Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4525727
label
Michigan Press Association Luncheon, East Lansing, MI, January 28, 1956
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525727
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Michigan Press Association Luncheon, East Lansing, MI, January 28, 1956
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Democratic Party (U.S.)
Economics
Presidential campaigns
State of the union messages
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525727
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1956-01-31
month
1
year
1956
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1956-01-01
month
1
year
1956
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
ea55a3b4cf6fabd2
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D14, folder "Michigan Press Association
Luncheon, East Lansing, MI, January 28, 1956" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press
Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box D14 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
For Release
P.M.'s 1-28-56
TEXT OF ADDRESS OF
Representative Gerald R. Ford, Jr.
at
Michigan Press Association, Inc.
Luncheon
East Lansing, Michigan
January 28, 1956
THE POLITICAL PICTURE IN 1956
Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Griffiths,
other distinguished guests, members of the
Michigan Press Association, and guests.
It is a very rare privilege and high honor for
me to participate in this program with my Colleague,
the most attractive and very able Martha Griffiths.
Let me assure each of you her presence on this
program to represent the views of the Democrat
Party makes my job infinitely more difficult,
for she is not only extremely personable,
but very competent. Although we may differ
on certain issues, I sincerely believe we can
make a constructive contribution to this
meeting, for both of us adhere to the principles
that in America the best interests of the people
GERALD FORD LIBRAR.
Page 2
are served by the two-party system, and that we
as individuals can disagree without being
Influm
disagreeable.
Today's topic is the Political Picture
Thang
for 1956. In a Presidential election year such a
title has universal appeal, but most of us here
have a particular interest in the subject. From
now until November 6th our newspapers will be
filled with political copy, written by you, or
published in your papers, while we as office-seekers
will be actively jousting in the political arena.
To analyze properly the Political Picture
for 1956, it might be helpful to re-run several of
the pictures which were on the screen in January,
1952, when the American people were then viewing
their first glimpses of that historic Presidential
election. Mr. Truman was our president, and on
January 9th, he delivered to the Congress and the
American people the traditional State of the Union
Message. The message was read, as you will recall,
TORDO & LIBRARY GERALD
Page 3
in a tense and uncertain atmosphere, both at home
and abroad. Our Army, Navy and Air Force were
heavily committed in a war 8000 miles from our
shores. Inflation was rampant. Hard earned savings
and wages were being devoured as the cost of living
advanced precipitously. O.P.S., with a budget of
over $100 million annually and thousands of
investigators and prosecutors, was heckling
and harassing our retailers and producers, but
particularly the small merchant and manufacturer.
Government officials, some in positions of trust
and responsibility, such as the Bureau of Internal
Revenue, were being exposed as grafters and violators
of our criminal and ethical codes of conduct.
Congressional committees had alerted the public
to the menace of Communist infiltration within
sad+sordil
+
the government itself. With these conditions
n
prevailing, the 1952 campaign got underway.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Page 4
President Truman's own words in this
State of the Union message painted a discouraging
picture. He said, in one of the opening paragraphs --
"The United States and the whole free
world are passing through a period of grave danger."
A few lines later Mr. Truman stated --
"We are moving through a perilous time."
Now, in contrast, hear a few sentences
similar
from President Eisenhower's message of this month.
"The opening of this new year must arouse
in us all grateful thanks to a kind Providence whose
protection has been ever present and whose bounty
has been manifold and abundant."
"Our country is at peace."
"Our Economy .... is at an unparalleled
level of prosperity."
"The outlook is bright with promise."
In the four years from 1952 under
Mr. Truman, to 1956 under President Eisenhower,
in the words of the Presidents themselves, we have
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Page 5
passed from a "period of grave danger" to one
with an "outlook bright with promise."
In contrast to Truman's "perilous times"
report, President Eisenhower's message was opti-
mistic and encouraging. Our nation is not at
war, and we have the most powerful offensive and
defensive national defense forces in our history.
To better view the political picture
today, this year, it might be helpful to retrace
our steps to another State of the Union Message
submitted by Mr. Truman on January 5, 1949. I
can vividly recall that occasion since it was my
first term, and my initiation to such Presidential
reports. In his opening remarks Mr. Truman said -
"I am happy to report
that the
state of the Union is good."
On what facts did Mr. Truman justify
this statement. Presumably he relied on data
supplied by responsible federal agencies. Their
records show that in December, 1948, total U.S.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Page 6
civilian employment was 59,434,000; average
weekly hours were 40.1 in all manufacturing
plants; average hourly earnings were $1.40 in
all manufacturing; average weekly earnings were
$56.14; and the consumer price index on all items
was 103.
For comparative purposes let us turn
now to the present, and review current conditions
to see if "the state of the Union is good" today.
If Mr. Truman could speak glowingly
of economic conditions in 1949, and the same in
1952, although the latter was dependent on a war-fed
economy, President Eisenhower had good reason to
be even more optimistic in 1956. Today approximately
66 million Americans are gainfully employed,
a 12 percent increase over December, 1948, when
Mr. Truman found, "the state of the Union to be
GERALD FORD VIBRARY
Page 7
good." In the same period from 1948 to 1956,
hourly wages have increased 38 percent, and weekly
earnings have zoomed 42 percent, while the cost
In other words
of living has climbed only 11 percent. 1 Wages
are up while the cost of living has been stabi-
lized. In the three years of the Eisenhower Admin-
istration the cost of living has changed very
little so that the savings of our workers, and
the pensions of our older citizens are worth just
as much today. The man who saved a dollar in
1942 and invested it in Social Security, life insur-
ance or government bonds, received only 61 cents
10 years later
back if he retired in 1952. But the man who saved
1
a dollar in January, 1953, will find his dollar
will buy a dollar's worth of goods today, over
three years later. These economic facts of life,
all of them definitely on the plus side, will
inevitably have a major impact on the political
picture in 1956. The state of the Union today is
ERALD FORD LIBRARY
Page 8
It's
not only good, it is better. It is at its best
in history.
As we survey the economic conditions
of the past three years, and read the business
forecasts for the months ahead, we can be certain
that the Democrats will lack deposity the issue in 1956
1
that they sought to exploit in 1952, namely that
a Republican Administration, and a depression are
synonomous. Actually Republican policies under
President Eisenhower have brought about the
greatest and soundest economic growth in the
history of the United States.
America's 70 million voters in 1956
will be called upon to determine which of our two
major political parties is best equipped to lead
the nation for the next four years. Will they
select a President and Members of the Congress
from the Republican Party where there has been a
growing record of party unity and sound performance,
or will our voters choose the Democrats whose
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
Page 9
philosophical splits are historical,
irreconciable and bitter.
In the past, right now, and in the
months ahead Democrat Party policy as expressed
by its spokesmen is widely divided. On many
paramount issues one wonders whether there is
party leadership and policy. The situation is
befuddled and the party is rudderless.
The leading Democrat candidate for the
Presidential nomination allegedly pleads for a
policy of moderation, while our own Governor,
who some say is an aspirant for the nomination,
vigorously, in comments throughout the Nation,
condemns this approach. Their other potential
candidates run from Governor Harriman, another
exponent of "immoderation" and Senator Kefauver
whose voting record belies the Stevenson line,
to Governor Lausche who more nearly typifies the
true Jeffersonian Democrat philosophy. This
widespread and fundamental difference must be
confusing to the American voter who has seen the
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Page 10
leadership of President Eisenhower bring about
an ever increasing unity of purpose and
philosophy in G.O.P. ranks.
On individual issues the division in
Democrat ranks is even more noticeable. The
northern wing of the Democrat Party proclaims
its allegiance to civil rights legislation, but
their Southern Democrat brethren who hold com-
mittee power in the House and Senate, stifle
any effective action, and did so for all the
years under Presidents Roosevelt and Truman.
Two powerful Texans, Speaker Sam Rayburn
and Senator Lyndon Johnson, are splitting the
Democrat Party wide open by trying to ram the
natural gas bill through the Congress. Senator
Paul Douglas, Illinois Democrat, and others in
the party who violently oppose this legislation
are daily condenning their Congressional Democrat
leaders who allegedly want the Texas tail to wag
the Democrat mule.
GERALD R.FORD LIBRARY
Page 11
Foreign aid is another issue where the
Democrats are at opposite ends of the pole with
no unified party position. Governor illiams has
expressed "profound disagreement" with those
Congressional Democrats who oppose an expanded
foreign aid program. Apparently the Governor and
Senator McNamara favor a foreign aid program "Con-
siderably broader in scope and resources than that
of the Eisenhower Administration," whereas the
Democrats, Senator George, Senator Mansfield of
Montana, and Representative Passman of Louisiana,
the latter chairman of the House Subcommittee handling
foreign aid funds, all want less than Ike has
proposed. These widespread intraparty divisions
on foreign policy can hardly stimulate public con-
fidence.
Basic splits within the Democrat Party
are most evident in the area of labor-management
legislation. Most northern Democrats favor outright
repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act, and the restoration
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
Page 12
of the discredited Wagner Act philosophy. In
sharp contrast the Democrats from below the
Mason-Dixon line voted for Taft-Hartley and have
vigorously opposed any weakening of its provisions.
This same wide division of opinion exists
within Democrat ranks on the McCarran-Walter Act.
Governors illiams and Harriman and Democrat
Congressman Manny Celler, chairman of the House
Judiciary Committee, condemn this legislation which
was sponsored by two Democrats and approved in a
Democrat controlled Congress. Democrat Chairman
Barden, of the House Education and Labor Committee,
vehemently opposes the Davis-Bacon Act as it may
apply to School Construction. Yet some of his
party colleagues believe that prevailing wages
should be paid on any construction project using
Federal money.
Are the Democrats unified on farm policy?
Decidedly not. Senator Clinton Anderson, formerly
Secretary of Agriculture under Mr. Truman before
FORD : LIBRAR GERALD
Page 13
Mr. Brannan's tenure, forthrightly endorses the
flexible price support program, and in 1954 he
was joined by 11 other Democrat Senators who voted
for the program. In contrast you have the House
Democrats from the rural areas and the cities,
with little deviation, going down the line for
the restoration of rigid supports, despite the
fact that under such a law surpluses mounted and
income to farmers declined.
The party differences which are basic
to the least
idealogical conflicts within Democrat ranks are
congenital, but are magnified when there is no
real party leader. These days it's every Democrat
for himself with no one qualified to speak for
the party. The public is understandably confused
by these divergent views, and consequently should
hesitate to entrust national stewardship to a
party with internal and deep-seated policy conflicts.
GERALD R. FORD LIBRARY
Page 14
american voters
There may be some who are dissatisfied
1
with Republican peace, prosperity and progress,
2 2 ask
but to whom among the Democrats can they turn?
Shall it be to the reckless who abhor moderation --
to the vacillating who leap from position to
position - or to the reactionaries who would
deny natural and human rights to all men.
At this point, let us turn to the Rep-
ublican portion of the Political Picture in
1956. The personalities in the race of course
will vary considerably, depending on the President's
decision, but the basic principles will remain the
same. In passing, it is fair to say that some
Republicans are panicky that Ike won't run, but
there are more Democrats who are panicky that he
will. Probably the sanest of all is the resident
weall
hinself. X believe Ike will do only what he feels
best for the Nation as a whole.
B-FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Page 15
Through the President's wise and forceful
leadership the Republicans in 1956 can come
before the electorate with a record of performance.
In the previous four Presidential elections, the
G.O.P. was limited to criticism of the opposition,
and promises for the future. Now, in this election
year we have a record of substantial accomplishment
which will have considerable bearing on the results
in November.
As we survey the political, economic and
social fields for 1956, one finds the Republican
very
forces deployed on a broad front. One of the most
a
astute Washington correspondents recently said
the Eisenhower Republican policies bear a strong
resemblance to those embraced by Teddy Roosevelt.
Progress was the key to his philosophy, and that
is the generating force in the Eisenhower program.
The 1956 G.O.P. will prove to the American
people you can be economically sound, progressive
and humanitarian without top-heavy federal bureaucracy
anda concentration fortol
in Washington
GERALO, FORD LIGRABI
Page 16
and a concentration of control in Washington.
The Republicans this year can point to a balanced
budget and the restoration of fiscal responsibility.
Peace and prosperity will be among the heavy G.O.P
weapons. At the same time the Republicans can
speak convincingly of broad humanitarian gains such
as an expanded social security, more housing and
highways, better medical care and greater civil
liberties and opportunities. Best of all the
Republicans can show and prove that these social
gains for the individual and the community can be
accomplished without complete reliance on Uncle Sam.
It can be shown by the record of the past three years
that these needs for an expanding nation can be
met with the federal government working in partner-
ship and cooperation with state and local govern-
ments and private enterprise.
The American people know that in the
decade ahead our Nation needs highways, schools,
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Page 17
hospital beds, engineers, scientists, nuclear and
thermonuclear development. They realize that
political decisions made in 1956 will determine
how soon and how well these needs will be met. I
feel the voter in November will have confidence in
a party and its candidates that can show more
hourly and weekly wages in the workingman's pockets,
a stabilization of the cost of living, a stronger
national defense program with less reliance on man-
power from the farm, factory and classroom, and a
firm foreign policy that stopped the war in Korea
and kept us out of others.
The alternative is a party, badly divided
traditionally and idealogically, a party that talked
about civil rights and the plight of the negro, but
did nothing, a party whose last three Presidents
and Secretaries of State let us fall over the brink
of war, a parth that was impotent to control inflation
in either World War II or Korea, and a party that
GERALD FORD LIBRARI
Page 18
has a horrible record of fiscal irresponsibility.
I am convinced that in November, 1956,
the American people will retain the tried and
proved G.O.P., which will remain their guardian
of peace, guardian of prosperity, and guardian
of progress.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
For release
P.M. is 1-28-56
TEXT OF ADDRES OF
Representative Gerald R. Ford, Jr.
at
Michigan Press Association, Inc.
Luncheon
Lansing, Michigan
January 28, 1956
Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Griffiths, other distinguished guests, members
of the Michigan Press Association, and guests.
It is a very rare privilege and high honor for me to participate in this
program with my Colleague, the most attractive and very able Martha Griffiths. Let
me assure each of you her presence on this program to represent the views of the
Democrat Party makes my job infinitely more difficult, for she is not only extremely
personabe, but very competent. Although we may differ on certain issues, I
sincerely believe we can make a constructive contribution to this meeting, for
both of us adhere to the principles that in America the best interests of the
people are served by the two-party system, and that we as individuals can disagree
without being disagreeable.
Today's topic is the Political Picture for 1956. In a Presidential election
year such a title has universal appeal, but most of us here have a particular
interest in the subject. From now until November 6th our newspapers will be filled
with political copy, written by you, or published in your papers, while we as
office-seekers will be actively jousting in the political arena.
To analyze properly the Political Picture for 1956, it might be helpful to
re-run several of the pictures which were on the screen in January, 1952, when the
American people were then viewing their first glimpses of that historic Presidential
election. Mr. Truman was our President, and on January 9th, he delivered tothe
Congress and the American people the traditional State of the Union Message. The
message was read, as you will recall, in a tense and uncertain atmosphere, both at
home and abroad. Our Army, Navy, and Air Force were heavily committed in a war
8,000 miles from our shores. Inflation was rampant. Hard-earned savings and
wages were being devoured as the cost of living advanced precipitously. O.P.S.,
with a budget of over $100 million annually and thousands of investigators and
prosecutors, was heckling and harassing our retailers and producers, but particu-
larly the small merchant and manufacturer. Government officials, some in positions
of trust and responsibility such as the Bureau of Internal Revenue, were being
GERALD
Page 2
exposed as grafters and violators of our criminal and ethical codes of conduct.
Congressional committees had alerted the public to the menace of Communist in-
filtration within the government itself. With these conditions prevailing, the
1952 campaign got underway.
President Truman's own words in this state of the Union message painted a
discouraging picture. He said, in one of the opening paragraphs--
"The United States and the whole free world are passing through a period of
grave danger."
A few lines later Mr. Truman stated+-
"We are moving through a perilous time.
Now, in contrast, hear a few sentences from President Eisenhower's message of
this month.
"The opening of this new year must arouse in us all grateful thanks to a
kind Providence whose protection has been ever present and whole bounty has been
manifold and abundant.
"Our country is at peace.'
"Our Economy
is at an unparalleled level of prosperity.'
"The outlook is bright with promise."
In the four years from 1952 under Mr. Truman, to 1956 under President Eisen-
hower, in the words of the Presidents themselves, we have passed from a "period of
grave danger" to one with an "outlook bright with promise. "
In contrast to Truman's "perilous times" report, President Eisenhower's
message was optimistic and encouraging. Our nation is not at war, and we have the
most powerful offensive and defensive national defense forces in our history.
To better view the political picture today, this year, it might be helpful to
retrace our steps to another State of the Union Message submitted by Mr. Truman on
January 5, 1949. I can vividly recall that occasion since it was my first term,
and my initiation to such Presidential reports. In his opening remarks Mr. Truman
said--
"I am happy to report
that the state of the Union is good.'
On what facts did Mr. Truman justify this statement. Presumably he relied
on data supplied by responsible federal agencies. Their records show that in
December, 1948, total U.S. civilian employment was 59,434,000; average weekly hours
were 40.1 in all manufacturing plants; average hourly earnings were $1.40 in all
manufacturing; average weekly earnings were $56.14; and the consumer price index
on all items was 103.
Page 3
For comparative purposes let us turn now to the present, and review current
conditions to see if "the state of the Union is good" today.
If Mr. Truman could speak glowingly of economic conditions in 1949, and the
same in 1952, although the latter was dependent on a war-fed economy, President
Eisenhower had good reason to be even more optimistic in 1956. Today approximately
66 million Americans are gainfully employed, a 12 per cent increase over December,
1948, when Mr. Truman found, "the state of the Union to be good." In the same
period from 1948 to 1956, hourly wages have increased 38 per cent, and weekly
earnings have zoomed 42 per cent, while the cost of living has climbed only
11 per cent. Wages are up while the cost of living has been stabilized. In the
three years of the Eisenhower Administration the cost of living has changed very
little so that thesavings ofour workers, and the pensions of our older citizens are
worth just as much today. The man who saved a dollar in 1942 and invested it in
Social Security, life insurance, or government bonds, received only 61 cents
back if he retired in 1952. But the man who saved a dollar in January, 1953, will
find his dollar will buy a dollar's worth of goods today, over three years later.
These economic facts of life, all of them definitely on the plus side, will
inevitably have a major impact on the political picture in 1956. The state of the
Union today is not only good, it is better. It is at its best in history.
As we survey theeconomic conditions of the past three years, and read the
business forecasts for the months ahead, we can be certain that the Democrats will
lack the issue in 1956 that they sought to exploit in 1952, namely that a Republican
Administration and a depression are synonomous. Actually Republican policies under
President Eisenhower have brought about the greatest and soundest economic growth
in the history of the United States.
America's 70 million voters in 1956 will be called upon to determine which of
our two major political parties is best equipped to lead the nation for the next
four years. Will they select a President and Members of the Congress from the
Republican Party where there has been a growing record of party unity and sound
performance, or will our voters choose the Democrats whose philosophical splits
are historical, irreconciable and bitter.
In the past, right now, and in the months ahead Democrat Party policy as
expressed by its spokesmen is widely divided. On many paramount issues one wonders
whether there is party leadership and policy. The situation is befuddled and the
party is rudderless.
GESALA R. FORD
Page 4
The leading Democrat candidate for the Presidential nomination allegedly pleads
for a policy of moderation, while our own Governor who some say is an aspirant for
the nomination, vigorously, in comments throughout the Nation, condemsthis
approach. Their other potential candidates run from Governor Harriman, another
exponent of "immoderation" and Senator Kefauver whose voting record belies the
Stevenson line, to Governor Lausche who more nearly typifies the true Jeffersonian
Democrat philosophy. This widespread and fundamental difference must be
confusing to the American voter who has seen the leadership of President Eisenhower
bring about an ever-increasing unity of purpose and philosophy in G.O.P.ranks.
On individual issues the division in Democrat ranks is even more noticeable.
The northern wing of the Democrat Party proclaims its allegiance to civil rights
legislation, but their southern Democrat brethern who hold committee power in the
House and Senate, stifle any effective action, and did so for all the years under
Presidents Roosevelt and Truman.
Two powerful Texans, Speaker Sam Rayburn and Senator Lyndon Johnson are
splitting the Democrat party wide open by trying to ram the natural gas bill
through the Congress. Senator Paul Douglas, Illinois Democrat, and others in the
party who violently oppose this legislation are daily condemning their Congressional
Democrat leaders who allegedly want the Texas tail to wag the Democrat mule.
Foreign aid is another issue where the Democrats are at opposite ends of the
polc with no unified party position. Governor Williams has expressed "profound
disagreement" with those Congressional Democrats who oppose an expanded foreign
aid program. Apparently the Governor and Senator McNamara favor a foreign aid
program "Considerably broader in scope and resources than that of the Eisenhower
Administration,' whereas the Democrats, Senator George, Senator Mansfield of Montana
and Representative Passman of Louisiana, the latter chairman of the House Subcommittee
handling foreign aid funds, all want less than Ike has proposed. These widespread
intraparty divisions on foreign policy can hardly stimulate public confidence.
Basic splits within the Democrat Party are most evident in the area of
labor-management legislation. Most northern Democrats favor outright repeal of
the Taft-hartly Act, and the restoration of the discredited Wagner Act philosophy.
In sharp contrast the Democrats from below the Mason-Dixon line voted for Taft-
Hartley and have vigorously opposed any weakening of its provisions.
This same wide division of opinion exists within Democrat ranks on the
McCarran-Walter Act. Governors Williams and Harriman and Democrat Congressman
Manny Celler, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, condemn this legislation
Page 5
which was sponsored by two Democrats and approved in a Democrat controlled Congress.
Democrat Chairman Barden, of the House Education and Labor Committee vehemently
opposes the Davis-Bacon Act as it may apply to school construction. Yet some of his
party colleagues believe that prevailing wages should be paid on any construction
project using Federal money.
Are the Democrats unified on farm policy? Decidedly not. Senator Clinton
Anderson, formerly Secretary of Agriculture under Mr. Truman before Mr. Brannan's
tenure, forthrightly endorses the flexible price support program, and in 1954 he
was joined by 11 other Democrat Senators who voted for the program. In contrast
you have the House Democrats from the rural areas and the cities, with little
deviation, going down the line for the restoration of rigid supports, despite the
fact that under such a law surpluses mounted and income to farmers declined.
The party differences which are basic idealogical conflicts within Democrat
ranks are congenital but are magnified when there is no real party leader. These
days it's every Democrat for himself with no one qualified to speak for the party.
The public is understandably confused by these divergent views, and consequently
should hesitate to entrust national stewardship to a party with internal and deep-
seated policy conflicts.
There may be some who are dissatisfied with Republican peace, prosperity,
and progress, but to whom among the Democrats can they turn. Shall it be to the
reckless who abhor moderation-to the vacillating who leap from position to position--
or to the reactionaries who would deny natural and human rights to all men.
At this point let us turn to the Republican portion of the Political Picture
in 1956. The personalities in the race of course will vary considerably, depending
on the President's decision, but the basic principles will remain the same. In
passing it is fair to say that some Republicans are panicky that Ike won't run, but
there are more Democrats who are panicky that he will. Probably the sanest of all
is the President himself. I believe Ike will do only what he feels best for the
Nation as a whole.
Through the President's wise and forceful leadership the Republicans in
1956 can come before the electorate with a record of performance. In the previous
four Presidential elections the G.O.P. was limited to criticism of the opposition,
and promises for the future. Now in this election year we have a record of sub-
stantial accomplishment which will have considerable hearing on the results in
November.
FORD
GERALD
Page 6
As we survey the political, economic, and social fields for 1956, one finds
the Republican forces deployed on a broad front. One of the most astute Washington
correspondents recently said the Eisenhower Republican policies bear a strong
resemblance to those embraced by Teddy Roosevelt. Progress was the key to his
philosophy, and that is the generating force in the Eisenhower program.
The 1956 G.O.P. will prove to the American people you can be economically
sound, progressive, and humanitarian without top-heavy federal bureaucracy and a
concentration of control in Washington. The Republicans this year can point to a
balanced budget and the restoration of fiscal responsibility. Peace and prosperity
will be among the heavy G.O.P. weapons. At the same time the Republicans can speak
convincingly of broad humanitarian gains such as an expanded social security, more
housing and highways, better medical care and greater civil liberties and oppor-
tunities. Best of all the Republicans can show and prove that these social gains
for the individual and the community can be accomplished without complete reliance
on Uncle Sam. It can be shown by the record of the past three years that thses
needs for an expanding nation can be met with the federal government working in
partnership and cooperation with state and local governments and private enterprise.
The American people know that in the decade ahead our Nation needs highways,
schools, hospital beds, engineers, scientists, nuclear and thermonuclear development.
They realize that political decisions made in 1956 will determine how soon and
how well these needs will be met. I feel the voter in November will have confidence
in a party and its candidates that can show more hourly and weekly wages in the
workingman's pockets, a stabilization of the cost of living, a stronger national
defense program with less reliance on manpower from the farm, factory, and
classroom, and a firm foreign policy that stopped the war in Korea and kept us
out of others.
The alternative is a party, badly divided traditionally and idealogically,
a party that talked about civil rights and the plight of the Negro, but did
nothing, a party whose last three Presidents and Secretaries of State let us fall
over the brink of war, a party that was impotent to control inflation in either
World War II or Korea, and a party that has a horrible record of fiscal irrespon-
sibility.
I am convinced that in November 1956, the American people will retain the
tried and proved G.O.P., which will remain their guardian of peace, guardian of
prosperity, and guardian of progress.