the ineffectiveness of the President's visits abroad, but
because of their demonstrated effectiveness. The Red leaders
saw the vast difference between Eisenhower's reception in
India, for example, and the receptions given Khrushchev and
Chou En-Lai. They didn't dare let Ike chalk up still another
tremendous triumph with millions of people in Mother Russia
itself, and in a key country like Japan.
It has been charged that no previous presidents or vice
presidents ever suffered such insults abroad--as if somehow
that is their fault. There are two inescapable answers. One
is that as long as two previous American Presidents were
willing to give in to Soviet leaders, they got along famously
with them. Why should the Communists insult them as long as
they were getting what they wanted?
Naturally Khrushchev would prefer not to negotiate with a
Republican president who he has learned will not be taken in
or intimidated or tricked into any concessions, no matter how
innocent looking, that would weaken the free world.
The second answer is that no previous president has faced a
Communist conspiracy that was strong and arrogant enough to
take such action as Mr. Khrushchev took.
And how did the Communist conspiracy get so strong and
arrogant? That cannot be laid at the door of the Republicans.
Look again at the record.
I would rather not go over the mistakes of the past;
there's more than enough to talk about regarding the future.
But if Republicans are to be charged with inability to deal
with the focus of aggression which those who make the charges
helped to build up, then we owe it to the truth to set the
record straight.
The trouble we are in with the Communists is exactly the
trouble that Republicans warned for years before 1952 would
develop if we followed the courses that were followed.
Was it Republicans who recognized the Soviet Union in 1933
and gave it acceptance into our country and world society as
if it were a respectable and dependable member thereof?
Was it Republicans who, at Tehran, against the urgent
advice of Mr. Churchill, agreed to give the Russians a free
hand in the Balkans?
Was it Republicans who secretly divided Poland and gave
half of it to the Soviet Union?
Was it Republicans who agreed to the Communist takeover of
a hundred million people in East Europe who are not Russian?
Was it a Republican Administration which at Potsdam gave
the Soviet Union East Germany and left West Berlin cut off
from the rest of the free world?
Was it a Republican Administration that publicly promised
that Manchuria would go back to its rightful owners, the
Chinese, and then secretly at Yalta gave control of Manchuria
to the Russians?
Was it a Republican Administration that divided Korea and
gave control of North Korea to the Communists?
Was it a Republican Administration that gave to the Soviet
Union the Kurile Islands which had never been anybody's
except Japan's, thereby endangering both Japan's and our own
security in the North Pacific?
Was it a Republican Administration that rightly put its
hand to the plow in Korea, and then when victory was in sight
turned back, allowing the Reds to recover so they can make
still more trouble in the future?
Was it a Republican Administration that fell for the
Communist offer of a truce in Korea without requiring that
the North Korean aggressors lay down their arms and the
Chinese Communists get out of Korea where they had no
business to be? You know it wasn't.
In summary, it wasn't under Republicans that 600,000,000
human beings disappeared behind the Iron Curtain in the first
five years after World War II.
In fact, the record will show that Republicans opposed
these steps every time they were taken.
What our Republican Administration has done in these eight
years is, with initiative and imagination, to stop the
process of retreat before the Frankenstein monster that its
predecessors did so much to build up.
We have resolutely opposed anything anywhere that would
make Communist regimes stronger and we shall continue to do
so.
That is why, for example, we have opposed and must oppose
official recognition of Communist China or its admission into
the United Nations, unless or until it will give up in a
dependable way its aggressive acts and threats against other
countries; that is, give up Communism! Recognition and
admission would needlessly present it with smashing
victories. Does it make sense to build up an avowed enemy?
But our refusal to give Red China the tremendous boost of
official recognition does not mean--as has been asserted by
people who ought to know better--that this Administration has
been hiding its head in the sand, or pretending Red China
does not exist, or trying to ignore 600 million Chinese. The
exact reverse is the truth. This Administration is acutely
aware of Red China's existence and the threat it constitutes
to freedom, not only in Asia, but everywhere. It was not this
Administration which indulged in the illusion that Communists
in China are democratic agrarian reformers!
We are not ignoring Red China. We have been negotiating
with its official representatives for five years. The ninety-
ninth such negotiation, unfortunately still fruitless, took
place just last week.
Surely it is now plain to all that since the Communist
world conspiracy remains the same, and since America does not
intend to surrender, and since nobody wants a hot war, there
is only one alternative left. We must win this cold war.
To do this we must have leaders who understand this enemy
and its tactics, and will mobilize all our resources for the
struggle.
We must use more effectively our strongest weapons, the
values and virtues of a system of government which has given
freedom and dignity and better living standards to human
beings than any other system ever has.
How many of us understand our own system well enough to
sell it to others with contagious enthusiasm, as the
Communists are so well trained to sell theirs?
We must let loose in the world the dynamic forces of
freedom in our day as our forefathers did in theirs, causing
people everywhere to look toward the American dream.
Men have always found ways to bring down tyrants in the
past; men will find ways to bring down today's tyrants, if
only we don't build up the tyrants!
In short, we have a good strategy for holding. But we
cannot hope it win in the end just by holding. We must
develop a strategy for victory!
A new chapter has now been opened by Khrushchev. The Soviet
Union stands naked before the world today, self-exposed, its
objectives and its unchanging methods of deception and
trickery revealed by its own acts.
It is going to require stronger approaches, different
strategies, new tactics by someone who has proved he
understands Communism.
America has the brains, she has the wealth, she has the
weapons. Who can best harden into rocklike firmness her will?
I am confident that the nearer our people come to Election
Day next November, the more they will become convinced that
the course of wisdom and sureness for America is to continue
to entrust the destiny of our Nation to steady, competent,
experienced, principled Republican hands.
The man who will be nominated in this convention as our
candidate will be incomparably the best qualified to deal
with the relentless cold war which we have tried our best to
avoid, but which we now have no choice except to win.
It has been said by Mr. Kennedy that the most important
issue in his campaign is foreign policy. We agree and welcome
the test.
Now let us take a our record on the domestic front.
Undeniably this has been overall the best seven-year period
in the history of the United States.
What did we say in 1952 that we would do? First, we said we
would be a middle-of-the-road government. We believe that
middle-of-the-road government is, in the long run, the best
kind of government for everyone. For when anybody or any
group, whether at one extreme or the other, gets all it
wants, it is at the expense of the people as a whole.
We promised we would clean out the corruption that was a
scandal under the previous Administration and led to more
than twenty convictions of high officials. I am proud of the
fact that there has not been a single conviction for
malfeasance in office of any high official in this
Administration. That does not mean everything has been
perfect. It does mean that whenever and wherever there was
any slightest suspicion of impropriety, this Republican
Administration has not tried to cover up; it has cleaned up.
That is what you wanted it to do.
We said we were convinced we could bring prosperity without
war--something our predecessors had never been able to do in
this century. We succeeded.
The first requirement was to stabilize our economy and slow
down the inflation. It was stealing the people's substance--
and was especially cruel in its eating away of the value of
the pensions and social security benefits which millions of
older persons were counting on for the security and serenity
they so richly deserve in their years of retirement.
How could inflation best be checked?
The Democrats clamored for more controls.
President Eisenhower announced he would take off the
controls.
You will recall how some screamed that the Republicans were
yielding to the profiteers, big business, money interests;
prices for common people would now go sky high, and so on.
But did they? No. The prices which had been rising
alarmingly--48 percent in the seven Truman years--promptly
leveled off and stayed practically stable for four years.
The total rise in prices in these eight Republican years
is less than 10%.
We achieved this stability not by changing our free system,
but by using it. It works better than those of little faith
in the American people give it credit for.
We said in 1952 that if the Federal Government would stick
to its proper function of running the business of the nation,
and get out of trying to manage the affairs of our people,
the creative energies of the American people and their
millions of individual enterprises would create a vaster
expansion of production and trade, with correspondingly
greater expansion of jobs than the Government itself could
do. We were right or wrong? Well, there were sixty-one
million jobs when we took over in 1953. There are sixty-eight
million jobs tonight.
And jobs at higher wages. Wages up 39 percent in these
seven years! Do you recall the seven consecutive cost-of-
living increases that labor had to fight for, just to keep up
with inflation under Truman? In contrast, real wages, actual
purchasing power, have gone up 20 percent under this
Administration.
To buy a standard market basket of groceries in 1945 under
the Roosevelt Administration cost the average worker thirteen
hours of labor. To buy the same market basket in 1952 under
the Truman Administration too 13.7 hours of labor. To buy it
in 1959 under the Eisenhower Administration cost ten hours.
This is the measure of how much better off rank and file
people are today. Does this sound like a party of big
business?
Our workers have better food and clothing for themselves
and their families, more homes, more automobiles, more
refrigerators, more TVs, more free time for study, for
recreation, for sports for travel, for whatever. The record
is clear that labor has done better under this Republican
Administration than in all its previous history.
Personal income, the money that goes into your pockets, has
gone up a whopping 33 percent--from $301 billion in 1952 to
$420 billion in 1960--and in constant dollars.
Furthermore, a larger share of that higher income than ever
before, more than 4 percent larger, goes now into the pay
envelopes of workers. Anything wrong with workers getting a
bigger share of the national income under the Republicans
than they ever got under the Democrats?
Isn't it plain horse sense to trust for the next four years
the leadership which has enabled you to do so well for
yourself in the last eight years?
While the Republican 83rd Congress was in power to
cooperate with the Eisenhower Administration during its first
two years, we gave this American people the biggest single
tax cut in their history--and at the same time expanded
the benefits to people; more social security benefits,
more for highways, hospitals, health, housing.
And you still have that tax cut. If I may borrow a phrase
that you perhaps remember: Don't let them take it away!
The Republican record in the area of meeting human needs
has been one of remarkable action and progress on all fronts.
Contrary to the image promoted by the opposition that they
alone are the party of the people.
Under Social Security 7\1/2\ million more persons are now
covered than before. The number of receiving benefits has
increased from five to more than fourteen million persons.
Under the Vocational Rehabilitation program as strengthened
by Republicans in 1954, some 400,000 disabled men and women
have been returned to active, self-respecting employment and
have earned almost $2 billion. This is the true American
system of enabling people to do things for themselves.
Deeply concerned with the increasing complexity of the
problems of senior citizens, this Administration has
established a staff for research into their problems and how
to use their valuable experience and talents. It has called
the first White House Conference on the Aging in our nation's
history for next January.
Bold and dramatic steps have been taken to expand medical
research in cancer, heart disease, mental illnesses, and
other crippling and killing maladies.
In the seven years prior to 1953, the value of surplus
agricultural products distributed in the school lunch program
and to needy persons, institutions, schools and Indian
reservations totalled $263 million. In the seven years since
1953 the total distributed is $960 million worth--3\1/2\
times as much. Anything wrong with that record?
In short, we have moved vigorously whenever and wherever
action by the Federal Government is the proper and best way
to deal with any problem affecting public safety and the
people's welfare.
When before did any government ever take less from the
people in taxes and give them more in return?
How was it done? Not by government orders, edicts or
controls; and not by government handouts.
It was done not by changing our principles of freedom of
enterprise, but by sticking to them.
It was done by good Republican management of the
government, not management of the people.
Obviously I cannot try here to outline our detailed
proposals for the years ahead. I have not even mentioned
vitally important areas like education, health, agriculture,
conservation, taxation, and a dozen other issues which
would require almost a separate speech each. They will be
covered, however, before this Convention is over.
I want to turn, finally, to some basic principles, tested
principles of freedom--which we believe it is necessary for
us to understand and follow, if we are to meet successfully
the challenges of the future.
Many Americans have come to think that our two major
parties are, after all, just about the same. But it is not
so. The main difference between them, as I said in the
beginning, is not over good ends. The difference, and it is a
profound one, is over means. Which are the right ways to get
the good ends?
We Republicans deeply believe that the first function of a
good government is to protect the liberty of the individual
citizen, not to take it away.
There have never been but two basic philosophies of
government--government from the bottom up, and government
from the top down. Our fathers believed, and so do we
Republicans, that most problems can best be solved by the
people themselves.
One philosophy puts its primary faith in government
officials. The other puts its primary faith in the good sense
and the capabilities of our people.
One group begins with the assumption that the more complex
and complicated a society becomes, the more its control and
management must be centralized in an increasingly powerful
government.
We Republicans begin with the same premises and come to
exactly the opposite conclusion; namely, that the more
complex and complicated a society, the more impossible it is
for any centrally located group of men--no matter how able or
devoted or sincere--even to grasp all the details of the
complicated problems to say nothing of handling those details
from Washington.
We are not against adequate Federal Government. There must
be such government to prevent abuses of power. We merely want
to keep it limited to its proper fields, so that the liberty
of individuals will be protected. The Republican Party stands
for liberty.
In the Democratic Convention you heard a lot about Woodrow
Wilson. What did he, a real student of government, think on
this issue? In a speech in New York in 1912 he said,
``Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has
always come from the subjects of the government. The history
of liberty is a history of resistance. The history of Liberty
is a history of the limitation of governmental power, not the
increase of it.''
Nobody has said it better than that. Yet we now see those
who claim to be the followers of Wilson insisting that the
way to expand liberty is to increase the powers of
government.
How did our forefathers seek to limit government to its
essential functions? By putting the government under a
Constitution. Many regard that Constitution as the means by
which the government regulates the people. No, it is the
magnificent means our forefathers devised by which the
people can regulate their government.
Why did they insist on having a bill of rights in that
Constitution? In order to be sure that their government would
take care of them? No, in order to be sure that their
government could not interfere in their taking care of
themselves.
Rights are not what our government must do for us; rights
are what our government cannot do to us.
We believe also that all men are created equal. In support
of this fundamental faith, Republicans work for government
that will provide equality under the law for all citizens,
and equality of opportunity for all citizens. We believe this
is the best way to get the fullest possible rewards for all
citizens.
It is because of this Republican emphasis on equal
opportunity that the Republican Party is the party to which
youth will naturally gravitate, if we make our principles
clear to them. For what does youth want most of all? Youth
wants to get ahead. The Republican Party stands always for
maximum freedom and opportunity--for every man to improve his
condition.
That is why it is possible in America for the son of a rich
man, like Jack Kennedy, to become President.
That is why it is possible in America for the son of a poor
man, like Dick Nixon, to become President.
Republicans believe that that government is best, not which
does most for its citizens directly, but which makes it
possible for most citizens to do most for themselves--and
then assists with those who, for whatever reason, cannot
provide the basic necessities for themselves.
I do not say these things because I am a Republican; I am a
Republican because these are the things I believe.
I think we can state it as a law, that whenever a
government does for its citizens that which they have the
capacity to do for themselves, individually and in groups, it
begins to destroy both their capacity and their incentive to
do for themselves. It begins to weaken rather than to
strengthen the foundations of freedom and the means of
progress.
I can work my girl's arithmetic problem better for her than
she can work it for herself. I can get the right answer
almost every time. And she would like to have me do it for
her. She'd even vote for me if I would. But I don't. Not
because I don't love her or want her to succeed--but because
I do.
Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg said, ``Now we are engaged in
a great civil war testing''--testing, among other things,
whether Government of the people, by the people, and for the
people can long endure.
Lincoln and the Republican Party led our country through
that crisis of 100 years ago. Now we are engaged in a greater
conflict--the whole planet is in the throes of the mightiest
conflict in all history. It is a world civil war. What is it
about? It is about exactly the same thing as then: Is
Government of the people, by the people, and therefore,
for the people to perish, literally, from the earth?
During the fiery trial of Lincoln's day he warned solemnly
that this nation could not exist half slave, half free. He
and his party succeeded in restoring unity and freedom to the
nation.
Can this whole wide world of our day go on indefinitely
half slave, half free? Deep down in our hearts, we know the
answer, No.
The reason why it has not proved possible to get any real
agreement with the Communist world all these years is because
the Communists are not pursuing the same objectives as we are
pursuing. And why are they not pursuing the same objectives?
Because they do not believe the same things we believe--about
man, about the universe, about God.
If we in America, of whatever political opinion at the
moment, are to prove worthy of this most terrible testing in
our Nation's life, we too must resolve with Lincoln, ``that,
under God, this Nation shall have a new birth of freedom.''
It was under God that our freedom was born. Only under God
can there be a rebirth.
What then is our role to be? Listen again to Lincoln in his
message to the Congress in 1862, ``The dogmas of the quiet
past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is
piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the
occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act
anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save
our country.''
There it is:
Under God, a new birth of freedom;
A new understanding of it;
A new and deeper dedication to it.
With such a rebirth within you and me, and within our
beloved Party, we shall deserve to be entrusted by the people
with the awful responsibilities of governing this great land.
And they will turn to us and our country will be saved.
And now let us get to work!
Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might
proceed for 2 additional minutes, although I see the managers of
another bill on the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would advise the Senator from
Minnesota that, under the unanimous consent agreement, the Senate is
scheduled, at the hour of 1:30, to proceed to the consideration of S.
4.
Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might
proceed for 2 additional minutes, as though in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. It
is so ordered.
____________________